Debates of March 10th, 2026

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member who continues to want to heckle me that the people I represent in Winnipeg North understand how important it is to respect the issue of judicial independence. Judicial independence is a shared responsibility between different levels of government, and I would suggest that even when we deal with incarceration and with Correctional Service Canada, which makes the determinations, I believe Canadians fully understand and respect that.

I see that the member is having a very difficult time appreciating what I am saying. I will get a bit more into it for the member opposite, so he should stay tuned and be alert, and he might actually learn something here.

Let me first express what is a very difficult thing to do: to recognize the pain that has been experienced by family and friends of victims, who have had to go through trials of all different forms as a direct result of a horrendous crime that has been committed. One can only imagine how a parent of a child who has been raped, molested and then murdered is affected. We could factor in a serial killer. It affects not only the family; it also affects the community, and I would suggest it affects the country.

People can understand just how horrendous it is. Sadly, in society, whether it is Canada or virtually any other nation, these crime take place. I for one cannot believe, or I find it very hard to understand, unless one has lived that experience first-hand, just how difficult it is, especially for a parent. I do not think one can ever recover from an incident of losing a child, whatever the age of that child might be, because of the type of horrendous crimes we are talking about.

It was a number of years ago that the Conservatives raised during question period the whole McClintic ordeal, another horrific incident that had taken place in Canada. It actually dealt with the same type of issue. All we need to do is check Hansard, and we will read about Conservative after Conservative standing in his or her place, talking about it in a very graphic way, in great detail. I tended to disagree with that, and I would hope that if someone does the research and looks back, they would find that I was consistent with my comments.

It continued day after day until Ralph Goodale took the floor and pointed out a very important observation. I would like to quote Ralph Goodale in a speech that he gave here in the House. This is important because it goes back to 2014. The government of the day was under Stephen Harper, with whom the current leader of the Conservative Party sat around the cabinet table. Ralph Goodale stood up on October 2, 2018, and said:

Mr. Speaker, Tori Stafford's brutal death in 2009 was a horrible, gut-wrenching crime for her family, but for the whole country too.

The killer, McClintic, was reclassified as medium security in 2014. The government of that day did not challenge that decision. In fact, McClintic remains in a medium-security correctional facility today.

I want people to realize that a member of the Conservative Party, and the Conservative Party itself, attempted to bring forward the legislation, in essence, previously. It was voted against by all political entities except for the Conservative Party, which included the Bloc, the New Democrats, the Greens and the Liberals. The Conservatives are reintroducing, in essence, the same legislation.

I point out what Ralph Goodale said, because back then, when today's leader of the Conservative Party had an opportunity and he sat around the cabinet table, why did the Conservatives not contest the decision in that situation? I think it is a valid question to be asking.

At the end of the day, Hansard is there. The Conservatives can read it. I do not think we do a service to the chamber by continuing to build up some sort of an expectation that if they were in government, they would implement the legislation, when the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the cabinet table and did not do so. If we take a look at the decision, we see that Correctional Service Canada makes the decisions to transfer and reclassify, as it did in 2014, when the leader of the Conservative Party said nothing. As a result—

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is not permitted to mislead the House. There was Bill C-28, which changed things. He is leaving that out. He is misleading the House. He should—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I know where the member thinks he has a point of order, but that is a question of debate. I know the member has a speaking slot later where he can certainly raise those matters for debate, but it is not a point of order.

The hon. member can resume.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the interruption is unfortunate, but I am not surprised.

I was making the point that at the end of the day, we do have Correctional Service Canada that ultimately is in the best position to make a decision that is not based on politics. Back in the day, when it did happen when the member's party leader sat around the cabinet table—

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I question the relevance of this little filibuster and would like to get back to the subject of the hate bill, Bill C-9.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member is rising on the same point of order, and I hope he will keep it very brief. I think we can move on quickly.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, to show that it was relevant, so the member is aware, it is about transferring from maximum security to minimum—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

We are going to say that this is a matter of debate, and we will have lots of time to debate this going forward.

The member has about one minute left. I would ask him to conclude his remarks in one minute or less.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, from her seat, the member says I am not debating Bill C-9. We are not talking about Bill C-9. We are talking about a private member's bill. It is completely relevant. It is hypocrisy when we have the leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservative Party today talking about politicization, whereas when he was in government around the cabinet table, he did nothing of the sort in regard to a transfer.

At the end of the day, I think that the constituents we represent understand and appreciate the fact that it is important to recognize the independence of our entire judicial system. They have a system that is in place to protect Canadians, and we need to respect that.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to take part in the study of this bill. This is a rather delicate matter, since this bill was introduced to respond to a very specific case. I think it is dangerous to draft a bill that targets a single case. As legislators, we have to think about how our bill will apply to all sorts of criminals who are incarcerated if it is passed, and we need to consider its actual application.

Yesterday, I read in the newspapers that another fight had gone awry at the federal penitentiary in Donnacona and that one inmate had killed another. I can say that the situation in federal penitentiaries is no bed of roses for correctional officers right now, because they are so short-staffed. There is a shortage of correctional officers. Correctional officers are really stretched to the limit because of equipment and recruitment issues. They are sometimes five or six officers short on certain shifts. That is the case at the Drummondville federal penitentiary, for example. Those are difficult conditions.

The bill refers to the irrevocable incarceration of any inmate who has committed more than one murder. The bill does not refer only to dangerous offenders. It refers to criminals who have committed more than one murder or who have been found to be dangerous offenders. It states that these individuals would be required to serve their sentences in a maximum-security penitentiary with no possibility of release. That is what we find problematic about this bill. It bears repeating that the Bloc Québécois believes in the justice system and the work done by Correctional Service Canada. Above all, the Bloc believes in rehabilitation. Basically, we oppose sentences that could hinder rehabilitation.

Before our Conservative colleagues get all worked up, I want to say that we know that some criminals have no capacity for rehabilitation. For example, in the case at issue here, that of Paul Bernardo, we know that this offender is not capable of being rehabilitated. We understand that, and we know that this bill is really aimed at him. Paul Bernardo is a name that everyone knows because, in the early 1990s, he and his accomplice kidnapped, tortured, raped and killed three young girls. He was sentenced to life in prison for those horrific crimes. He is a dangerous offender.

The reason we are talking about him with respect to this bill is because he got himself transferred, in strict secrecy and without the families' knowledge, to a series of medium-security prisons, including La Macaza, which is in my colleague's riding. Many mistakes were made on that file, and it cost the then minister of public safety his job. Members may know that La Macaza houses a number of sex offenders. This transfer was carried out in strict secrecy, as I was saying, probably because Correctional Service Canada believed that the public would never tolerate the idea of this dangerous offender being transferred to a medium-security prison.

It goes without saying, but I want to make it very clear that we have no pity for criminals like Paul Bernardo, Luka Rocco Magnotta or Alexandre Bissonnette. The bill, as it is currently written, is primarily aimed at them, but it also covers people who have committed multiple murders, more than one murder. It is this aspect that we have an issue with. I just want to remind members that three factors are taken into account when determining where an inmate will be detained. One of the primary reasons an inmate may be incarcerated in a maximum-security prison is their behaviour.

For example, an inmate who constantly assaults their fellow inmates or correctional officers could be transferred to a maximum-security prison to ensure the safety of others. Another factor is flight risk. We have seen dangerous offenders who have managed to escape from prison. Those who attempt or manage to escape may require closer supervision and will therefore be placed in a maximum-security prison. Those who pose a high risk to public safety will also be placed in a maximum-security prison.

We can all agree that, in Paul Bernardo's case, Correctional Service Canada's judgment was questionable. One has to wonder how it came to the decision that it did. It made no sense at all to parliamentarians and especially to victims, their families and the community. Again, that decision was so reckless that it cost the justice minister at the time his job.

Let us keep in mind that Bill C‑232 amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require that inmates who have been found to be dangerous offenders or convicted of more than one first degree murder be assigned a security classification of maximum and confined in a maximum security penitentiary or area in a penitentiary.

In our view, this provision cannot be broadly applied because we know the justice system makes mistakes. Sometimes justice gets it wrong. It is sad but true. Many examples come to mind. In my questions earlier, I talked about Claude Paquin, who was convicted of two first-degree murders and spent 18 years in prison. He was acquitted at the age of 81, 41 years after he was charged. The first thing he said to the judge when she finally exonerated him was, “You just got me out of hell.”

It is clear that if my colleague's bill were passed, Mr. Paquin could never have been found innocent and acquitted in the end, even after 18 years in prison. That is why we oppose the bill before us. However, I understand where my colleague is coming from, because this request came from his community and his constituents. That is often what moves us emotionally, leading us to introduce bills that our constituents are calling for. I understand that he firmly believes that his bill will fix the situation and that there will be no more cases like Paul Bernardo's.

I can say one thing. I am touring federal penitentiaries in Quebec. I have visited Port‑Cartier and Drummond. I am going to visit La Macaza and the women's prison in Joliette soon. During my first two visits, I was truly shocked to see how little support Correctional Service Canada provides to correctional officers.

I am struck by the fact that these officers have to work and do mandatory overtime in working conditions that anyone would find unacceptable. I am being sincere when I say that those working in a maximum security prison have to be tough, because it is dangerous. It is dangerous work, and not just because the inmates are dangerous, but also because the work tools are faulty. Some of these prisons could really use some TLC, and they need to adapt to new technologies.

Is it normal for drones to openly smuggle drugs and weapons into the Drummondville and Port-Cartier prisons, or for correctional officers to work in second-hand marijuana smoke because drugs are being brought into our prisons via drones?

There is much to be said about the working conditions of our officers and the current situation in our prisons. The Conservatives have been pushing to put more people in prison since the start of this parliamentary session. That is perfectly normal for some. Nevertheless, I will conclude by saying that while that is all well and good, we must also ensure that correctional officers in prisons are able to do their jobs properly. We must ensure their safety and that of the public.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, but this is a particularly good occasion.

Before I begin, I want to recognize the work of Anita Price, somebody who faithfully and diligently worked in my office at 100 Mile House, which is no longer in the riding, as well as in our Kamloops office on an as-needed, part-time basis. Anita has just been a stalwart. We thank her for her service to the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola and all Canadians.

I also want to welcome to Canada Hunter Rose Friesen, the daughter of Mike Friesen and Brittany Matheson. Mike was a former staff member here on Parliament Hill, who also served a number of Canadians and a number of members of Parliament. We welcome Hunter, and we hope she and her parents are doing well.

On a more sombre note, I recognize the life of Giovannina Mercuri, wife of Vittorio and mother to Amedeo, Mirella, Rita, Giovanni and Pietro. She passed away, leaving behind many memories of a family who I am sure misses her deeply. I have for some time been hoping for the opportunity to stand to recognize a life well lived. May perpetual light shine upon her.

I also rise today and recognize the life of Alfredo Caputo. Of course, sharing the same last name, we are related. He was pre-deceased by his wife, Fiorina, and his daughter, Luigina. Left to mourn him are Peter, Anna, Rosie and their families. He leaves behind many grandchildren. I was able to just make his funeral last week. He will obviously be missed. As a treasured part of the Caputo family, I wish his family all the best in a difficult time of mourning. May perpetual light shine upon him.

