Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-390, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (provincial medical assistance in dying framework). She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise today to introduce this important bill entitled an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding a provincial medical assistance in dying framework. The purpose of my bill is to enable persons who have an incapacitating illness to make an advance request for medical assistance in dying, in accordance with the unanimous will of the Quebec National Assembly. The recognition of advance requests for MAID in the context of a serious, incurable, incapacitating illness would constitute an important step forward for patients' peace of mind. The text of this bill amends the Criminal Code so that MAID can be provided under a provincial framework that stipulates that a person with an illness that could deprive them of the capacity to consent to care can make an advance request for MAID.

Madam Speaker, as I have done in the past to have the questions on the Order Paper on the record, I would ask for unanimous consent to do so. I believe there was consultation done prior.

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2487, 2490, 2491 and 2497 to 2500.

With regard to Health Canada's (HC) authorization of COVID-19 vaccines: (a) has HC received studies about theoretical risk of Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease (VAED), also referred to as Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE), from the manufacturers of the COVID-19 vaccines; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, (i) what were the outcome of the studies, (ii) which manufacturers and independent researchers are conducting these studies, (iii) what were the timelines to completion; (c) if the answer to (a) is negative, did HC, the Public Health Agency of Canada, or the National Advisory Committee identify a need for long-term studies to examine VAED, and, if not, why not; (d) has any federal health agency, department or other government entity been monitoring for VAED ADE post-COVID-19 injections; (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, (i) what is the data, (ii) what are the timelines, (iii) was this active or passive monitoring; (f) if the answer to (d) is negative, why not; and (g) has any federal health agency, department or other government entity been monitoring for the potential of vaccine-enhanced infectivity? With regard to Canada Post: (a) what was the total amount spent on fuel in the last year; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by gasoline versus diesel; (c) what is the estimated number of litres of (i) gasoline, (ii) diesel fuel, purchased in the last year; (d) how many vehicles does Canada Post currently own; (e) what is the breakdown of vehicles owned by (i) diesel fueled, (ii) gasoline fueled, (iii) hybrid, (iv) electric; (f) what is the estimated number of kilometers driven by Canada Post vehicles last year; and (g) what is the breakdown of (a) through (f) by province or territory? With regard to the Housing Accelerator Fund, since September 1, 2023: (a) how many applications for federal funding were rejected or unsuccessful, broken down by (i) province or territory, (ii) municipality; and (b) what is the projected number of residences that could have been constructed if funding was provided? With regard to Environment and Climate Change Canada’s funding of the barn swallow nesting structure project in Prince Edward Point: (a) what was the cost of the project, in total, and broken down by item and type of expense; and (b) what are the details of all contracts related to the project, including, for each, the (i) amount, (ii) vendor, (iii) date and duration, (iv) description of the goods or services provided, (v) manner in which the contract was awarded (i.e. sole-sourced or competitive bid)? With regard to the completion date on the Gordie Howe International Bridge project being delayed until September 2025: (a) was the delay related to disputes with Valard Construction; (b) to which of the four major associated construction projects are the additional $700 million assigned, and which of these projects is expected to result in more claims; (c) will the $700 million cover the overrun costs to the subcontractors until the end of 2022; (d) what additional funds will be allocated for work order charges from 2023, 2024 and 2025 until the end of the project; and (e) if there will be no additional funds allocated, will the government confirm there will be no more contractors' claims for the remainder of the project? With regard to the Gordie Howe International Bridge project: (a) what are the estimated costs to taxpayers associated with the new completion date; and (b) will the cost overruns, those identified and the others yet to be determined, lengthen the time it takes for Canadian taxpayers to be reimbursed through the collection of tolls, will the toll charges be increased to cover the additional costs, or both? With regard to the Canada Post building located at 180 Victoria Street, Salaberry-de-Valleyfield: (a) what are the annual expenses related to the operation of the post office and the sorting facility; (b) what investments are planned between now and 2030 at this building and for the operations that take place there; and (c) what is the estimated market value of the building and the land?

Is it the pleasure of the House that the aforementioned questions be made orders for return and that they be tabled immediately? Some hon. members: Agreed.

With regard to government expenditures with Amazon since January 1, 2020, broken down by department or agency: (a) what was the total value of expenditures, broken down by year; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) description of goods or services? With regard to reports of "March madness expenditures" where the government makes purchases before the end of the fiscal year so that departmental funds do not go unspent, broken down by department, agency or other government entity: (a) what were the total expenditures during February and March of 2022 on (i) materials and supplies (standard object 07), (ii) acquisition of machinery and equipment, including parts and consumable tools (standard object 09); and (b) what are the details of each such expenditure, including the (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date of the expenditure, (iv) description of the goods or services provided, (v) delivery date, (vi) file number? With regard to the government's social media accounts, broken down by department, agency, or other government entity: (a) how many employees or full-time equivalents are assigned to the accounts, and what are their titles; (b) how many accounts or profiles does the government manage, broken down by social media platform; (c) what are the details of each account or profile, including, for each, the (i) name of the platform, (ii) handle or profile name; (d) what specific procedures are in place to ensure that any information put out through the government's accounts (i) does not contain disinformation, misinformation, or misleading information, (ii) is not politically biased towards the government or the Liberal Party of Canada; and (e) for any procedures related to (d), who has final approval before an item is posted? With regard to expenditures on communications professional services (codes 035, 0351, and 0352) since April 1, 2021, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) the date, (ii) the amount, (iii) the vendor, (iv) the description of goods or services, (v) whether the contract was sole-sourced or competitively bid? With regard to government employees on leave, broken down by department, agency, or other government entity: (a) how many employees are on leave as of October 20, 2022, broken down by type of leave; and (b) how many employees were on "Other Leave With Pay" (code 699), broken down by month since January 1, 2022? With regard to advertising on social media by the government since 2016, broken down by year: what was the total amount spent by the government for advertisements on (i) Twitter, (ii) Facebook, (iii) TikTok, (iv) lnstagram, (v) Snapchat, (vi) WhatsApp, (vii) Linkedln, (viii) other social media platforms, broken down by platform? With regard to expenditures by the government on subscriptions and data access services in the 2021-22 fiscal year, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) what is the total amount spent; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including the (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) titles of publications or data for each subscription, (vi) file number? With regard to government expenditures on membership fees, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity, since October 1, 2020: (a) how much money has been spent; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including the (i) name of the organization or the vendor, (ii) date of the purchase, (iii) amount, (iv) number of memberships purchased? With regard to tweets made by the government that were later deleted, broken down by each instance, since January 1, 2019: what are the details of each instance, including the (i) Twitter handle and username, (ii) date the tweet was posted, (iii) date the tweet was deleted, (iv) summary of its contents, (v) reason the tweet was deleted, (vi) titles of who approved the initial tweet, (vii) titles of who ordered the tweet's removal? With regard to expenditures on consulting services by the government in the 2021 and 2022 calendar years, broken down by year and by department, agency or other government entity: (a) what was the total amount spent on (i) training consultants (code 0446), (ii) information technology and telecommunications consultants (code 0473), (iii) management consulting (code 0491), (iv) other types of consultants or consulting, broken down by type and object code; and (b) for each response in (a), what is the total value of the expenditures that were (i) awarded competitively, (ii) sole-sourced? With regard to spending on stock photographs or images by the government since January 1, 2020, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, and other government entity: (a) what is the total amount spent; and (b) what are the details of each contract or expenditure, including (i) the vendor, (ii) the amount, (iii) the details and duration of contract, (iv) the date, (v) the number of photos or images purchased, (vi) where the photos or images were used (Internet, billboards, etc.), (vii) the description of the advertising campaign, (viii) the file number of the contract? With regard to personal protective equipment masks purchased by the government: (a) how many masks were purchased each month since January 2021; (b) how much was spent each month on the masks in (a); and (c) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by type of mask (N95, disposable cloth, reusable, etc.) and by manufacturer? With regard to personal protective equipment (PPE) purchased by the government since March 1, 2020, broken down by year: (a) what is the total value of PPE purchased by the government that was (i) sole-sourced, (ii) awarded through a competitive bidding process; and (b) what is the total value of PPE contracts that were made under a national security exemption? With regard to government expenditures on appearance fees, speaking fees, hosting fees, or other similar type of fees, since January 1, 2019, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: what are the details of all such expenditures, including, for each, the (i) date of the event, (ii) description of the role (keynote speaker, master of ceremony, etc.), (iii) name of the speaker, (iv) location of the event, (v) event description, (vi) size of the audience or the number of attendees, (vii) amount paid? With regard to information services (IS) employees (Treasury Board code 305) within the civil service, broken down by department, agency, or other government entity: (a) how many IS workers are currently employed by the government, in total; and (b) how many executives or workers, at the EX level or higher, do the IS workers report to, in total? With regard to expenditures made under object code 3252 (Interest, administration or service charges, and other penalty charges), broken down by department, agency, or other government entity for each of the last five years: (a) how many expenditures were made; (b) what was the total value of the expenditures; and (c) what are the details of each such expenditure over $500, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) reason for the fee (late payment, incorrect payment, etc.)? With regard to expenditures related to conferences, since 2016, broken down by year and by department, agency, or other government entity: (a) what was the total amount spent on conference fees (object code 0823 or similar); and (b) what was the total amount spent on travel expenses for public servants attending conferences? With regard to the increase in the number of public service employees between 2016 and 2023: (a) what was the total number of public service workers as of (i) January 1, 2016, (ii) January 1, 2023, in total and broken down by department or agency; and (b) what was the total number of positions added to the public service between January 1, 2016, and January 1, 2023, broken down by occupational group, level, Treasury Board classification, and department or agency? With regard to reports of "March madness expenditures" where the government makes purchases before the end of the fiscal year so that departmental funds do not go unspent, broken down by department, agency or other government entity: (a) what were the total expenditures during February and March of 2023 on (i) materials and supplies (standard object 07), (ii) acquisition of machinery and equipment, including parts and consumable tools (standard object 09); and (b) what are the details of each such expenditure, including the (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date of the expenditure, (iv) description of the goods or services provided, (v) delivery date, (vi) file number? With regard to contracts awarded since the 2015-16 fiscal year, broken down by fiscal year: what is the total value of contracts awarded to (i) McKinsey & Company, (ii) Deloitte, (iii) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (iv) Accenture, (v) KPMG, (vi) Ernst and Young? With regard to expenditures made by the government under object code 0207 (Employee relocation in Canada) in each of the last three fiscal years (2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23): (a) what was the total amount spent each year, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity; and (b) what was the total amount spent each year for the relocation of ministerial exempt staff in Canada? With regard to government expenditures on membership fees, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity during the 2022-23 fiscal year: (a) what were the total expenditures; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including the (i) name of the entity for which the membership fee was paid, (ii) date of the purchase, (iii) amount, (iv) number of memberships purchased, (v) type of organization, if known (professional society, social club, golf club, etc.)? With regard to the Framework for Cooperation on Countering Terrorism and Violent Extremism between Canada and India, signed by the current government: (a) is the framework still in effect; (b) has any information been shared between law enforcement or security agencies of Canada and India since June 18, 2023; and (c) was any information shared at any time between law enforcement or security agencies of Canada and India regarding Hardeep Singh Nijjar? With regard to phone lines paid for by the government, broken down by cellular line versus traditional landline, for each part of the question: (a) how many phone lines was the government paying for as of April 1, 2024; (b) how many of the phone lines are dormant; (c) how many of the phone lines are active but have not been used or have not had any activity in the last year; (d) how many of the phone lines are considered redundant; and (e) what was the total amount spent on phone lines during the 2023 calendar year or the 2023-24 fiscal year, if known, broken down by service provider? With regard to federal procurement: (a) how many cases of suspected invoicing fraud by Information Technology (IT) subcontractors have been submitted to the RCMP for investigation since January 2024; and (b) which departments are involved? With regard to revoked or suspended security clearances of contractors since January 2024: what are the details of all revoked contracts, including the (i) department, (ii) vendor, (iii) value, (iv) description of the goods and services, (v) date the contract was signed, (vi) start and end dates? With regard to contracts awarded through a non-competitive process since March 2020: what is the total value of contracts awarded to (i) GC Strategies, (ii) Dalian Enterprises Inc., (iii) Amazon Web Services Inc., (iv) Microsoft Canada Inc., (v) TEKsystems Inc., (vi) Donna Cona Inc., (vii) MGIS Inc., (viii) 49 Solutions, (ix) Makwa Resourcing Inc., (x) TPG Technology Consulting Ltd., (xi) Advanced Chippewa Technologies Inc.? With regard to federal spending in the electoral district of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, broken down by fiscal year since 2018–19, inclusively: (a) what is the total amount for each fiscal year; (b) what is the detailed breakdown of the amounts in (a) by department, Crown corporation, agency or organization; and (c) what grants and contributions were made, broken down by funding source? With regard to Transport Canada (TC) and the Canadian Transportation Agency data for air travel from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2023: (a) how many in-flight medical events occurred in Canadian airspace; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by (i) flight type (i.e. commercial, private, freight, charter, other), (ii) airline, (iii) affected person type (i.e. pilots, other flight crew and passengers), (iv) year, (v) month; (c) how many in-flight medical events occurred on airplanes registered in Canada outside the Canadian airspace; (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by (i) flight type (i.e. commercial, private, freight, charter, other), (ii) airline, (iii) affected person type (i.e. pilots, other flight crew and passengers); (e) how many flights and miles were flown in Canadian airspace; (f) how many emergency landings occurred in the Canadian airspace; (g) what is the breakdown of (f) by (i) reason, (ii) airline, (iii) airplane model; (h) how many active Canadian commercial pilots, flight attendants, and air traffic controllers died; (i) what medical screening changes occurred with respect to pilots, flight attendants, and air traffic controllers (e.g. medical certification requirements changes); (j) for each medical screening change, (i) what it the reason, (ii) what is the date of the change, (iii) who are the persons and decision bodies who approved the change; (k) how many pilots, flight attendants, and air traffic controllers claimed disability; (l) how many pilots, flight attendants, and air traffic controllers applied for medical leave; (m) how many pilots underwent their annual medical examination; (n) how many pilots failed their annual medical examinations; (o) how many active pilot licenses existed; (p) how many pilots, flight attendants, and air traffic controllers lost their employment or were placed on an unpaid leave as a result of refusal to take the COVID-19 vaccines or refusal to inform their employer about their COVID-19 vaccination status; (q) how many pilots lost their license for medical reasons; (r) does TC keep data relating to the numbers of Category 1-3 medical certificates that are (i) held, (ii) temporarily suspended, (iii) permanently suspended for non-compliance with COVID-19 vaccine policy; and (s) if the answers to (r)(i), (r)(ii) or (r)(iii) are affirmative, what is the data? With regard to government funding of non-governmental organizations or groups, from November 4, 2015, to present: (a) how much money has the government allocated to (i) Green Economy Canada, (ii) Alberta EcoTrust, (iii) Corporate Knights, (iv) Echo Foundation, (v) Eco Canada, (vi) Ivey Foundation, (vii) Resilient LLP, (viii) Canadian Climate Institute, (ix) Ecofiscal Commission; (b) for each entity in (a), what are the details, including the (i) department, agency or other government entity, (ii) date of the funding, (iii) amount and deliverables expected; (c) of the allocations in (a), which ones were (i) sole-sourced, (ii) awarded through a competitive bidding process; (d) of the allocations in (c)(ii), what was the (i) duration of the competition, (ii) number of organizations that submitted bids for the required deliverables; and (e) what programs from each organization in (a) received government funding, broken down by year and deliverables expected?

Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand, and then I think we go to notice of motions after that.

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers also be allowed to stand.

