SoVote

Context: Department of Health's Regulatory Changes for Natural Health Products Committee Business (HESA) - Oct/30/23

11:23:58 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

We've been through two meetings previous to this one where the Conservatives have filibustered the meeting and not really let anybody else speak. I'm just wondering if my honourable colleague intends on filibustering this meeting. I would rather hear from the witnesses from the natural health products industry who have been called here and have the benefit of their testimony and experience before we even vote on the motion by Dr. Ellis. If he's intending on filibustering the meeting, then maybe we can let the witnesses go if he doesn't want to hear from them. I think it's rude to let the witnesses sit here, when they've come here to testify, if Dr. Ellis has no intention of letting the committee hear from them or of having these witnesses lend us their expertise and experience, which I would like to have before this committee.

150 words

The Chair

11:24:41 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

I'm not sure it's a point of order. Dr. Ellis, if you want to address it, feel free. If you don't, you have the floor again.

29 words

Mr. Stephen Ellis

11:24:47 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you very much, Chair. Again, the arbiter of this committee has intervened, sadly, to want to give his opinion on how committees should run. This motion has been duly tabled before this committee. It was available for everyone to see, and it's an important motion. I would hope that my honourable NDP colleague would support the motion to defeat the Liberal government's, sponsored by his NDP colleagues, attempt to make changes to decimate an industry and remove freedom of choice from Canadians. That would be important. Returning to the matter at hand, we have spoken to many stakeholders, as I hope that many of my colleagues across the floor have as well, to understand that the almost incalculable regulations that have been put forward by Health Canada make it difficult to understand exactly how much these regulations are going to mean to Canadian manufacturers and distributors of natural health products. However, we do know very clearly that, when attempting to give these estimates, many businesses could see losses in revenue of hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is what leads very clearly to the significant belief that many Canadian businesses would actually go out of business. The industry would estimate that one in five businesses in Canada would go out of business related to these unfair and overburdensome regulatory changes. When we look at that, we begin to understand that there is good information available out there. Couple that with the need for Canadians to have freedom of choice and the ability to say that this is how they wish to manage their own health. Are Canadians going to make mistakes with respect to that? That is absolutely possible, but we cannot protect every citizen from every eventuality. That is not a style of government that any of us wishes to participate in. We have governments that absolutely control every movement and every thought that you have—now, that is not a country that I would like to live in—or a government that attempts to meet every anticipated need that one could have in their life. Therefore, in an industry such as the natural health products industry, which is underscored by the fact that people want to manage their own health—and have the ability to do so—I would suggest that the regulatory changes we see coming forward would be untenable, not just from a fiscal perspective but from a freedom perspective. The other thing I would like to bring forward is that, when we had the panel from Health Canada here, and even in their follow-up information, which was provided to us in written format, they continued to talk about some 700 people who may have been harmed in some way by natural health products. Chair, I would suggest that at some point, it would be quite fascinating if this committee sat together to attempt to access this database. There are no other words for it, but it's inaccessible and quite ridiculous in how it is framed. That then allows this Liberal government and Health Canada bureaucrats to be able to sit behind their numbers and say, “This actually does exist. There are 700 people, some of whom may have been harmed and may have been hospitalized.” When you don't have a database that is clear and searchable and would stand as a reference to say this is exactly where these numbers came from, that is not a helpful reference. Indeed, I would say it is a useless reference. Certainly when you look at the experience that we have on our team, not just with our members of Parliament but with our staff, and still are unable to make any sense out of the main reference used to support these regulatory changes, I would say that it is nothing but a sham and a sleight of hand. To underscore this, Chair—and I know committee members know this—I was a family doctor for 26 years. I wrote a lot of prescriptions, and I believe in the science that exists. It has helped people to live longer and suffer less. However, we know very clearly from a good reference that every year in this country, 50,000 seniors are hospitalized—not just harmed but hospitalized—by the use of prescription medications. Does that mean we should decimate that industry, that we should make it almost impossible, that we should add useless labels to people's pill bottles, that we should say people don't have the freedom to make their own choices with all of the same regulations and adding to them, even though they have perhaps stricter regulations than those on natural health products at the current time? Because that many more people just in the seniors group are hospitalized by prescription drugs, does that mean we can expect an assault on prescription drugs as well? We know very clearly that prescription medications and over-the-counter medications have potential and serious side effects, but we also know there are benefits. Therefore, when we allow Canadians to have this freedom of choice in a sector, as I said previously, which would be the envy of the rest of the world, and we know clearly that is a desire Canadians have, and we have a shady database on which the decision-making was based, and we know this certainly is something that will decimate an industry, and we know very clearly that the industry is not in favour of said changes, then, Chair, I do believe we need to speak up loudly and vociferously on behalf of Canadians. We need to let them know clearly that Conservatives wish them to continue to have their freedom of choice and that we wish to fight the regulations proposed on their behalf. We wish to fight those regulations proposed by the Minister of Health and Health Canada. That is the reason, Chair, we have moved this motion. I realize there are folks here to testify on this topic. I want to be respectful of that. The other part of it though is, as my colleague has been wont to bring forward many times, this committee is the master of its own destiny. Therefore, if we wish to have further meetings on this topic and have more stakeholders present and more witnesses present, including members of the public, then we are certainly able to do this. I would suggest, given this incredible stack of papers that everyone in this committee has received, adding more meetings to the study of the natural health products sector and the proposed draconian regulatory changes by Health Canada and by the Liberal government, supported by the NDP, would not be such a bad idea. Chair, I shall leave it at that. Thank you.

1143 words

The Chair

11:33:18 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Dr. Ellis. The motion is in order. The debate is on the motion. Next up is Mr. Doherty, please.

21 words

Mr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC)

11:33:24 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to our colleague. For the purpose of this conversation, I will read again what the motion is: That, given that the proposed cost recovery and labelling regulations on natural health products are expected to have negative impacts on both Canadian businesses and consumer choice, the committee call upon the Minister of Health to immediately revoke these changes, and that the committee report this motion to the House. I bring this up again because, as has been mentioned, I'm not quite sure about the exact amount of correspondence we have received, but I am on record as saying that this is by far the topic that has garnered the most correspondence, messages, emails and calls to my office in my eight years of being a parliamentarian. It's unbelievable, the amount we have. I think we have a number of bankers boxes, both in my riding office and here in Ottawa at my Hill office, filled with fliers, really Canadians' feedback. That's, as I've said before, why we're here, to listen to all Canadians regardless of political stripe or political leaning. I do want to bring us back to the first meeting we had on this, when I had my intervention with Dr. Sharma. Part of the reason we have concerns over this is testimony from Dr. Sharma and her comments. If you remember, it was Dr. Sharma's testimony that over 700 Canadians had lost their lives due to mislabelling. Again, as I've said before, I don't want to see anybody lose their life due to this, and it is deeply concerning, but some of her comments were suspect. If you'll remember, I raised those points with her, and she used a specific case, one I was familiar with, the death of 18-month-old Ezekiel Stephan. She attributed the mislabelling of health care products in her testimony to one of the important reasons that these regulations need to take place. I believe her testimony was that we had already seen the death of an 18-month-old child. When I questioned her on this, saying, in fact, that her testimony was misleading, she gave me a verbal gymnastics explanation as to why she used that. When I pressed her on it, she refused to back down from that. The reality of that case is that Ezekiel was fighting meningitis. He had young parents who mistakenly thought that their baby, who I believe was their first, was struggling with strep or croup. I couldn't imagine what they were going through. I have four children, all young adults now. I have a young granddaughter, and you know, especially if it's your first child, every time that baby cries, you're wondering what the problem is, what's going on and how you can help. They were grasping, so they thought that they were doing the right thing, and they presented not necessarily natural health food products but home remedies. I believe one was a garlic and apple vinegar tonic. When it got to the point where the baby was really struggling, they called for an ambulance. That ambulance was not equipped with breathing devices that could fit an infant, which ultimately led to that baby's passing—not natural health food products. It was a combination of terrible events. I bring that back up, because I believe we're rushing here. Our natural health food industry is regulated. We definitely had testimony from Health Canada officials who were here. They said they did their due diligence and conducted surveys. I believe that's what Dr. Supriya Sharma said. Going back to Dr. Supriya Sharma's comments, Mr. Davies' last question to Dr. Sharma was, “I think it would help Dr. Sharma and all of us with this. In that case, did the product that was given make a claim that it would treat the particular ailment the child had?”

