Health Committee on May 28th, 2009

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

He suggests that we should go back to a certification process. The bill now requires people to meet standards on paper. The problem is, how real is it? Who's inspecting? How do we know? How do we know if there are toxins in these products? How do we know it isn't counterfeit? Until someone actually gets into the field and inspects, we're not going to know any of this. We wait for a death and then we recall it. So big deal. Maybe it's a little better than it was, but we've had lots of recalls under the old legislation.

I'd like to know what's new in this legislation that ensures that we're following the precautionary principle on a proactive basis. I'm asking Geneviève, Arthur, and others.

[Geneviève Reed]

It seems to me that I don't have—

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

More specifically, shouldn't we do more in the way of inspection? I think there should be a requirement for safety-testing products coming into this country, active inspection at the border, active on-site inspection in Canada, far bigger inspection capabilities, and requirements for third-party testing, like they have in the U.S.

[Geneviève Reed]

I entirely agree with Mr. Burns, and we put it down in writing. If this legislation is not combined with an effort in terms of human resources and people who'll examine the incident reports and collaborate with other countries, it will be worth nothing but the paper it's written on. There is an international system and we must take advantage of it.

As for regulations, the devil is in the details. In other words, this bill gives the minister the power to make recommendations. We know very well that we will have to monitor the making of regulations under this bill very closely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Ms. Reed. Thank you so much.

We'll now go on to Ms. Davidson.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

One of the things we haven't talked about much is clause 38, which provides that if you're contravening certain provisions of the bill, or provisions of the regulations, or an order made under the act, the punishment can be a fine of up to $5 million and/or imprisonment of up to two years. I'd like each of you to comment briefly. In your opinion, are these penalties reasonable? Will the penalties deter manufacturers, importers, advertisers, and sellers from contravening the act? Are there other penalties that could be imposed that would be more likely to ensure product safety in Canada?

I'd like to hear the opinion of each of you. You can choose how you start.

[Geneviève Reed]

I think.... Pardon me, I'm talking a lot.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Ms. Reed, would you like a little break and we can start with somebody else? