Health

This meeting of the Health Committee was primarily about a proposed law, Bill C-224, which aims to change how natural health products are regulated in Canada. The main goal of the proposed law is to reverse changes made in 2023 that put natural health products under the same rules as prescription drugs. The committee heard from the person who proposed the law, Blaine Calkins, and from government health officials. Blaine Calkins, a committee member, argued that natural health products like vitamins and supplements are different from pharmaceutical drugs and should not be regulated in the same way. He said that over 80% of Canadians use these products and that the industry is worth $5.5 billion. Calkins highlighted that Canada already had strong regulations for natural health products before 2023, including a pre-market approval process. He expressed concern that the new regulations are too strict and could harm Canadian businesses, potentially driving them to the United States. Health Canada officials, Kim Godard and Sara O'Connor, explained that while natural health products are generally lower risk, they are not without risk. They stated that the 2023 changes, known as "Vanessa's Law" authorities, gave the Minister of Health new powers to act quickly if a natural health product poses a serious health risk, such as ordering recalls. They also mentioned ongoing efforts to reduce red tape for the industry, including a simplified registration process and more flexible labeling, but stressed the importance of having recall powers as a last resort. During the discussion, committee members from different parties debated the need for these new powers versus the potential burden on the industry. There was a lot of confusion and disagreement during the voting process on the proposed law's clauses. Ultimately, the committee voted against every clause of the proposed law, effectively defeating it. This means the proposed law will be reported back to the House of Commons as an empty document, without any of its original content.

The Canadian House of Commons Health Committee met to discuss a proposed law, Bill C-224, which aims to change how natural health products are regulated in Canada. The main point of contention was whether natural health products should be removed from the definition of "therapeutic products" under the Food and Drugs Act. This change would affect the application of "Vanessa's Law," which gives Health Canada stronger powers to ensure the safety of therapeutic products. Key speakers included representatives from the Canadian Health Food Association (CHFA), Food, Health and Consumer Products of Canada (FHCP), the Natural Health Product Protection Association (NHPPA), the Canadian Pharmacists Association (CPhA), Morphus Inc. (a women's health company), and the Traditional Chinese Medicine Association of Canada. The CHFA, NHPPA, Morphus Inc., and the Traditional Chinese Medicine Association argued that natural health products are fundamentally different from pharmaceutical drugs, are already well-regulated, and that the current regulatory approach is creating unnecessary costs and limiting access for Canadians. They emphasized that many Canadians rely on these products for their health and that the stricter regulations are harming Canadian businesses and driving consumers to unregulated foreign products. In contrast, the FHCP and CPhA expressed concerns about removing natural health products from the "therapeutic product" definition. They argued that this would strip Health Canada of important safety tools, such as the ability to order mandatory recalls or demand information from manufacturers in cases of serious health risks. They highlighted potential dangers from product contamination, inaccurate labeling, or interactions with prescription medications, and stressed the importance of maintaining robust oversight to protect public health. The CPhA also pointed out that pharmacists often identify potential safety concerns with natural health products and need reliable information and regulatory authority to ensure patient safety. No decisions were made at this meeting. The committee is scheduled to meet again on October 7 for a clause-by-clause review of the proposed law, with a deadline for amendments set for October 5 at 4 p.m.

This meeting of the Health Committee was about choosing two new vice-chairs. The committee members elected Raquel Dancho from the Conservative party as the first vice-chair and Marie-Hélène Gaudreau from the Bloc Québécois as the second vice-chair. Both were elected easily without any other candidates. After being elected, Ms. Dancho thanked the committee and spoke about the important health issues facing Canadians, such as long wait times, fewer doctors, and not enough hospital beds. She said that the Conservatives would work with others when possible, but also challenge the government to improve health care. Ms. Gaudreau also thanked the committee for the warm welcome and emphasized that health is very important to Canadians. She expressed her happiness to work with the committee. Other committee members, like Ms. Chi, also welcomed the new vice-chairs and looked forward to working together to improve health care for everyone.

