On October 10, 2024, MP Blaine Calkins testified before the Standing Committee on Health (HESA) regarding Bill C-368, which seeks to repeal Sections 500-504 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1 (formerly Bill C-47). As you may know, these sections, embedded within the annual budget bill, redefine natural health products and subject the entire industry to heightened regulation and excessive fines up to $5,000,000 per day, by moving them fully into the therapeutic products category, alongside chemical drugs.
To learn more about Bill C-368 and its progress through First and Second Reading, click here.
His testimony was met with both support and skepticism, split down party lines, as various committee members questioned the necessity and potential consequences of the proposed legislation.
Bill C-368: Restoring Regulatory Balance
Calkins began by framing Bill C-368 as a necessary measure to restore balance in the regulation of NHPs, which he argued are generally safe and pose minimal harm compared to pharmaceutical products. He criticized Health Canada’s (HC) approach to regulation, asserting that the department has been overstepping its authority and not utilizing its existing powers. Calkins warned that the additional regulatory powers proposed under Bill C-47, which reclassified NHPs as therapeutic products, were unnecessary and would drive Canadian businesses out of the country and push consumers to riskier foreign markets.
Support from Conservative Colleagues
Conservative MPs Dr. Stephen Ellis and Laila Goodridge echoed Calkins’ concerns, with Ellis emphasizing the safety of NHPs and the disproportionate regulatory burden placed on this industry compared to riskier pharmaceuticals. Ellis highlighted that the NHP industry is predominantly female, both in terms of consumers and entrepreneurs, and argued that the regulatory changes under Bill C-47 would disproportionately affect women. Goodridge underscored the public’s significant engagement with this issue, citing numerous letters from constituents and an unusually full gallery in Ottawa as evidence of widespread concern.
Liberal Opposition and Concerns About Safety
On the other side of the debate, Liberal MP Yasir Naqvi voiced strong opposition to Bill C-368, warning that it would leave Canadians vulnerable to unsafe products by stripping HC of its ability to issue recalls. Naqvi further criticized the bill for failing to address key issues such as cost recovery and labelling changes, accusing Calkins of dishonesty in his presentation.
Calls for Amendments and Stakeholder Consultation
Other committee members, such as Bloc Québécois MP Mr. Thériault and NDP MP Peter Julian, raised the possibility of amending the bill. Thériault questioned whether nicotine products should be regulated under the same framework as NHPs, while Julian highlighted past legislative missteps and the need for greater consultation with industry stakeholders. Calkins expressed his preference that Bill C-368 should pass in its current form to avoid delays in its implementation and noted that concerns about the regulation of nicotine could be managed in other ways.
Final Remarks and the Path Forward
As the testimony concluded, Calkins reiterated the importance of Bill C-368 in preserving consumer choice and protecting small NHP businesses from onerous regulations. He also pushed back against the characterization of NHPs as dangerous, arguing that adverse effects are rare and often minor. With 4 more hours of debate scheduled, stakeholders can continue to weigh in on this issue as the bill moves further through the study process.