I rise today as well to recognize the life of Dina Piva. I have gotten to know a couple of her sons quite well, especially her son Dennis. I also know Laura and Mario, the other children Dina leaves behind. Her family has done so much for the area, for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. They are a well-respected family. I know that her children will present her legacy in an amazing way. May perpetual light shine upon her.

There are so many people on the Liberal benches who I wish could hear this speech. We were misled today by the member for Winnipeg North. In fact, if he disagrees with me, I wish he would rise in his spot right now and call a point of order stating that he did not mislead anybody. He did not state the facts. This is why.

He asked why, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet, he did not deal with Paul Bernardo being transferred to medium security, which is what we are talking about in this private member's bill. It was because the law was different. The Liberals changed the law. With Bill C-28, in the 42nd Parliament, they changed the threshold for correctional custody for all decision-making to what is called the least restrictive measure. That means a person must be incarcerated under the least restrictive measure. That means that if they can be handled in minimum security, they must go there, regardless of how heinous their offence is. The member told the House and Canadians that the Conservatives could have dealt with it and did not. That is completely wrong and, dare I say, very misleading. He was told it was misleading, and he doubled down. That is not what we should expect and accept as members of this House.

I actually visited the jail where Paul Bernardo was held, and Anne Kelly, the commissioner of corrections, on her way out, in my view, did not like what I had to say, because under her watch, the government put out information that was false about my visit, but I was there with a staff member and a union member who backed up everything I had to say.

I went to Paul Bernardo's cell. He walked up, and we came eye to eye. What did the government say? It was that the MP and Bernardo had no interactions. Well, of course we had no interactions. I did not want to talk to the guy. I did not want to shake his hand. He is one of the most vile people in Canada. No, we did not have any interactions, but we actually did come eye to eye. People can look this up on local media in Kamloops, because the correctional union official gave a statement to the media. The fact that Anne Kelly and correctional officials would seek to sully the reputation of a member of Parliament is disgusting, and it is wrong.

It is the same thing with the hockey rink. Paul Bernardo has a hockey rink there. There were nets that were tilted up so they would not freeze against the rink. The government said that the hockey rink was not currently operational. What does that mean? One thing officials did not say was that the tennis court was not currently operational. For those who are not aware, the hockey rink doubles as a tennis court. I have a photo of it, if anybody wants to see. It has lighting of the kind that we would find at a local park.

When the Liberals say, “What's the big deal?”, I will tell them what the big deal is. Paul Bernardo, in medium security, has access to a hockey rink, tennis court and skates, which the government left out in its defamatory statements. I would challenge any of those members to say it outside of here. They would not say that I am lying. They just like to put 40% of the picture together, which is meant to mislead.

What does it say about us as a society when one of Canada's worst people can go from maximum to medium security? If members do not think that there is a difference, and I believe Anne Kelly told one of the victims there was no difference, there is actually a substantial difference. The perimeter security is the same, two fences, but as somebody who worked in corrections, I can say that if a person goes to maximum security, there is door after door. In medium security, it is often an open concept.

Terri-Lynne McClintic, and this is something that I hope the member from Winnipeg digests, killed an eight-old girl, Tori Stafford. Part of it was a sexual assault. Guess where she is: medium security. She lives in townhouse-style living, and guess what is next to her house in medium security? It is the mother-child program. We cannot make this up. A sex offender who killed a child lives next door to the mother-child program, but the Liberals will tell us, “Don't worry, the door is locked all the time.” I can tell members that I know it is not locked all the time, because whether there are kids or not, there are two doors. The front door may be locked, although I walked right in the one time I went there, and saw two young boys, but there is actually a side door as well that is not locked, and I confirmed that the door is never locked.

I challenge the next Liberal speaker, whoever it is, to address this. Think about the Bernardo victims. Look into the camera and say, “I'm okay with Paul Bernardo being in medium security. I'm okay with Terri-Lynne McClintic living next door to children.” They will not do it. I am sure we are going to hear what I hope is not a prepared speech, but likely is, read verbatim. What does it say about us?

We need to implement this bill, not only because it is the right thing to do and not only because Canadians want it, but because justice, with a capital J, natural justice, demands it. The fact that other people in the House do not see that is a shame and a reflection on them.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to speak to this private member's bill, Bill C-232. While seemingly well-intentioned, this is legislation the government cannot support. Our primary responsibility is to keep Canadians safe. To do this, we rely on laws and policies that are based on what has been proven to work. We know that the effective rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders reduces recidivism and improves public safety.

Bill C-232 directly challenges this in a number of ways. First, it proposes to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the CCRA, to require inmates who have been designated as dangerous offenders or who are convicted of more than one count of first-degree murder to be confined to a maximum-security penitentiary for the duration of their sentence. This would apply even if a sentence is finite, which would mean an offender is eventually released into the community.

The designation of an offender as maximum security is a necessary measure to maintain the safety and security of penitentiaries and to protect public safety. The decision to reclassify maximum-security inmates as medium security is made only after rigorous and thorough assessment of the offender's case-specific risk factors. This includes an inmate's history and any dangerous offender designation, offence severity, potential for violent behaviour, outstanding charges, security-related incidents and their progress while in custody. It is the product of several criteria and considerations that are consistent with the principles of ensuring the protection of society, staff members and offenders.

While considering all case-specific factors, the security level is also determined based on Correctional Service Canada's assessment of the required degree of supervision and control within the institution, referred to as institutional adjustment, escape risk, and public safety risk in the event of escape. I would like to stress that at any point, an inmate can be returned to a higher security level, if this is deemed necessary to ensure the safety of the public or our institutions.