The committee meeting began with a discussion on Canada's control over its medicines, but quickly turned into lengthy debates about what studies the committee should focus on next.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Health met to discuss PrescribeIT, a national e-prescribing program. The committee heard from Dr. Peter Vaughan, Board Chair of Canada Health Infoway, and Mohamed El-Demerdash, President of Telus Health. Dr. Vaughan explained that Infoway's role was to create the technical system for e-prescribing, which they did, but the adoption of the system by doctors has been low. El-Demerdash stated that Telus Health built and operated the technology, but adoption rates were the responsibility of Infoway and the government. Committee members questioned Dr. Vaughan about the low adoption rates among prescribers, the high salary and severance package of the former CEO, Michael Green, and the transparency of Canada Health Infoway's spending. Dr. Vaughan defended the program as a technological success but acknowledged the need for provinces and territories to implement policies to encourage adoption. Members also asked about contracts awarded to consulting firms and potential conflicts of interest. El-Demerdash explained Telus Health's role in building and maintaining the PrescribeIT system, noting its high reliability. He also mentioned concerns raised about the system's user interface and workflow, which may have affected adoption rates. Committee members discussed the intellectual property ownership of the platform, with Telus owning 85% despite public funding. Ultimately, a motion was put forward to invite the Minister of Health and officials from Health Canada and the Treasury Board Secretariat to appear before the committee to discuss PrescribeIT. An amendment to remove a timeline for their appearance was passed. The committee adjourned before voting on the main motion.

The Health Committee met to discuss two main topics. First, they debated whether to call Michael Green, the former CEO of Canada Health Infoway, to testify about the PrescribeIT program. Some committee members felt it was important to question him about $300 million spent on the program, especially since he recently left his position. Other committee members argued that the motion to summon the CEO referred to the current CEO, not a former one. After a challenge to the chair's ruling, the committee voted against summoning Mr. Green. Next, the committee heard from Dr. Harpreet Kochhar, President of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). Dr. Kochhar discussed the CFIA's role in ensuring food safety, protecting plant and animal health, and supporting the Canadian economy. He highlighted the agency's efforts to modernize regulations and reduce red tape for businesses. Committee members questioned Dr. Kochhar about various issues, including the closure of a CFIA laboratory in Longueuil, veterinarian shortages, and the impact of regulations on the agriculture sector. A motion was introduced to compel CFIA to release documents related to the Longueuil laboratory closure, but debate on the motion was adjourned. Finally, the committee welcomed Dr. Joss Reimer, the new Chief Public Health Officer of Canada. Dr. Reimer spoke about her priorities, including strengthening public trust in health institutions, addressing vaccine-preventable diseases, and tackling the toxic drug crisis. Committee members questioned Dr. Reimer on topics such as declining vaccination rates, the government's approach to supervised drug consumption sites, and the composition of a pharmaceutical task force. Motions were introduced to compel the Public Health Agency of Canada to release documents related to the Longueuil laboratory closure and the pharmaceutical task force, but debate on both motions was adjourned.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Health met to discuss the PrescribeIT program. This program aims to allow doctors to send prescriptions to pharmacies electronically. Committee members are concerned about the rising costs of the program, which may be as high as $350 million. They feel like previous witnesses from Canada Health Infoway, Health Canada, and Telus Health did not provide enough information or gave conflicting answers. Dan Mazier, a Conservative member, proposed that the Auditor General of Canada conduct an audit of PrescribeIT. This audit would look at the program's costs, how it's run, its termination, transition, and intellectual property arrangements. Mazier also suggested inviting the Minister of Health, officials from Health Canada, and the Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada to appear before the committee to answer questions about PrescribeIT. Helena Konanz and Burton Bailey, also Conservative members, echoed Mazier's concerns about the lack of information and the need to understand where the money for PrescribeIT is going. Bailey also mentioned a new proposed law in the Senate that would involve IT, and he wants to understand how PrescribeIT might be integrated into that. Maggie Chi, a Liberal member, moved to have the meeting go "in camera," meaning it would be closed to the public. After some discussion, the committee voted to proceed in camera, suspending the public meeting.