666 words

Ms. Sonia Sidhu

11:40:13 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I know everything is important here, but we heard important testimony from Ms. Sheldrick. We want to know more. We want to ask questions. She lost her son, and many members of the committee want to pose questions to the witnesses. We want to work together. I urge my colleagues from the other aisle to listen to the testimony, so we can work together. The other question I want to ask is whether they can stay until the next panel, because it's very important to ask questions. That's all, Mr. Chair.

101 words

The Chair

11:40:59 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Ms. Sidhu. Although those were all valid points, they were not points of order. The motion is in order. The motion is allowed. It may not be something that everyone likes, but members are acting entirely within their rights. Go ahead, Mr. Doherty.

45 words

Mr. Todd Doherty

11:41:16 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll go back to the last question that Mr. Davies.... Again I think it frames what we're talking about here with this motion and the reasons why we have concerns with it. The transcript reads: Mr. Davies:: I think it would help Dr. Sharma and all of us with this. In that case, did the product that was given make a claim that it would treat the particular ailment the child had? Dr. Supriya Sharma: We don't have the details.... She says, “We don't have the details”, yet it's one of the cases that she cited as to why it is so important that this industry face costly regulations—costly regulations that could potentially see the demise of 60% to 70% of these small businesses, if what we're also hearing from those officials is that the majority of the businesses in this industry are small to medium-sized businesses. The Canadian Health Food Association is the largest Canadian organization dedicated to natural health and organic products. Their members consist of over 1,000 businesses across Canada, including manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers, distributors and importers of natural health products. Indeed, natural health products are an important source of organic and wellness products used by over 71% of Canadians. The industry is a $5.5-billion industry. It generates $2.8 billion in taxable revenue and supports over 54,000 Canadian jobs. As I said, many of them are small to medium-sized businesses. After accounting for the full supply chain and increased economic spending, its total footprint is estimated to be $11 billion of GDP. Within the sector, 86% of the businesses have 50 employees or less. The reason I say that is that these small businesses are the backbone of this industry, and these regulations are at risk of closing the doors of these small businesses. Ninety-four per cent of those businesses within the sector have 200 employees or less, and 97% have 500 employees or less. These discriminatory regulatory changes under the outdated and broken self-care framework will crush the small and medium-sized businesses. They'll have a profound impact: 83% of these businesses say they will struggle to absorb the costs that these regulations will bring in, and 76% of the industry responded to indicate a high likelihood of product removal from Canada. This means Canadians won't have access to these products. Sixty-six per cent say employment will suffer, resulting in devastating job losses. One in five businesses will be at risk of closing. Our colleague, in his intervention, mentioned his concerns. My primary concern on this is not just the testimony of Dr. Sharma, which I find suspect—I'm sorry, but I gave her multiple opportunities to withdraw those comments. As I said in my testimony, I believe her to be a good person, but it is misleading when you stand here before a parliamentary committee and you provide testimony as such and you don't have all the facts. Because she is a doctor, we just take that testimony at face level, but I think that behooves all of us to do the research on that, which is why I questioned her that day. Overwhelmingly, it is this Canadian industry that we are at risk of decimating due to these unnecessary regulatory changes. I'm not discounting the testimony that we heard today and the written submissions as well. I think again, as Dr. Ellis had mentioned, on the 700 deaths that are being attributed to mislabelling, when we ask for data on that, we're not able to access that. At least, I haven't seen the data on that. I'm sorry. It's not deaths. It's 700 adverse effects. That was my mistake. Those are events and cases that.... Again, that's why I made that mistake. It's because it was my understanding that it was deaths. If we had the data, then perhaps we could accurately state our facts. Again, it's what we need. Going back to Dr. Sharma's testimony, I take no joy in doing this, but Canadians deserve for us to do our jobs when we come here. I've said it before and I'll say it probably multiple times during the course of our committee work. Committees are supposed to be masters of their own destiny. We're here to do the job. We have medical experts on this committee. Sadly, we are relegated to...not talking out the clock, but having to take control because, as we've seen in the past, when we ask questions or we push for discussion outside of the government agenda, debate gets adjourned or we get railroaded. That's sad. With that, Mr. Chair, I will cede the floor to the next speaker. I support my colleague's motion. Thank you.

