Charter of Health Freedom
Petitioners ask Parliament to guarantee Canadians’ right to health freedom by enacting the Charter of Health Freedom. The government responds it will keep Health Canada oversight, use powers for unsafe products and pursue regulatory flexibility.
Why we would sign this petition
- It would enshrine individual choice over prevention and treatment, giving legal protection to people who prefer natural or alternative health approaches.
- A formal charter could protect access to natural health products and limit regulatory steps that petitioners view as restricting options.
- Supporters may see a clear legal standard as a tool to challenge laws or regulations they view as restricting personal health decisions.
Why we wouldn’t sign this petition
- A charter could conflict with Health Canada’s ability to license, inspect and remove unsafe or mislabelled products, potentially reducing consumer safety.
- The government already maintains regulatory frameworks and targeted powers for unsafe products, so statutory change may be unnecessary or duplicative.
- Enshrining broad health freedom might create legal uncertainty for regulators and complicate proportionate risk‑based rules; reforming regulations could be a clearer solution.
The summary and both sets of reasons are AI-generated from the petition and given equal weight. Claims are the petitioners’ own; consult the official record for the full text.
Official petition
Petition to THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED We, the undersigned citizens of Canada draw the attention of the House to the following: WHEREAS, freedom of choice in health care is becoming increasingly curtailed and further threatened by legislation and statutory regulations of the Government of Canada. WHEREAS it is a fundamental right for individuals to be able to choose how to prevent illness or how to address illness or injury in their own bodies. WHEREAS Canadians want the freedom to decide how they will prevent illness or how they will address illness or injury in their own bodies. WHEREAS Canadians are competent and able to make their own health decisions without State interference. THEREFORE, your petitioners call upon Parliament to guarantee the right of every Canadian to health freedom by enacting the Charter of Health Freedom drafted for the Natural Health Product Protection Association on September 4, 2008.
Government response
Response by the Minister of Health Signed by Maggie Chi Our government understands that many Canadians use natural health products daily to support and maintain their health, and remains committed to safeguarding Canadians’ access to safe, effective, and high quality natural health products. To uphold this commitment, an appropriate regulatory framework remains essential, even for lower-risk products, to maintain the standards of safety and quality expected by Canadians. Our government also recognizes that natural health products are generally lower risk than conventional pharmaceuticals, which is why they are regulated under the Natural Health Products Regulations, a separate and distinct regulatory framework from pharmaceutical drugs. However, natural health products can still pose risks to the health and wellbeing of Canadians if those products are contaminated, mislabeled, or misused. Recall and safety notices for natural health products are available online, and a review of that list highlights how widely-used natural health products can be unsafe, and demonstrates the need for Health Canada to maintain oversight. This is why natural health products must be licensed by Health Canada to verify they meet requirements for safety, efficacy and quality, and the sites that manufacture, package, label or import NHPs must be licensed to verify that appropriate good manufacturing practices standards are followed. The changes to Vanessa’s Law by the previous government were introduced to reflect the evolving nature of the natural health product marketplace. These changes support Canadians in making informed health decisions, while also protecting the reputations of the vast majority of natural health product companies that are committed to providing safe, high quality products. While the updates to Vanessa’s Law enable Health Canada to remove unsafe products from the marketplace if a company refuses to do so voluntarily, these new authorities are only to be used if a serious risk to health is identified and if a company refuses to cooperate with voluntary measures. That is, there are no implications on companies with compliant and safe products. Additionally, the authorities included in Budget Implementation Act, 2024, give the Minister of Heath the ability to respond in a tailored way to specific issues that arise. This authority was used in March 2025 to give companies additional time to comply with new NHP labelling requirements, which was welcomed by industry. The Ministerial Exemption Order provides an additional three years, until June 2028, for companies to bring products into compliance with the new labelling requirements. Our government understands that not all of the challenges faced by natural health product companies can be addressed through additional time, which is why the Department has committed to making changes to the Natural Health Product Regulations as part of its response to the Government’s Red Tape Review initiative. On September 8, 2025, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada published a red tape reduction report, which indicates that the Department will: Amend the natural health product regulations to make the labelling requirements more flexible; Introduce a simple pre-market registration process for products with a higher degree of certainty, such as those aligned with an approved Health Canada monograph; and Introduce more flexible post-market vigilance requirements tailored to the level of risk. In light of its Red Tape Reduction commitments, Health Canada will re-visit introducing a cost recovery regime for natural health products once regulatory amendments and program adjustments have been completed. This will involve updating the program costing model and extensive consultations with stakeholders.