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Health met to discuss Canada's pharmaceutical sovereignty. The committee heard from several witnesses about the challenges and opportunities in ensuring a stable and secure supply of medicines for Canadians. Speakers discussed the need for domestic manufacturing of critical medications, regulatory agility, and better data sharing. They also highlighted the importance of including pharmacies in pharmaceutical policy discussions. Glenn Thibeault from Diabetes Canada emphasized the need for domestic insulin manufacturing, pointing out that Canada, despite discovering insulin, does not produce it domestically. He suggested leveraging Canada's new defence industrial strategy to support domestic pharmaceutical manufacturing. Christine Donaldson from HealthPRO Canada stressed the importance of strategic domestic manufacturing for critical medications and updating public procurement to prioritize reliability and redundancy. She also called for regulatory agility and enhanced data sharing. Denis Leclerc from VaxSynergy discussed the organization's work in vaccine development and the need for sustained funding to support Canadian expertise and innovation. Stéphanie Michaud from BioCanRx challenged the committee to focus on creating novel therapies in Canada, not just securing the supply of existing ones. She highlighted the need for a permanent translational health research program to fund the work required to move Canadian discoveries to clinical trials. Angelique Berg from the Canadian Association for Pharmacy Distribution Management emphasized the importance of considering the cost of physical access to medicines in policy decisions and focusing domestic manufacturing on a targeted list of critical medicines. Sandra Hanna from the Neighbourhood Pharmacy Association of Canada stressed the importance of including pharmacies in pharmaceutical policy discussions and improving supply chain visibility. During the meeting, a motion was introduced to order the production of documents related to the PrescribeIT program, a federally funded e-prescription initiative. This led to a debate and ultimately a vote to resume discussion on the motion. The committee also discussed the need for a coordinated funding approach to support translational research and the importance of regulatory innovation to enable hospital-based manufacturing of therapies. The meeting was adjourned before all topics could be fully discussed.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Health met to discuss issues related to PrescribeIT, a national e-prescribing platform. The committee heard from Ratcho Batchvarov from Telus Health about the technical aspects and value of PrescribeIT. He highlighted Telus Health's role in building the platform and the investments made over nine years. Michael Green, President and CEO of Canada Health Infoway, discussed the program's history, its achievements in establishing a technical foundation for e-prescribing, and the decision to transition to a national e-prescribing standard. He noted that provinces and territories have differing needs, leading to the shift towards a more flexible, standards-based approach. Finally, Jocelyne Voisin, Elizabeth Toller, and David Jones from the Department of Health provided context on PrescribeIT within the broader digital health landscape and explained the federal government's role in supporting e-prescribing initiatives.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Health met to discuss the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction (CCSA). The committee heard from Dr. Alexander Caudarella, the CEO of CCSA, and several board members, including Neil Arao, Scott Elliott, Susan Russell-Csanyi, and Dr. Louis Hugo Francescutti. They talked about CCSA's role in providing evidence-based advice on substance use and addiction to the government and communities. They also discussed the importance of collaboration across different sectors and levels of government to address substance use issues. Dr. Caudarella highlighted CCSA's work in gathering data on substance use trends and providing guidance to communities. He emphasized the need for a connected system of care, where people can easily access treatment and support. Board members shared their experiences working with people affected by substance use and stressed the importance of compassion, accountability, and evidence-informed approaches. They also talked about the challenges of scaling up effective solutions and the need for coordinated responses across different sectors. Committee members asked questions about various topics, including safe consumption sites, decriminalization, and the effectiveness of current policies. Dr. Caudarella emphasized that there are no one-size-fits-all solutions and that communities need to be involved in decision-making. He also acknowledged the need for law enforcement to target organized crime. The committee discussed the importance of prevention and early intervention, as well as the need for more data sharing and collaboration across different levels of government. During the meeting, committee members discussed funding for CCSA and questioned whether it was sufficient to address the opioid crisis. Dr. Caudarella acknowledged that more funding would be helpful, but emphasized the importance of spending existing resources effectively. He also highlighted the need to involve more health care professionals in addressing substance use issues. The committee agreed to consider a motion to invite the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada and the President of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to appear before the committee to discuss their work. Ultimately, the committee agreed to invite additional speakers to future meetings to continue the discussion, and requested additional information from the CCSA on specific topics raised during the meeting.