823 words

The Chair

11:48:06 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Dr. Kitchen, go ahead, please.

5 words

Mr. Robert Kitchen (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC)

11:48:09 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank my colleague for educating a lot of us on some of the inconsistencies and possible misinformation that was provided by Dr. Sharma on this very issue of the unfortunate demise of this young child. It's interesting, as my colleague presented to us today, the stacks of information we've received from all across this country. He's on the east coast. I'm in the Prairies, and my colleague is on the west coast. It's going all across.... We've all received this. As he has indicated, I know that our colleagues across the way have received it as well. In pointing out so many issues here, when we look at this motion that's being put forward to us, it's very clear and very straightforward, because the reality is that what we're seeing here is a discussion on regulatory changes that were presented in Bill C-47, dealing in particular with sections 500 to 504, I believe. The changes are being imposed upon small businesses in Canada, which provide, as my colleague has pointed out, tremendous economic benefit to this country, and that's going to have a huge impact on consumers and the rights of those consumers to choose what they would like to use, whether it's vitamins.... I take vitamin D and vitamin C. I use the Jamieson brand. That's what I use. It's a product that I've used for many years. It's very clear on that exactly what I'm taking, but there are so many other ones out there. Ultimately, the process is that there's a regulatory step that's in place. Could it be improved? Yes, it could be, and maybe the industry.... In my conversations on this with people, they've indicated that they are prepared to make those changes to adjust that so that we can have that avenue. On the issue of dealing with it such that people can actually read what's put out there, they've also indicated the great value of maybe adding more into it. However, that said, the packaging part now becomes a huge aspect of it, because if we're dealing with a hundred tablets of vitamin C in a small tube, the amount of paper that has to be produced to be able to put on there in a print that people can read.... I have to put my glasses on, and if I don't have them with me when I do it, that's on me to know what I'm reading and what I'm not. Ultimately that cost to the industry is going to be in the millions and hundreds of millions of dollars, which in turn is going to have a huge impact and result in Canadians all across this country.... I like to use the term “trickle-down effect”. It is a huge trickle-down effect. I talk about it from the petroleum industry point of view and how shutting down the petroleum industry, the coal industry and the energy industry trickles down to those small communities. The same thing happens here with natural products. You start impacting that, and that trickle-down effect is going to affect small businesses. A small community that has a small business person in there who maybe employs one or two people lays off one person. That person has a family of five. Where do they go? They move somewhere else. That community is impacted and so on. It trickles down. The schools get impacted because they don't have the kids in the schools. These are huge impacts, and we need to be aware of that. This motion is basically saying, “Enough of all of this.” Let's support this and go back to the government to say, “Enough. We don't see this as acceptable. These changes are a huge impact on the economy and on the industry.” Our witnesses today talked a bit about adverse effects. One of the things I wrote down when she made the comment about it was, how many? How many adverse effects do you...? Dr. Sharma has said 700. That's 700 out of a population of.... What's the population of Canada? It's 30 million-plus people—

728 words

C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023

Ms. Sonia Sidhu

11:52:51 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. Calling the testimony of Canada's chief medical officer misinformation is dangerous. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

24 words

The Chair

11:52:59 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you. That's debate. Its not a point of order. Dr. Kitchen, go ahead.