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker, this bill amends the Food and Drugs Act to provide that natural health products are not therapeutic products within the meaning of the act and are therefore not subject to the same monitoring regime as other drugs. First of all, I would like to announce that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill at second reading, essentially to hear from experts in committee on the best way to regulate natural health products. This bill follows what the government surreptitiously introduced in a schedule to the 2023 budget, through Bill C‑47. There has always been a distinction between drugs and natural health products, and that was a good thing. It seems obvious that natural health products, commonly abbreviated as NHPs, differ from drugs in many ways. We are not saying that they are all harmless; people should ask their pharmacist before consuming any such products. We also acknowledge that NHPs could interact with other medications. However, these are precisely the reasons why we need to examine these products and determine the best way to regulate them. What the Bloc Québécois wants is to be able to verify whether the decision to subject NHPs to the Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act, or Vanessa's Law, is definitely the best way to regulate them, or whether it places an excessive administrative burden on these products. Relatively speaking, these products present lower risks and have a different impact on health than traditional pharmaceuticals. As the saying goes, sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. Regulations could have the opposite effect to what we are trying to achieve, which is the well-being of Quebeckers and Canadians. The fact is that there are some 91,000 NHPs, 75 of which have been specifically analyzed. After checking certain sampled products, it was concluded that, since 2014, Health Canada has not been doing its job in terms of guaranteeing safe products. The government tried to gain credibility by using a bazooka to kill a fly. That is a reasonable conclusion. The decision to subject NHPs to Vanessa's Law follows a series of recommendations set out in a report by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. In that report to the Parliament of Canada, the commissioner notes that the government does not have the legislative authority to compel NHP companies to identify unlicensed products and take appropriate measures to prevent them from being sold in Canada; identify unauthorized activities and take appropriate action to ensure that product labels and advertisements meet product-licence conditions; obtain the information it needs to verify and ensure that these products are no longer for sale in Canada; and force a recall or impose terms and conditions to mitigate the safety risks associated with these products. Canada's natural health products regulations allow for licences to be cancelled to prohibit the sale of a product or to have it seized. However, there is no provision allowing the minister to force a product recall. Prior to Bill C‑47, recalls were therefore voluntary. Moreover, the environmental risks are not included, so there is some data missing. As legislators, have we done everything we can to ensure that there is a balance in terms of access to NHPs to guarantee free choice for consumers? Have we done everything we can to ensure that when Health Canada approves products, it does its job and does the necessary inspections? One of my colleagues, the member for Montcalm and Bloc Québécois health critic, asked whether an impact study had been done on the industry and on small and medium-sized businesses, concerning the recovery costs required. He was told that it was based on Treasury Board guidelines. I imagine that the Treasury Board's main interest is getting its money's worth. What kind of service is it going to provide when, after all this time, and with all the taxes generated by the industry, it has not even been able to ensure products are tested or inspected throughout its mandate? These are questions that need to be asked. Where are the numbers on how many adverse reactions there have been to natural health products in 17 years? What are the numbers for adverse reactions to pharmaceutical products? We did not get an answer on that either. We know that even though they are approved by Health Canada, pharmaceuticals can sometimes have very serious side effects. However, that is no reason to disqualify them or discredit an entire industry. It is just a matter of doing the work, carrying out tasks and responsibilities and making sure that things are done well. That seems obvious to me. What we see here looks like a government uninterested in working to ensure the well-being of its people. Instead, it wants to pass on a hot potato before it gets burned. For a long time now, the government's inaction on many issues has been on full display. It does not know how to work the machinery of government, so a one-size-fits-all solution often seems like the easiest way around the problem. In reality, it is a very poor option. We have to respect people's intelligence. To properly protect them, they need to be adequately informed. They do not need to have decisions constantly made for them. No one is forced to use an NHP. Consumers who buy these products have already looked into their effects. The role of legislation and regulations is to provide them with a proper framework. My grandfather used balsam fir gum. He used it for a good part of his life and died at the age of 103. Was this natural health product approved? Probably not. Was it dangerous? Obviously not. He lived for over 100 years. It was not a dangerous drug either. To some extent, if we let the government have its way, balsam fir gum will probably fall out of use, and my grandfather would have been deprived of his traditional remedy, which had supposedly cured him of consumption. One day, after years of searching, he found it again on the shelves at his pharmacy, in capsule form. The midwife who had supplied it to him back in the day had died. This is why NHPs deserve a legal, responsible, credible and rigorous approach. People should be able to opt for a safe, natural solution with components that are recognized and identified, and whose effects are known and accessible to all doctors and practitioners. Here, we vote on laws. We are not experts, but we need to act responsibly and with humility to put in place the proper legislative provisions. That is what must guide our decisions. That is why Bill C‑368 is now necessary. It must be sent to committee so that the parliamentary work can be done. If the government had been a bit more transparent, if it had held the necessary consultations, if we had all worked together to find a way to move forward without harming an industry that Quebeckers and Canadians have the right to access, then we would not be here today discussing this issue. Unfortunately, the government has not held any consultations to date. The federal government has rather cavalierly dodged many debates on this topic, when the purpose of debate is to turn ambiguous questions into clearer, more appropriate directives. That is exactly why we are going to vote in favour of Bill C‑368. The information I shared in my speech provides ample justification for Parliament to refer this bill to committee. A genuine assessment of the situation is needed given the government's claim that 88% of the 91,000 natural health products are substandard or use misleading labelling. Such a claim requires verification, since the methodology used is flawed. Indeed, the products were verified after problems were reported, and were then identified as substandard. However, this approach grossly inflates the data and raises reasonable questions concerning the methodology used. In our opinion, a randomized approach would be preferable. Need I remind the House that we have the right to do substantive work to ensure that we are making the right decisions, voting for the right things and passing legislation in the public interest? Need I remind the House that we cannot be sloppy or try to get rid of things or hide the flaws that we did not bother to tackle, things that were swept under the rug because it is easier that way and makes us look good? It is a fairly common technique used by the current government to jump to hasty and ill-considered conclusions, only to impose drastic, rigid rules, where there are often more losers than winners in the end. The Liberals just want to be able to say that they did this, that and the other thing, that they passed this bill and that bill, and they are great. They want to say that they delivered. There was a problem with NHPs, and they passed legislation. It is not enough, but that does not matter. Fisheries are being closed. The government is not listening to those who work in fisheries. Entire villages are facing a socio-economic dead end. It does not matter, as long as the Liberals look good. They say they are going to save the biomass, but they are not saving anything. It does not matter, because announcements have been made. They pass laws and set up legislative procedures to interfere in provincial jurisdictions. It is full steam ahead. Are their solutions correct? Are they being applied consistently? No, but that does not matter. What matters is that they passed legislation, that they spread their tentacles where they did not belong. That is the way to gain control of everything. They announce funding that is appealing to the provinces that have become so strapped for cash over the years—

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but she is well over her time. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-368. I would like to thank the member for Red Deer—Lacombe for bringing it forward for the House's consideration. The reason I am very pleased is that the issue of natural health products has garnered a lot of attention in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I have had a lot of constituents and local businesses approach me concerning this issue in particular. I am pleased to be able to stand here, as their elected representative, and let my constituents know that I will be supporting the bill at second reading. I was also very pleased to be able to add my name as a joint seconder to the bill. To fulfill the wishes of my constituents, I will be voting to send it to committee for further study. What are we talking about when we say “natural health products”? I have always thought it a weird thing that they are regulated under a statute such as the Food and Drugs Act. They are not really a food, nor are they a drug. They occupy a special place for many people. We must face that humans have had relationships with natural health products dating back thousands of years. Many of these products have a very special place in human history, and a lot of cultures have very long relationships with them. Today, in the modern world, natural health products often come in a variety of forms, such as tablets, capsules, tinctures, solutions, creams, ointments and drops. There is quite a large variety for people to pick and choose from. They are often made from plants, but they can also come from animals, from micro-organisms and from marine sources. They include vitamins and minerals, herbal remedies, homeopathic medicines, traditional medicines, probiotics and other products, such as amino acids and essential fatty acids. They are found in many everyday consumer products. Let us come to the bill in question, Bill C-368. As shown in the summary, it would amend the Food and Drugs Act to provide that natural health products are not therapeutic products within the meaning of that act and, therefore, are not subject to the same monitoring regime as other drugs. Before we get into the substance, we need to take a little history lesson on how we arrived here. I want to say that both Conservatives and Liberals have run into trouble when trying to regulate natural health products. In fact, the previous government, under Harper, learned this lesson very quickly back in 2008 when it introduced Bill C-51. That was also an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act. Under Bill C-51, the term “therapeutic products” encompassed a range of products sold for therapeutic purposes, including drugs, medical devices, biologics and natural health products. In the end, because of an election, that bill was never adopted. However, I believe the Harper government at that time learned its lesson because of the uproar that came in response to Bill C-51, and it did not attempt to change Canada's regulations for natural health products again while in government. What the Harper government did do, in 2014, was introduce Bill C-17 to amend the Food and Drugs Act. It was also known as Vanessa's Law. This introduced a definition for the term “therapeutic product”, but what was different this time was that the definition was worded in such a way that it did not include natural health products, within the meaning of the natural health products regulations. We then fast-forward to the present Liberal government and Bill C-47. That bill, in a clause buried deep within a budget implementation act, again amended the term “therapeutic product” to make sure that the exemption from the natural health products regulations was actually removed. This has caused much of the uproar we see today. I want to point out, as I said in my intro, that natural health products have a long history of use in Canada as low-risk, affordable methods of promoting well-being. It is very important that I stand here today and say unequivocally that they must remain accessible to all Canadians. I am proud to be a member of a caucus, the NDP caucus, that has long supported an appropriate regulatory category for natural health products to certify their safety and efficacy based on sound evidence, as well as to ensure that they are widely available for those who use and value them. It is unacceptable that the changes to the regulatory regime under the Food and Drugs Act was snuck into a budget omnibus bill, because it did not allow for proper study. I am glad to see that, because Bill C-368 is a stand-alone, quite simple and easy-to-read piece of legislation, from reading the room, it should have enough votes to send it to committee. We can then have the proper study; hear from Canadians and businesses that sell natural health products, the practitioners involved in this every day; and, finally, get the proper scrutiny that this issue so richly deserves. I do not want to spend too much longer speaking to the bill, but I want to talk a bit about the people in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford who took the time to write to my office, phone me personally and come into my office. In particular, I want to recognize a few of the local businesses. Essential Remedies, Benoit and Associates Health Education, some holistic health practitioners, the Community Farm Store, Botanical Bliss, a certified homeopathic practitioner, a naturopathic physician and Lynn's Vitamin Gallery all took the time in the summer of 2023 to come into my office. We had a great round table discussion. It lasted well over an hour. It was really enlightening for me, as their member of Parliament, to hear their views on this subject and learn a little more about why it is so important. Yes, my immediate family definitely uses natural health products, and I know that many friends and relatives in my immediate vicinity also use them. However, to hear from professionals who work with clients every day about why this issue is so important was particularly enlightening for me. It is also important to note that 71% of Canadians, which is a very big number, have used natural health products, such as vitamins and minerals, herbal products and homeopathic medicines. Therefore, it is important that, when the NHP community speaks to their elected representatives, it represents a very clear majority of Canadians. Based on a proper cross-sampling of the correspondence that I, like many other members, have received, I know that they want their elected representatives to treat this issue with the seriousness that it deserves and give the bill full scrutiny. Finally, I want to congratulate the NHP community and industry, which have been very actively engaged on this issue through their work. I really want to single out the local businesses in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and the constituents who live on Vancouver Island. I congratulate them for their advocacy, for stepping up to the plate and for engaging me as their elected representative, because it has worked. I am proud to say that, in this place, as their elected representative, I will be pleased to vote to send Bill C-368 to committee.