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Health met to discuss a motion to get documents related to several health programs. Dan Mazier, a Conservative member, introduced a motion asking for documents about the Canadian Dental Care Plan, the PrescribeIT program, agreements with Canadian Blood Services, and other health initiatives. He argued that the Liberal members were blocking transparency and hiding information from Canadians, especially regarding the $250-million PrescribeIT program. Liberal member Sonia Sidhu proposed an amendment to remove a section of the motion related to PrescribeIT, arguing that the request was too broad and could compromise commercial sensitivity and privacy. This led to a lot of debate about the order in which committee members had raised their hands to speak, and the meeting was temporarily suspended. Eventually, the committee voted to approve Ms. Sidhu's amendment, with a subamendment to hold a three-hour meeting with TELUS, Canada Health Infoway, and government officials to discuss PrescribeIT. Helena Konanz, a Conservative member, then introduced an amendment to remove the phrase "except with Quebec" from several sections of the motion, and to remove "and in both official languages." This amendment was also approved. Finally, Maggie Chi, a Liberal member, added an amendment to ensure that all documents would respect the Privacy Act, which was also approved. The committee then voted to approve the overall motion as amended. Lastly, Matt Strauss requested the final reports regarding the Grifols plasma collection centres in Winnipeg.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Health met to discuss Canada's pharmaceutical sovereignty, or how much Canada can rely on itself for the medicines it needs. The committee heard from several witnesses representing different parts of the healthcare system. Dr. Margot Burnell, president of the Canadian Medical Association, spoke about the importance of reliable access to medications for patients and the healthcare system. She recommended investing in domestic medication production and prioritizing Canadian-made medical products. Mary Hughes from Grifols Canada discussed their partnership with Canadian Blood Services to increase Canada's self-sufficiency in plasma medicines. She highlighted their investments in Canadian infrastructure and their commitment to Canadian patients. Arianne Trudeau, executive director of Médicament Québec, emphasized the importance of collaboration between academia and industry to build a strong drug supply chain in Quebec and Canada. She recommended clear guidelines and objectives for pharmaceutical sovereignty and sustained government support for the life sciences sector. The committee questioned the witnesses on various aspects of pharmaceutical sovereignty, including drug shortages, domestic production, and the role of government in ensuring access to medications. Later in the meeting, Dr. Martyn Judson, an addictions specialist, raised concerns about the over-prescription of short-acting opioids and the potential harms of safe supply programs. Dr. Mina Tadrous, an associate professor at the University of Toronto, emphasized the importance of data-driven decision-making and a targeted approach to pharmaceutical sovereignty. Dr. Sadaf Faisal from the Canadian Pharmacists Association discussed the impact of drug shortages on pharmacists and patients and recommended strengthening domestic manufacturing, establishing a list of medications at high risk of shortage, and improving data collection and monitoring. The committee agreed to request the complete and unredacted agreements between Canadian Blood Services and Grifols announced on September 7, 2022, to be deposited with the clerk of the committee no later than April 10, 2026. The committee also passed a motion to allow associate members to receive notices of meetings and access to digital binders.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Health met to discuss several topics, including supplementary budget estimates, the Canadian Dental Care Plan, and safe drug consumption sites. Minister of Health Marjorie Michel answered questions about funding for various health initiatives, such as the National Consensus Conference on Hemovigilance, naloxone distribution in Indigenous communities, and a measles prevention campaign. She also spoke about the government's focus on men's health and the toxic drug crisis, emphasizing the need for community-based solutions. Committee members questioned the Minister on a range of issues. There was a lot of discussion about the effectiveness and safety of supervised drug consumption sites, with some members citing a study suggesting that closing a consumption site did not increase deaths. The Minister defended the sites as life-saving measures, while others argued for a focus on addiction treatment and recovery. There were also questions about the Canadian Dental Care Plan, including concerns about laboratory fees and patient eligibility. The Minister and department officials committed to providing written responses to several questions. Later in the meeting, committee members debated a motion to compel the production of documents related to the Canadian Dental Care Plan, safe consumption sites, and other health programs. The debate became heated, with accusations of obstruction and filibustering. An amendment to the motion was proposed but ultimately withdrawn. The committee also discussed the closure of a Canadian Food Inspection Agency laboratory in Longueuil, with officials assuring members that the closure would not affect food safety or scientific capacity. The meeting was adjourned before a final decision on the motion could be reached.