Research shows there are better public safety outcomes when an offender's rehabilitation is gradual and structured. Research shows this. However, maximum-security institutions offer fewer opportunities for rehabilitative programs, such as education, domestic violence, substance abuse treatment, and jobs and skills training. By limiting access to this programming and conditional release for certain offenders, the bill could compromise the safety of staff and other inmates within our facilities by creating a more volatile and less manageable institutional environment. It could also undermine effective rehabilitation and safe reintegration, as inmates will be less likely to have a gradual, supervised release into the community once they have completed their sentence. Bill C-232 would ultimately endanger public safety upon an offender's release, as they would be released with less preparation and fewer tools to be a productive member of society.

The bill also presents a significant charter concern, particularly given its application to current inmates. It would impact the prospects for conditional release for individuals already serving sentences under existing laws. This retrospective application challenges the fundamental principles of justice and fairness, with case law finding retrospective application in similar situations unconstitutional, in particular when punitive in nature. Our correctional system must operate within the bounds of the rule of law and the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter.

I would also put forward to the House that we should be careful not to exacerbate the known issue of overrepresentation of indigenous and Black offenders at the maximum security level and within the criminal justice system overall. The Government of Canada understands that an equitable justice system is an effective justice system. That is why we continue to make major investments to address gaps in services to indigenous people and their overrepresentation throughout the criminal justice system.

I will state that the federal framework to reduce recidivism, launched in June 2022, was an important step by the Government of Canada. It is a plan that identifies crucial factors that impact why people reoffend and how to support safe and successful reintegration into the community.

Public Safety Canada and its portfolio organizations continue to support whole-of-government efforts to align legislation, programs, policies and initiatives with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The indigenous community corrections initiative was created in that spirit to provide culturally relevant services to healing, alternatives to incarceration and rehabilitation to indigenous offenders. We must continue taking steps to address the systemic issues within our justice system, and we cannot support a bill that would deepen these inequalities.

Finally, while private members' bills do not typically include funding attachments, Bill C-232 would have significant, unavoidable financial impacts. Mandating certain security classifications for specific offenders would necessitate long-term infrastructure costs, as existing facilities would need expansion or modification to accommodate the resulting population shifts. The government's position on Bill C-232 is clear. This bill would undermine public safety and be a step backward in correctional policy. It also raises serious legal and practical concerns that we cannot ignore.

Bill C-232 is a misguided approach that ignores the evidence of what works to keep Canadians safe. It threatens the safety of our institutions and communities, and it would undermine the very principles of justice that our correctional system is built upon. We must continue to support policies that are evidence-based, that respect the rule of law and that focus on the safe and successful reintegration of offenders into society.

Rehabilitation is not a gesture of leniency. It is a fundamental pillar of public safety. When an individual completes a sentence and is released, the most critical question is whether they return as a person who is equipped to contribute to society or as someone who will become a repeat offender. Since most incarcerated individuals will eventually be released, if we only focus on punishment without addressing what led to the behaviour, such as addiction, lack of education or mental health struggles, we are effectively choosing to put public safety at risk.

For all of these reasons, I urge my fellow hon. members to oppose—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 37, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-224 under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from November 17, 2025, 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

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government declared a war on natural health products, not on opioids, fentanyl or drugs. No, it declared a war on vitamins and herbal medicines. The Liberals are targeting the mother who takes a supplement for her joints because she is waiting eight months to see a specialist. They are targeting the father who takes fish oil every morning because his doctor told him to watch his heart. They are targeting the child who takes Flintstones Vitamins at breakfast to strengthen their bones.

Let us be clear about who uses natural health products in this country. These are not fringe Canadians. These are millions of ordinary people who are doing exactly what we should want them to do, taking responsibility for their own health and wellness on their own terms, but they are precisely whom this government chose to go after. The government is not going after the pharmaceutical companies that got Canadians hooked on opioids or the fentanyl traffickers who are killing Canadians. The government is going after the Canadians who are standing in the aisles of a grocery store, reading a label and making an informed decision about their health.

In 2023, very deep inside Bill C-47, an omnibus budget bill, the Liberals quietly reclassified natural health products as therapeutic products under the Food and Drugs Act. This is the same legal category as prescription drugs. Should a scoop of protein powder fall under the same regulations as insulin? Should a multivitamin be placed in the same category as Tylenol? I certainly do not think so, and neither do Canadians, so why did the Liberals bury this policy in a budget bill? They said, “Hey, we want to regulate vitamins like pharmaceuticals.” In a stand-alone bill, it never would have survived public scrutiny, so they hid it in a budget bill and hoped Canadians would not read the fine print, but they did, and now the consequences are unfolding in Canada.

People at one in five companies within the industry say regulations are forcing them to consider shutting down. At three out of four companies, they say there is a high chance they will have to pull products from shelves. At 83% of companies, nearly the entire sector, they say they have little to no capacity to absorb the cost. The irony of the decision is that, when the government over-regulates Canadian businesses out of existence, it does not stop Canadians from buying supplements. In fact, it drives them online to American companies that are not subject to Health Canada's regime at all.

Many of the natural health products being sold directly to consumers in Canada do not even have an NPN, which is the natural product number required for Canadian standards. The government's crackdown on Canadian businesses does not make Canadians safer. It actually makes them less safe, while gutting Canadian jobs in the process. This policy is clearly regulatory overreach that serves no one but the bureaucrats at Health Canada who designed it to protect their own jobs.

Let us be honest about what the Canadian health care system looks like right now. Six million Canadians do not have a family doctor. The average wait time to see a specialist is around 30 weeks. Canadians are making decisions about their health in the waiting room of a walk-in clinic because that is the only option available to them. That is the reality. Because of that reality, natural health products are the lifeline for many Canadians. This matters because a system already at the breaking point cannot afford to lose something helping to keep people out of the system. When Canadians stay healthier through prevention, they are not just helping themselves. They are helping the health care system that desperately needs relief. If the government were serious about improving the health of Canadians, it would focus on the national tragedy unfolding on our streets and in our hospitals.