Madam Speaker, it is always a true honour to rise in the House of Commons to speak, especially on behalf of the residents of Peterborough—Kawartha and, of course, the many Canadians across this country who rely on natural health products. I want to give a big shout-out to my colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe for bringing forward the bill. Could we have a round of applause, please, for my colleague? Members are tired at this time of the day; it is hard to rally them. However, this is a big one. Maybe they need some vitamins. Maybe that is what they need to put a little pep in their step, and that is exactly what we are talking about today. We are talking about things that almost every Canadian uses. Maybe it is their toothpaste. Maybe it is their deodorant. Maybe it is their vitamins, melatonin, magnesium, protein bars or Chinese herbal medicine. These are things that many Canadians rely on every single day of their life to help manage their health and to help them live a better, more fulfilled life. Sadly, these products are under attack. I got elected in 2021. There have been two instances of extreme correspondence to my office. One was regarding the invocation of the Emergencies Act. The second was regarding natural health products. It is unbelievable the correspondence that has come through my office about this. People are asking why the Liberal-NDP government would want to attack natural health products. Why would it want to go after those and make it so that business owners who offer these products, these vitamins and supplements, can no longer function? Let us break it down and talk about what the bill is and why Conservatives are very excited to support it, as well as my colleague, as I mentioned, for putting it forward. In summary, the enactment of the bill would amend the Food and Drugs Act to provide that natural health products are not therapeutic products within the meaning of that act and are therefore not subject to the same monitoring regime as other drugs. This is for people at home, and I always think about my sister, who watches this and asks, “What does that even mean?”. It means that people's prescription drugs or big pharma or opioids, which are a massive crisis in this country, are subject to regulations and are self-funded by Health Canada. Natural health products have very strict regulations as well, but the bill before us in particular would ensure that they are safe and able to continue to be available in the stores where they are sold. What Health Canada has tried to do is, again, kind of like Groundhog Day in this place, because it is the same everywhere with overreach. Health Canada wants to go into the pockets of the micro-businesses, often operated by women, and say that they are going to have to pay the government more money. Health Canada wants to decide what the business owners do with their products and will ultimately bankrupt them and force the products out of Canada. I am going to provide some quick stats for members. Natural health product businesses contribute $5.5 billion to the Canadian economy and $2.8 billion in taxable revenue. Eighty-two per cent of Canadians use NHPs, and I bet that number is actually low. Over 80% of businesses in the sector are small or medium-sized. Producers of 70% of the brands have indicated that they will need to withdraw products from the market. We can start to see that if the private member's bill before us were not introduced, this would be detrimental to the industry, based on the Health Canada policy that was put forward. Fifty per cent of small businesses in the sector have a woman CEO. One in five businesses is contemplating shutting down due to the proposed changes. One in five businesses is considering exiting Canada. According to Statistics Canada, women are much more likely to purchase natural health products to manage their health and wellness. We all know we have a health care crisis in this country. We have folks lining up to get to see a doctor, and they do not have access to a doctor, so for many people, accessing natural health products is a big thing. I think every member of the House can stand up and tell a story of where natural health products have made a big difference in their life. I want to read some testimonies from correspondence I have gotten, because it is critical in this place that we elevate the voices of the people who are outside the House, the people who elected us to be here to elevate their voices. These are some of the messages I have gotten about the Liberal-NDP policy that would overreach and would ultimately decimate the natural health product industry. Thankfully the bill would be able to protect them, and that is what we are really talking about today. The first piece of correspondence reads, “Recently, I saw your post regarding the Liberal government going after natural health products next. Truly, I was not shocked that they would go after NHPs [as many people refer to them] because really there isn't much left for them to have their hands on. I use natural health products for a number of reasons. I do not support the tax of NHPs.” Here is another one: “many people including myself use products such as iron, calcium, B vitamins, vitamin C, and I find it appalling that the government thinks that these products should be taken off the shelves in Canada. They obviously only want big pharma products available to Canadians.” We know the mess that big pharma has created in this country. I always will take any opportunity I can to tell people at home to please watch Dopesick. The opioid crisis and addiction crisis in this country really paint a picture of how government and big pharma destroyed the lives of so many people. Another message says, “The new proposed laws concerning NHPs is very damaging to the future of my business. We have been in business for 20 years..., and have approximately 7,200 clients in that period of time. During that time, we haven't had a single problem related to safety and efficacy of the herbs that we use. We currently use 485 separate herbs. As you well know, the vast majority of these herbs are spices and edible plants that any consumer could grow in their own garden. How is it that Health Canada could stop the people's access to their medicinal properties? Many of these clients wish to use this mode of health care, which keeps pressure off local hospital rooms and the medical systems, which are already overloaded and backlogged.” The message goes on to say, “There are many small businesses in Ontario like mine, possibly hundreds of businesses which contribute well over $100,000 a year in HST and source deductions. Our business has five people on payroll. I feel that if these new bills are enforced and erode their ability to both buy and sell herbs, it will force us out of business.” The same message asks, “Has anyone bothered to do a total cost/risk/reward analysis to see what the actual benefits are to the constituency, the economy, and health outcomes in the long haul?". It concludes with this: “I hope that Health Canada will come to the realization that their current direction and implementation of the bills will...be a sad day for Canadians.” There is a very interesting point in there, because when we talk to the Canadian Health Food Association, we learn that there was not proper consultation ever, and we have seen this across the board in so many areas with the current government. It is just overreach, and I guess I always come back to this question: Why? It is pretty simple. If the Liberal-NDP government overspends and recklessly spends, which we have seen, and let us take the arrive scam app, which should have cost $80,000 and cost a minimum of $60 million, or a green slush fund that cost a billion dollars, then it has to make that money up. It is just basic math. The government does not have any money; it has taxpayers' money, but wait. If it does not have enough money, who is it going to go after? The Liberal-NDP government will go after the little guy, which is what it does over and over again. Small businesses are the heartbeat, 98%, of the economy, and they are being trashed, destroyed and decimated under the Liberal-NDP government, and these are the women-owned businesses. I want to just touch on this, because Jules Gorham is the director of Regulatory Affairs for the Canadian Health Food Association, and she gave very powerful testimony at the status of women committee, which I sit on. A big piece really jumped out at me, and I think this is a real take-home message because we have a government and a Prime Minister that are clearly fake feminists, and there is a Liberal mandate for a gender-based analysis on things they do. Guess where the Liberals did not do a gender-based analysis? This is from Jules Gorham's testimony at committee: Unfortunately, it's a well-known fact that women have been historically neglected in research. There is a scarcity of data on women. Health Canada's latest regulatory reform on [natural health products] is yet another example. Prior to publishing its proposal on cost recovery fees, Health Canada did not conduct any analysis on the impacts to Canadians, including a gender-based analysis. They left it to business owners to do the math and decide if they can afford to stay in business. This is despite having a mandate saying that the Liberals would do a gender-based analysis. They do not put women first. They do not put Canadians first. They put their big government first, and—