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Health met to discuss Canada's pharmaceutical sovereignty. The committee heard from several witnesses representing pharmaceutical companies and research institutions. The discussion covered topics such as domestic drug manufacturing, supply chain security, regulatory processes, and innovation in the pharmaceutical sector. Jeff Watson from Apotex emphasized the importance of domestic generic pharmaceutical manufacturing and urged the government to prioritize this sector in its "buy Canadian" policy. Michel Bouvier, a professor at the Université de Montréal, highlighted the need for local innovation and development of new therapies, emphasizing the IRIC-IRICoR model as an example of how innovation infrastructure can contribute to pharmaceutical sovereignty. Julian Somers, a clinical psychologist, raised concerns about addiction policies and potential conflicts of interest in the pharmaceutical industry. Jim Keon from the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association stressed that cost-saving generic and biosimilar medicines are strategic assets and called for addressing barriers to market entry for these medicines. Terry Creighton from the Canadian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Exporters Alliance advocated for strengthening domestic drug manufacturing and proposed a five-point action plan. Bettina Hamelin from Innovative Medicines Canada warned that Canada's access to new medicines is at risk and called for strategic action to strengthen pharmaceutical sovereignty. During the meeting, committee members questioned witnesses on various issues, including the role of pharmaceutical companies in the opioid crisis, the impact of government policies on domestic manufacturing, and the need for regulatory reforms. A motion was introduced to summon a representative from Grifols, a pharmaceutical company, to testify before the committee. The committee agreed to include the Grifols representative as part of a panel of witnesses for one hour.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Health met to discuss a proposed law to create a Living Donor Recognition Medal. This medal would honor Canadians who donate organs, blood, or bone marrow to save lives. Ziad Aboultaif, a Member of Parliament who donated part of his liver to his son, presented the proposed law. He emphasized the importance of raising awareness about organ donation and thanked committee members for their support. Christopher McCreery, an expert on the Canadian honors system, also spoke, raising concerns about including post-nominal letters after the medal, arguing it doesn't fit within the existing honors system and could diminish recognition for military members. During the meeting, committee members discussed the details of the proposed law and considered amendments. They talked about who should be eligible for the medal, including blood donors, and how the medal should be awarded. Some members raised concerns about comparing blood donation to organ donation, as organ donation involves a greater physical risk. However, others argued that long-term blood donors also deserve recognition for their commitment to saving lives. The committee ultimately agreed to several amendments to the proposed law. These changes broadened eligibility for the medal to include blood and bone marrow donors, and clarified the process for awarding the medal. The committee decided that the Governor General could award the medal to non-Canadians if the donation occurred within the Canadian health system. They also removed a clause mandating public ceremonies for the medal presentation. After making these changes, the committee approved the proposed law as amended. The next step is for the proposed law to go back to the House of Commons for a third reading. If it passes there, it will then go to the Senate for consideration. The committee also approved a modified work plan for a study on Canada's pharmaceutical sovereignty. Overall, the meeting was productive, with committee members working together to improve the proposed law and move it forward in the legislative process. The goal is to create a meaningful way to recognize and encourage life-saving donations in Canada.

The Health Committee met to discuss the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP), which provides temporary health coverage to certain foreign nationals. The committee reviewed a report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) projecting the program's costs. Jason Jacques, Interim Parliamentary Budget Officer, presented the report, highlighting that IFHP costs could reach $1.5 billion by 2030. Committee members questioned the PBO team about the program's rising costs, eligibility criteria, and potential for abuse. Dan Mazier (Conservative) raised concerns about the program's rapid growth and the inclusion of supplemental benefits for asylum seekers, even those with rejected claims or facing serious charges. Doug Eyolfson (Liberal) inquired about the impact of proposed co-payments and the potential long-term cost savings of providing early treatment. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Bloc Québécois) questioned the program's administrative capacity and the allocation of funding between provinces. Several committee members expressed interest in a more detailed analysis of the program, including the impact of proposed changes, a breakdown of supplemental benefits, and the financial sensitivity to processing times. A motion was introduced to request an updated report from the PBO with further in-depth analysis. After much debate and several amendments, the committee approved a motion requesting an updated report from the PBO and inviting the PBO, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, and officials from both departments to testify before the committee. The committee also agreed to a budget for an upcoming meeting and discussed the order of future business. A motion was passed outlining the committee's upcoming work, including a study on pharmaceutical sovereignty and consideration of a proposed law.