The pharmaceutical industry has done incredible things for humanity. The products developed over the last century have extended and saved countless lives. When Canadians are sick, they need those products, and I am grateful that they exist, but the pharmaceutical model is fundamentally a reactive one. It is primarily designed to treat illness. That is not a criticism; it is simply what it does.

On the other hand, the natural health product model is fundamentally a preventative one. Vitamins and supplements are products Canadians use to stay healthy and prevent illness. That difference in purpose reflects a difference in how these industries operate. The pharmaceutical industry invests billions in drug development because it protects the patent. It recoups its investment over the life of that patent, and that model funds research and trials and ultimately the treatments Canadians need.

On the other hand, natural health products work differently. One cannot patent a natural vitamin. One cannot own vitamin D, for example. These are naturally occurring substances available to any company in an open market. This model drives down prices for consumers and creates a very competitive market. My point is that these are not just different products. They are fundamentally different business models, and they were never designed to operate under the same rules.

Underneath this fight over natural health products, there is something more fundamental at stake, and that is trust. Canadians came out of the pandemic with increased skepticism toward institutions and health care. They watched governments make decisions that affected them deeply, often without explanation, and sometimes without accountability.

When the Liberals quietly reclassified the natural health products that millions of Canadians use every single day, that trust eroded again. We should remind ourselves that Canadians are capable of making informed and responsible decisions about their well-being.

That brings me to the most important point of all, which is who is actually standing up to fix this. The Conservatives are. My colleague the member for Ponoka—Didsbury has once again stepped up on behalf of millions of Canadians. He has introduced Bill C-224, an act that would amend the Food and Drugs Act. As the Conservative shadow minister for health, I fully support it.

Bill C-224 would remove natural health products from the same regulatory category as pharmaceuticals and restore the made-in-Canada framework that protects both consumer safety and Canadian industry. It would ensure that Canadians could continue to access the protein powders, vitamins, probiotics and supplements they rely on every single day while protecting the competitive Canadian businesses that make them. I believe Canada should regulate a vitamin like a vitamin, not like a prescription drug.

Conservatives believe Canadians deserve access to natural health products. We believe in personal responsibility and in a government that respects the decisions Canadians make about their health. If we are serious about the long-term sustainability of Canadian health care, we must treat natural health care products as part of the solution, not as a threat to be regulated out of existence.

Every Canadian who stays healthier longer through prevention is a Canadian who places less demand on an already overburdened health care system. That is good for patients, taxpayers and Canada.

To the millions of Canadians who use natural health products, who take a supplement every morning, who read the label and simply choose to invest in their own health, I say that we see them, we hear them and we are fighting for them. The government declared a war on their vitamins, but Conservatives are fighting back to save their supplements and protect natural health products.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak about Bill C-224. This is an important bill that impacts millions of Canadians who rely on natural health products as part of their daily health and wellness routines, and who want to know that the products they are using and consuming are safe.

I think all of us recognize that this bill has some ideas worth exploring. Our government is always open to ideas that help Canadian businesses thrive and ensure that Canadians have access to safe, effective natural health products. In fact, one of our new government's top priorities was to remove burdensome red tape in regulation. We have seen this promise in action in the natural health product sector. Our government heard from natural health product companies that they were finding that some new regulations were too onerous or did not do what they set out to do. In response, we paused some of these regulations and limited the scope of others.

Canada's natural health product industry is a huge part of the economy. We want to make sure that these companies can thrive, but we also want to make sure that Canadians can trust that the natural health products they rely on are safe, and that what they say on the label is what is actually in them. After all, the term “natural health products” encompasses a wide range of products, and one only needs to look at the Health Canada recall page to see that. Sometimes mistakes are made. There can be mislabeled 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 how even seemingly safe products that are authorized and widely used can still have some risks.

That is what makes some regulatory oversight so important. Having 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. It also makes Canada a more attractive destination for companies looking to expand, because they know that we have a regulatory system in place that maintains some of the highest food and drug safety standards in the world.

An unintended consequence of Bill C-224 is that, rather than simply reducing the regulatory burden on natural health product companies, it could make people less certain about the products they are using.

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 the product poses a serious risk to human health. They can issue fines against companies that refuse to take unsafe products off the shelf. These are all important tools to protect consumers, and the way it is currently written, the bill would remove these tools altogether.

I know that the bill's sponsor, the member for Ponoka—Didsbury, is a long-time advocate for natural health products. During the previous Parliament, 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 the current bill does not exempt nicotine products from the Food and Drugs Act, which is a significant improvement. Both bills are a considerable attempt to help natural health product companies continue to grow and thrive. This is a goal all of us share.

It is certainly a goal of our new government. It is why we have been working closely with our natural health product 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 pre-market requirements for natural health products, while shifting direct oversight and resources to higher-risk areas. It also put a pause on new labelling requirements and is continuing to work with natural health product companies to address their concerns.

We also recognize that a key part of working with the natural health product industry is flexibility. We cannot just 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 options and solutions. In a world where both industry and 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 the current bill to allow it to continue, which is why I look forward to voting for this bill and studying it at the health committee.

However, we also need to make sure there are rules and regulations in place to protect Canadian consumers. When Canadians reach for a product on a store's shelves, they need to have confidence in its safety and trust that the label accurately represents the product. If they do not have that confidence, if they cannot trust the product they are buying, it will hurt the entire natural health products industry and, by extension, our economy.

