Vote No
An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (natural health products)
The bill removes natural health products (NHPs) from the Food and Drugs Act’s definition of “therapeutic product,” except nicotine replacement therapies, so they are no longer subject to the same post-market safety monitoring and enforcement tools as drugs and devices. It repeals two oversight provisions (s. 21.321 and s. 21.8(2)) and provides a transitional amnesty halting prosecutions for certain NHP-related offences committed after the 2023 Budget Implementation Act changes and before this bill comes into force. In plain terms, it rolls back recent expansions of Health Canada’s powers (e.g., recall and adverse-event regimes under Vanessa’s Law) over NHPs. The aim is to reduce regulatory burden on the NHP sector, but it also weakens federal tools for rapid recalls, transparency, and enforcement.
While the bill meaningfully reduces red tape for NHP businesses, it weakens national safety monitoring and enforcement, risking consumer trust and reputational standing that underpin long‑run growth. The economic upside is modest and sector‑specific, and it undermines the state’s ability to deliver efficient, effective public protection.
Mr. Speaker, why would the government support Bill C-224, which strips Health Canada of recall and adverse‑event powers over natural health products, and how does that make Canadians safer or our products more competitive abroad?
Mr. Speaker, what is the government’s cost–benefit analysis of C-224: how much red-tape savings will businesses realize, and what are the projected health-system and consumer costs if unsafe products remain on shelves longer due to weaker enforcement?
Mr. Speaker, will the minister commit to amending C-224 to retain post‑market monitoring, mandatory recalls, and hospital adverse‑event reporting for NHPs—while cutting duplicative paperwork and fees—so we can protect families and grow the sector at the same time?
Any GDP effect is niche and uncertain; consumer trust risks could offset modest sectoral gains.
Reduces regulatory constraints and penalties on NHP firms, easing operating conditions for entrepreneurs.
Lower compliance costs help firms, but weaker safety oversight may damage brand trust and competitiveness.
Could ease domestic production, but laxer monitoring may hinder acceptance in stricter foreign markets.
Lowers barriers to entry and compliance costs, potentially attracting investment in nutraceuticals and supplements.
Weakens recall and surveillance tools, risking higher downstream health costs and slower responses to safety issues.
No tax changes.
A narrow regulatory change with limited macroeconomic impact.
Did we get the builder vote wrong?
Email [email protected]