15 words

Mr. Robert Kitchen

11:53:05 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The research out there says that, in hospital situations, 7.5% of the patient population that gets admitted to hospitals is due to adverse events for regulated prescription medications. That's huge—7.5%—when you compare that to 700 for natural health products. Ultimately, “The Canadian Adverse Events Study”—this is from back in 2004—showed that, of that 185,000 of the 2.5 million hospital admissions, 70,000 of those could potentially have been prevented. This is with regard to prescription medications. To turn around and say 700 from natural health food products.... Look at the difference. There's a huge difference between those numbers. I think this is a very educational part. We need to be very aware of these facts. We need to turn around and say that, yes, there are adverse effects. Yes, the industry needs to make certain that they're doing what they're doing, and it needs to be stepping up to make certain that that's done. I believe that the industry is doing that and making the steps, and it's prepared to make changes. However, when all of a sudden this government turns around and starts putting in right-to-sell, per-item costs for that industry, it's a huge cost, and that's an annual cost for every product they have. Then you turn around and take a look at the class of the level of the product that they're trying to sell. I remember when I was a regulator dealing in the industry and in my profession. People brought across the table a new ultrasound machine. It had to go in front of Health Canada, and in front of Health Canada, it had to go through the process of making sure that it was appropriate. That cost was huge. Now, granted, we're talking about a product that's providing ultrasound treatment to somebody. Yes, there are a lot of issues that can result in various side effects there, so that product needed to be regulated appropriately. However, the costs were huge. When we're talking about a health food product—like a vitamin—and we classify that and have these huge, thousands-of-dollars costs.... Then, on top of that, you have the site licensing fees, which are supposed to be based on a cost recovery, yet no one has done an assessment on exactly what that cost is. These are huge amounts. I think the steps and the processes are not in place to follow those aspects and to make certain that we are doing what we should be doing. My colleague has put forward a motion that we're dealing with that I think we need to look at, and look at immediately, to turn around and say to the government that this is wrong. The regulatory process has been put forward. Many people in the industry have put forward their information. It's time to turn to the government and say that this is not acceptable. Either it goes back to relooking at this, or we end it as we speak. With that said, Mr. Chair, I want to thank you for the ability to speak on this. I ask my colleagues to support this motion.

558 words

The Chair

11:57:00 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Dr. Kitchen. Before I recognize Dr. Hanley, I just want to say something to the witnesses. You committed to be here for one hour. We are now approaching the end of that hour. The first thing I want to say to you is thank you. However, the second thing is that, if we are able to dispense with this motion, I will be asking the committee to allow you to stay until the end of the meeting in case there are questions for you. That may be a decision that we will take. I understand that you committed to be here for an hour, so if you wish to leave, you're free to do so. If you are able to stay, there's a chance that you may be able to further contribute if we can deal with the motion and if the committee agrees to include you in the rounds of questions after the next panel has a chance to present their opening statements. With that, next on the speakers list with regard to the motion is Dr. Hanley.

183 words

Mr. Brendan Hanley (Yukon, Lib.)

11:57:58 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to our witnesses for their patience. We're all concerned about the viability of the natural health products industry.

25 words

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

11:58:10 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

8 words

The Chair

11:58:13 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

We have a point of order from Mr. Thériault.

11 words

Mr. Luc Thériault

11:58:15 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

We need to fix the sound in the room so that I can hear the interpretation.

16 words

The Chair

11:58:23 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Mr. Thériault. We'll do that right now. Could you hold off for a second, Dr. Hanley? We want to make sure it's not dangerous for those listening in terms of the sound levels.

40 words

Mr. Brendan Hanley

11:58:40 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Is it better now?

4 words

SoVote

House Committee