There is an important balance we need to find, and I hope we can study this bill at committee to make sure it strikes the right balance, one that ensures 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.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C‑224. Introduced by my Conservative colleague for Ponoka—Didsbury, this bill aims to amend the Food and Drugs Act to exclude natural health products from the definition of therapeutic products. In practical terms, if this bill passes in its current form, natural health products will no longer be subject to the same oversight mechanisms as other therapeutic products, including those set out in Vanessa's Law.

Let us briefly revisit the reason for this law. Vanessa's Law was enacted in 2014 following the tragic death of Vanessa Young. It aims to enhance the powers of the Minister of Health to better protect the public from unsafe products. For instance, Vanessa's Law allows the minister to order manufacturers to disclose information, to require a label change, to prohibit the sale of a product and, most importantly, to order a recall of products that present a serious health risk.

For a long time, natural health products were excluded from those powers. However, these products are not always harmless. Probiotics, vitamins, minerals, herbal remedies and traditional medicines are now a huge industry. In Canada, this market is estimated to be worth between $4 billion and $5 billion per year, and these products are widely used. It is estimated that that 73% of Canadians use this type of product on a regular basis. The term “natural” inspires confidence, but it must be made clear that “natural” does not mean “harmless”. “Natural” does not mean “without side effects” and does not mean “without supervision”.

These products can interact with prescription drugs, cause serious adverse reactions and, in some cases, have very serious consequences. Consider, for example, the known interactions between certain supplements and prescription drugs that can reduce the effectiveness of a treatment or increase health risks. Members might also recall the sad case of Michel Joannette, who developed hepatitis after consuming a natural product he bought online to help him lose weight. These situations remind us of a simple reality: Just because something is natural does not automatically mean it is safe.

In 2021, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development published a troubling report on Health Canada's oversight of these products. The report concluded that the department's oversight had failed to ensure their safety and effectiveness. The commissioner identified several significant problems. First, Health Canada could not order the mandatory recall of a natural health product, even in the presence of a serious health risk. Second, there were significant gaps in the inspection of manufacturing facilities. Post-market surveillance was also insufficient, and the department did not always have the necessary tools to effectively detect unlicensed products or misleading advertising.

The numbers speak for themselves. The number of reports of adverse effects associated with these products rose from 22,211 in 2010 to 96,559 in 2019. In light of these findings, the federal government decided to take action. In 2023, under Bill C-47, these products were made subject to certain provisions of Vanessa's Law. The department can now impose mandatory recalls when public safety is at stake. However, Bill C-224 would reverse that decision.

Let me be clear. We in the Bloc Québécois recognize that natural health products should not be treated exactly like prescription drugs. They belong in a distinct category. They cannot be treated as simple food products, either. In our view, the position is simple and balanced. Natural health products are not drugs, but nor are they risk-free. They must be strictly regulated. The key question, then, is this. Are we going to weaken public health protection measures?

In its current form, Bill C-224 raises a major concern. If it were passed as is, the minister could lose the ability to impose a mandatory recall when a product poses a danger to the public.

Imagine for a moment a product contaminated with bacteria such as E. coli. Without this recall power, we would be relying solely on the manufacturer's goodwill to have the product removed from shelves. It would put us back in a situation that the Auditor General himself deemed inadequate. It would be a step backwards, one that we should not take.

That said, the Bloc Québécois believes that this bill deserves serious consideration in committee. That is why we will support the bill at second reading so that it can be examined in depth. However, we will be very clear on one thing. Our final support will depend on one essential condition: The bill must maintain mandatory recall power. Public protection must never be weakened in the name of deregulation.

Quebeckers must be able to have complete confidence in what they consume. This means that what is sold on the market must meet rigorous standards, have clear labelling and make truthful claims, and the government must have the tools it needs to intervene when public health is threatened. Clear regulations protect consumers, but they also protect reputable businesses that follow the rules.

This is a simple matter, really. Just because a product is popular does not mean that it is effective or safe. The legislator's primary responsibility is still to protect public health. The Bloc Québécois will therefore keep an open mind about this bill, but there is a very clear line that we will not cross. Public safety must always come first.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been a few issues over the last few years that I have heard consistently so much about, and this is not just in my riding of Haldimand—Norfolk but across the entire country. Among those, the cost of living, the erosion of freedom and individual choice ranked very high at the top. The bill that we are debating today goes to the very heart of the fundamental concerns that Canadians are raising. This bill is not just about natural health care products. It is about freedom of choice. It is also about affordability and whether Canadians can still afford the basic essentials that they have always counted on every single day.

I am not sure that most members of the House have experienced a time when they have been without a doctor. I know they have experienced waking up with a potential cold, sore throat or cough and possibly considered using vitamins to fight that cold, purchasing some sort of alternative care such as vitamin C or echinacea, or even drinking medicinal tea. Those common remedies are not uncommon products. They are part of ordinary Canadian life. In fact, a strong majority of Canadians, 70%, rely on vitamins or other natural health products. They do so regularly to stay healthy during the long winter seasons. They also use them to supplement their diets. These are not luxury items.

For many of my constituents, these products are not optional. They are essential for their health and their well-being, and for the well-being of their families. That is why I am proud to speak in support today of the common-sense bill from my hon. colleague, the member for Ponoka—Didsbury, Bill C-224, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act regarding natural health care products.

Bill C-224 moves to reverse the sweeping changes that the government made in 2023 to the Food and Drugs Act, which changed how natural health products are regulated in Canada. Prior to 2023, natural health products were already regulated under the natural health products regulations, which is a robust and clear framework introduced by the previous Conservative government under former prime minister Stephen Harper. That framework provided sufficient oversight and safety, and recognized that vitamins are not pharmaceuticals.