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to discuss Bill C-368 with respect to natural health products, and its potential impact on the ability of Canadians to have confidence in the natural health products on their shelves. Canadians expect the products that they buy in Canada to be safe for use and consumption. This includes the natural health products we use every day, such as vitamins, herbal medicines, sunscreen, toothpaste and hand sanitizer. I want to acknowledge the importance of natural health products. They are something that many of our constituents use for their own well-being. I have heard that from many of my constituents as well. There is no question that natural health products are lower-risk than prescription drugs, but the reality is they are not risk-free. They can actually cause serious harm in certain circumstances. In particular, if not manufactured properly, natural health products can contain unsafe levels of ingredients or be contaminated with other substances that can be harmful. They can also be advertised or labelled in a misleading manner. Take, for example, probiotics. While they are low-risk and in fact beneficial in many cases, these products as a whole are not without risk. Over the last six years, there have been six reports of sepsis associated with one brand of probiotic, the majority of which were in premature infants, and five of which had an outcome of death. That is why postmarket safety surveillance is so important. In fact, between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2023, Health Canada received 930 adverse reaction reports where a natural health product was suspected of being responsible for the adverse reaction, with the majority, 692, reported as serious. Consumers trust these products to contribute to their health and well-being. That is why we need to ensure that natural health products can be used safely and that they are not the subject of false claims. However, Conservatives want to take us back to a time when we can recall a contaminated tube of lipstick or head of lettuce, but not a contaminated vitamin or supplement. Now I want to talk a bit about the subject of the bill, Bill C-368, which is Vanessa's Law. In June 2023, Vanessa's Law, or the Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act, was extended to include natural health products. This action was taken to correct a gap that was left in 2014 when Vanessa's Law was initially passed for other health products. This law gives Health Canada the additional tools to take swift action if marketed products are deemed unsafe. As it stands now, Vanessa's Law gives Health Canada the authority to mandate product recalls and label revisions for unsafe natural health products where there are serious or imminent risks to the health and safety of Canadians. The tools afforded by Vanessa's Law are important for the well-being and safety of Canadians. They protect Canadians, but not at the cost of hurting Canadian businesses. In fact, there should be no impact on businesses that are following the rules in manufacturing and selling to Canadians products that are safe. These authorities are used only if a company should refuse to co-operate in taking voluntary action to mitigate a serious health risk, as is the typical practice for other lines of health products and food. Bill C-368 seeks to repeal the expanded powers granted by Vanessa's Law, which would prevent Health Canada from recalling dangerous products or adding warnings to labels when companies refuse to do it themselves. The government can mandate recalls of other health products, as well as food like produce in grocery stores that is contaminated with E. coli, but with Bill C-368, Health Canada would not have the authority to require the recall of a natural health product contaminated with E. coli, which could be equally dangerous to the lives of our constituents. Should not users of natural health products also be afforded the confidence that the products on the shelves can be used safely? Adopting Bill C-368 would leave the health of Canadians in the hands of industry to decide when it is appropriate to issue a recall or update the label with new warnings. There is just no reason for natural health products to be exempted from Vanessa's Law. One of the main sources of problems comes from cases of deficient manufacturing practices that result in product contamination. Before Vanessa's Law was applied to natural health products, Health Canada did not have the power to enforce recalls and had only a limited ability to remove dangerous natural health products from the market. The concerns I am expressing today are not about theoretical risks. Since 2018, there have been over 300 voluntary recalls of licensed natural health products for safety issues. For example, during the pandemic, when hand sanitizer use was at its highest, Health Canada found toxic chemicals like methanol and benzine in these products but had to rely on voluntary action from companies to remove these products from the market. Other examples of product issues resulting from unsanitary manufacturing conditions include contamination with bacteria, fibreglass and other foreign materials. Should we really rely solely on the goodwill of industry to recall a product contaminated with fibreglass or toxic chemicals? In 2021, the independent commissioner of the environment and sustainable development highlighted Health Canada's lack of power to recall natural health products as an important gap. The commissioner reported that contaminated natural health products remained available to consumers on store shelves for many months because Health Canada could rely only on the goodwill of companies to undertake voluntary recalls. Between 2021 and 2022, Health Canada inspected 36 importers and manufacturers of natural health products and found high levels of non-compliance with safe manufacturing practices. Issues were identified in all 36 sites inspected, ranging in severity, with 42% requiring immediate action. Issues requiring the Vanessa's Law authorities go beyond product quality problems. For example, in 2021, Health Canada conducted an online surveillance study of health claims made by natural health products and found that more than 1,600 authorized natural health products made illegitimate cancer-related claims in their advertising. Think of the impact this could have on a cancer patient who is looking for relief and puts their trust solely in a product that cannot back up its claims. This is unacceptable. In fact, it is dangerous. Canadians expect better, and they deserve better. Bill C-368 would roll back the protections of Vanessa's Law, exposing Canadians to unacceptable risks. This includes potentially allowing unsafe products to remain on the market longer and subjecting natural health products to a different, less rigorous set of rules than all other health products and food. It puts the power to determine actions in the most serious cases of health risks in the hands of industry and not the regulator. Is that what we want? I submit that Canadians would expect more from their government. They expect that the government is able to take action and remove natural health products from the market when they are deemed unsafe, just like it can remove a shipment of contaminated lettuce or cough medication. Some members have raised concerns about how the extension of Vanessa's Law could impact the availability of natural health products. I want to stress that product availability will not change with Vanessa's Law. Unsafe products will be removed more quickly from the market, but safe products will continue to be available. Compliant companies and products will not be impacted. It is not just about recalls. Vanessa's Law authorities also allow the court to determine a more appropriate fine or penalty should a company be convicted of an offence related to a natural health product that poses serious health and safety risks to Canadians, creating a legitimate deterrent for non-compliance. Canadians are counting on us to safeguard the marketplace from unsafe products. We need to ensure that those who buy natural health products are able to have confidence in the safety of those products. We are talking about public health and safety here. It is too important to leave to chance. It is too important and time-sensitive to rely on voluntary compliance. Vanessa's Law gives Health Canada the authorities it needs to take immediate action to remove unsafe natural health products from the marketplace if a company refuses to do so voluntarily. It is an important tool that strengthens the market and the reputation of the industry in Canada, as it helps ensure that these widely used products are safe. I encourage all members to vote against this bill.