Since the Liberals changed the requirements in 2023, natural health products must now comply with an onerous labelling regimen, additional inspections, compliance measures and mandatory recall orders, as well as additional government fees and the threat of a monetary penalty of up to $5 million per day for non-compliance. These same rules are used to regulate pharmaceuticals and prescription drugs. The question that many Canadians have written to my office to ask is, why is the government treating small Canadian vitamin-brand businesses like high-risk pharmaceutical manufacturers?

Conservatives are not against regulation. There is a place for wise and precise government regulation. Regulations are meant to protect Canadians, to reduce the risk of harm and to provide the necessary guardrails against misuse and abuse, but regulations must be proportionate. With little regulation, people obviously could get harmed, but with too much regulation, government moves from protection to control. It begins to dictate free choices, saddle businesses with red tape and distort the marketplace. As a result, innovation becomes stifled. Canadian businesses ultimately suffer, and Canadians lose choice while paying higher costs.

When products disappear, choice shrinks. When compliance costs rise, prices increase. When domestic producers exit, foreign competitors fill that gap. Unfortunately, Canadians are seeing this pattern across multiple sectors: housing, agriculture, natural resources and energy.

Government red tape has already cost Canadian businesses over $50 billion every single year. Small and medium-sized businesses, which are the backbone of our economy, bear the heaviest burden. Ultimately, Canadians pay the price.

We must also consider this. Six million Canadians are without a family doctor. Millions more are on wait-lists for treatments and procedures. At the same time when Canadians are navigating a strained health care system, we should not be making it harder for them to responsibly manage their own well-being, yet, under this regulatory regime, that is exactly what is happening. Industry associations, small businesses, health practitioners and consumers are all raising the alarm, and 70% of brands say that they may pull their products from Canadian shelves. One in five may exit the Canadian market entirely. At a minimum, prices will rise at a time when families are already struggling. Make no mistake: Without Bill C-224, businesses will shut down or leave the Canadian market, and Canadians will lose access to products they rely on.

My office has been overwhelmed with calls, letters and petitions about this issue over the past three years. This matters deeply to Canadians. The people of Haldimand—Norfolk elected me to represent their voice, to speak the truth and to push back when government overreach threatens their autonomy. Canadians want to return to a country where choice, affordability and personal responsibility are respected by government. That is why this is not a partisan issue. The bill speaks to the fundamental values that matter to every single Canadian: freedom, autonomy and the dignity of an affordable life.

This bill is not just about natural health products; it is about freedom of choice. In the previous Parliament, we saw cross-party support for this legislation. I urge all members to once again support this common-sense bill, not only in the interest of millions of Canadians who rely on natural health products and Canadian businesses that work every single day to supply products in a safe and responsible manner to Canadians who desire those products, but also in the interest of Canadians across this country and future generations who want to live in a Canada where freedom of choice abounds, where businesses thrive and where life is affordable. The full promise of Canada deserves nothing less.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the last Parliament, the Liberals put forward Bill C-47, a budget bill that had buried within it provisions that attacked access to natural health products and attacked the natural health product industry. This was not stand-alone legislation. There was no consultation with the people who were affected. It was simply an effort to sneak through legislative changes attacking natural health products, buried in a budget bill.

Conservatives opposed that budget. We opposed the fiscal direction the government was taking, and as part of that, of course, we opposed the attack on natural health products. We tried to bring attention to this legislatively sneaky and substantively harmful action by the government of attacking Canadians' access to natural health products. Following that, my colleague from the Red Deer area put forward legislation to reverse the changes.

Now, in the new Parliament, there is a bill trying to restore the previous situation with respect to access to natural health products. That is now Bill C-224. I commend my colleague for this important work to restore the long-standing, well-functioning, pre-existing system for access to and regulation of natural health products and to undo the sneaky Liberal changes that were contained in their massive omnibus budget legislation.

At issue here is whether natural health products are subject to the same levels of regulation, administrative burden, etc. that are associated with pharmaceuticals. In many cases, when we are talking about natural health products, we are talking about vitamins and minerals, which people take to replace what may be deficiencies in their diets. There are certain nutrients, vitamins and minerals that we are designed as human beings to have as part of our diet, but for whatever reason, perhaps it is where we are, what we eat or aspects of what foods we have access to, some people have certain deficiencies in vitamins or minerals, which we seek to make up for through this kind of supplementation.

However, in the case especially of vitamins and minerals, we are talking about the very natural effort to restore what had historically been part of our diet as humans, to ensure that we are taking in products that are naturally required for the normal, healthy functioning of the human person. One example that gets cited often is vitamin D. We live in a cold country, if anyone had not noticed, which means that people spend relatively less time outside here, living in Canada, than they might have in other places and times, where our ancestors came from.

This means that generally we have lower levels of vitamin D, which is a vitamin we can get through exposure to the sun. In fact, I think there was a lot of good data during the COVID period identifying that there were greater risks associated with COVID for people with vitamin D deficiency. I think this was well established and well documented, and I encouraged the government at the time to share and promote this information.

Many Canadians, recognizing the importance of having the vitamins and minerals that we are supposed to have, and recognizing the risks of deficiencies, choose to supplement their diet with theses kinds of natural health products. Applying the levels of regulation that are associated with pharmaceutical interventions just does not make sense. It clearly is a miscategorization, an application of the wrong kind of regulation, and I think this is widely understood and widely appreciated.

The changes the government snuck into its omnibus budget bill did not make sense substantively and did not respect the choice of Canadians. Regardless of an individual's particular opinion about a natural health product, we have the means of accessing information about them, and individuals can and do make considered choices about this. We do not need an overly paternalistic government telling people that they must have the same regulation for vitamins and minerals as is applied to pharmaceutical products.

I am strongly in support of this bill. It aligns with choice. It recognizes the realities of the benefits of these products, benefits that many Canadians have seen and understand.

Briefly, I want to comment on a related issue, which is access to training for allied health professionals. In the course of my work as the shadow minister for employment, I have been speaking a lot with people in the field of traditional Chinese medicine who are very concerned about a change that was snuck into this year's budget bill. The government is proposing to cut off student grants to students attending private for-profit institutions, which is where the vast majority of students in Canada studying to become traditional Chinese medicine practitioners go.

We have a situation where the government is making changes, buried in a budget bill, that attack access to natural health products. Then we have a case where, again buried in a budget bill, the government is attacking access to training for those who are practising traditional Chinese medicine. This makes it very difficult for people in the Chinese community but also for people outside the Chinese community who benefit from or rely on traditional Chinese medicine to access these kinds of services.

In a free multicultural country, we want Canadians to have choice and flexibility and to be able to access the wisdom and experience of other cultures and other traditions. I think there is value in people having the choice and the flexibility to do that without the government proceeding with multiple attacks against these communities, which are always, it seems, buried in budget bills.

I commend my colleague for undoing or seeking to undo the damage the Liberals have done in terms of access to natural health products. This bill, Bill C-224, is a great bill that is trying to undo that damage. We will continue this work as we see more persistent attacks from the Liberals on this community.

Of all the problems we face in this country, it is hard to understand why it has been a priority for the Liberals to make life more difficult for people who are trying to take vitamins or trying to access acupuncture but are worried they would not be able to as a result of these changes to student grants. I would ask the government why, with all the problems in this country and all the problems in the world, it chose this attack on responsible, law-abiding citizens who simply are trying to exercise choice and trying to be healthy. That is a question that maybe we will hear an answer from the government on at some point.

I look forward to hearing from my colleague, the sponsor of this bill. It is a great bill. I look forward to supporting it and supporting the people in my riding and across the country who rely on natural health products to maintain and manage their health.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I will invite the hon. member for Ponoka—Didsbury for his five-minute right of reply.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of my colleagues who spoke in the House tonight, in the second hour of debate on Bill C-224. As has been mentioned, this is the second Parliament I have tabled this bill in. In the previous Parliament, it was Bill C-368. It passed at second reading in this place, but it was not unanimous. It went through the committee process in the last Parliament, but it died on the Order Paper with the prorogation and subsequent election.

Now we have a new Parliament, and I was very fortunate to get drawn in the first tranche of private members' business. I was more than happy, on behalf of the 80% of Canadians, some 30 million, who use natural health products on a routine basis to improve the quality of their lives at a time when it is hard enough in this country to make ends meet, to get by, to find a doctor and to look after oneself. It seemed pretty straightforward and easy for me to get behind this cause.

Not only am I a user of these natural health products myself, but I know that so many friends and family members also do the same thing. All my constituents in Ponoka—Didsbury, which in the previous Parliament was Red Deer—Lacombe, have been very supportive of what I have done. I have travelled across the country to meet with health store owners, various stakeholders and Canadians on a regular basis about this. It is a very important issue, and I am glad that we are having this conversation today.

As members may recall, in the previous Parliament, the definition of “natural health products” was changed in Bill C-47, which was a budget implementation bill. Nobody knew this was coming. It was underhanded and sneaky. That was the approach of the previous government in the previous Parliament. There was no consultation with the Natural Health Product Protection Association or the Canadian Health Food Association. Nobody even knew it was there. As a matter of fact, there was basically radio silence for about six months, until somebody figured out that those four little clauses in that bill had been passed and subsequent changes to the self-care framework were being implemented by Health Canada. That is when the lid kind of blew off the whole process and people started getting involved.

To take us back to where we were, this is not some wild west, non-regulated area of responsibility. Natural health products have been very highly regulated in Canada for a long time. As a matter of fact, IADSA, the International Alliance of Dietary/Food Supplement Associations, not therapeutic drugs but dietary food supplements, basically had Canada's regulatory regime ranked as the gold standard around the world. We were exporting these products because importers and agencies from around the world trusted that made-in-Canada label and the natural product number. This was a solution in search of a problem, and it blew up in the government's face.

There is no reason at all that natural health products should get caught up in the clutches of Vanessa's Law, a very important piece of legislation and work. We need to treat natural health products for what they are. They are a stand-alone category, and my bill seeks to take us back to where we were prior to Bill C-47. I made one small adjustment to the bill in this Parliament to exempt nicotine, because I believe many people would think it reasonable that nicotine should be managed completely differently and separately from natural health and therapeutic products. I am looking forward to my colleagues having that debate, should this bill get to committee.

I want to thank my colleague in the Bloc Québécois. I think he was a little upset that I did not include the amendment to deal with recall. I know that is going to come up again in the debate, should this bill get to second reading.

Before I conclude, I want to extend some thanks, if I can be permitted, even if I go a bit longer. I want to thank the Natural Health Product Protection Association, specifically Shawn and Teresa Buckley, for their continued advocacy for freedom of choice for Canadians on this issue and so many more. I thank them so much for the work they do. To the Canadian Health Food Association, particularly Jules, Sonia and Wenjing, I thank them so much for the work they do in advocating on behalf of retailers and the entire industry, the producers, retailers, everybody.

Most importantly, I want to thank Canadians who are watching right now. As I said, 80% of Canadians use natural health products, and they support their own right to choose their health outcomes. They were the ones who signed the cards we all got, signed the petitions, wrote the emails and made the calls to MPs' offices. They have changed the tide of the debate in this country, and the House should be responding to them.

I am very much looking forward to the continuation of this bill as it goes through the legislative process. I want to thank everybody who has been supportive.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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.

The hon. member for Ponoka—Didsbury.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would request that the motion be carried unanimously.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?