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise. My colleague from Peterborough—Kawartha talked about this being Groundhog Day, and it seems as if we are talking about this particular topic over and over again. My colleague from Ottawa Centre, who spoke just a minute ago, was talking about the safety of these products. It is interesting, because the reason any health warnings were found about these products was that inspections were already conducted by Health Canada. Therefore, by grabbing more money from the small and medium-sized businesses that are actually producing natural health products for the benefit of Canadians, these changes are not going to make those inspections any better or any more frequent. I find that a bit fascinating. The other thing that is absolutely fascinating is what we have on the opposite side of the House. We have a government that had a crazy experiment, a wacko experiment we might say, to actually decriminalize opioids, which we know failed miserably. Without the Conservatives on this side of the House actually stopping the Liberals, they were on the path to wanting to legalize drugs like meth, crack, cocaine, amphetamines and fentanyl here in Canada, in our backyards, in our school grounds, in front of businesses and in front of residences all across this country. Thankfully, there was an incredible intervention by team Conservative. We were able to make enough interventions so that people realized how bad of an idea this was. The crime, chaos, drugs and disorder that have happened across this great country have been unfathomable. It is certainly something that Canadians need to bear in mind when we talk about the incredible want on the NDP-Liberal side to take away natural health products. I know that many of my colleagues spoke about this previously, but I do think it bears repeating. When we look at the multitude of issues that have come before this House in the last two and a half years since I have been here, the issue that people have written to me the most about and approached me the most about, just walking along the street, in our own backyards, is really related to natural health products. Canadians have made it incredibly clear that they do not want the government interfering, as it wants to do, with their natural health products. I know some of this is a bit repetitive, but I think it bears repeating. We know from statistics that over 80% of Canadians use natural health products on a regular basis. I listened with great interest when my colleague from Peterborough—Kawartha talked about how the impacts of the changes the government is on the road to making, without the intervention of Bill C-368, are a harm to female entrepreneurs. That cannot be said enough in this House. We hear that Conservatives are against women and Conservatives are against women's rights. We hear this every single day. It is actually quite nauseating. We actually understand that, on the opposite side, the NDP-Liberal coalition members are the ones who want to undermine the health, well-being and financial success of female entrepreneurs. We know that 80% of businesses in the natural health products sector are small businesses, and 50% of these businesses are managed by CEOs who are females. There is no better way for people to ensure their success in this world than to be their own boss. When someone is the master of their own destiny, that creates a security and a need for nobody else. From my perspective, my wife and I have been married almost 34 years. She is a female entrepreneur. When I look at her success and the satisfaction it brings her to know that she certainly does not have to rely on me and that she is incredibly successful, that is the kind of thing I would want for my daughters as well, and for any entrepreneur in this great country. They should be able to say they are the master of their own destiny. When we look at the regulations that have also been brought in, the member for Ottawa Centre went on and on about safety, etc. I know he was not at the health committee when this happened, so maybe we can cut him some slack based on that. Interestingly enough, the chief medical adviser for Health Canada was at the committee and talked about some of the disinformative statistics that the member spoke about previously. When we pressed the chief medical adviser for Health Canada on where the statistics were, the answer we were given was “Oh, you can look them up in the database.” Of course, doing our due diligence, we attempted to do so. The conflated numbers they actually presented in no way, shape, or form reflect reality. When we begin to look at this, the safety of natural health products is beyond reproach. Are there oftentimes difficulties in manufacturing? Yes. Health Canada, to its credit, has discovered some of those things, which is important. That happens in many different industries where the manufacturing process is studied to make things better by doing this, that or the other thing. That will be important to continue, but is it necessary to attempt to kill small and medium-sized business-based enterprises in this country? When these regulations continue, if the rest of our colleagues do not realize the importance of Bill C-368, what will happen is that this industry will die. Then what will happen? We know that 80% of Canadians use these products on a regular basis, and they will continue to use them. When they continue to use them, that means they are going to have to buy them somewhere else, other than from the great Canadian industry that we have, which we know is incredibly safe. The regulations that exist here in this country at the current time, barring the changes that the NDP-Liberal costly coalition wanted to make in the last budget, are the envy of the rest of the world. We have heard that. We did much research on this last year, when we went through all this foolishness before. Australia said it wanted to adopt what Canada is doing because it is so great. The regulations are absolutely incredible. When we tell them that the costly coalition wants to meddle with the regulations, they ask why we would want to do that, as we have a great system now. We look at increasing the cost of products by 50% to 75%, and we see 20% of small businesses in Canada having to close. We see some of the other kind of ridiculous regulations, such as increasing the label size to put more warnings, words and cautions, etc. The anti-plastic crew over here is increasing the amount of plastic that is going to have to be used to do it, at a cost of about $200,000 per product. It has often been said that this is regulation looking for something to regulate, as well as looking for another way to fuel the Liberals' ridiculous spending. Let us look at another industry, the prescription drug industry. I know some of my colleagues briefly talked about this. We know that the prescription drug industry harms seniors every year. The cost to the Canadian economy is about $2 billion every year due to the harm created by prescription drugs. Do we hear the NDP-Liberal coalition saying that we need to have more regulations related to that? No, we do not hear that. I think the other thing we need to know is the reason the government is going after this. The reason, of course, is related to an easy target to get more money to fuel its spending, which is costing Canadians greatly. We know that more and more Canadians, sadly, are going to food banks. We saw Food Banks Canada's 2024 report that came out showing that 50% more Canadians feel financially worse off compared to last year and that 25% of Canadians are experiencing food insecurity. This is a bill to fuel the government's spending habit, which is a sad commentary on a government that is out of ideas and out of time. We will continue to see these things, which will negatively affect the health of Canadians and their confidence to make the right decisions about their health care at the right time on their own terms.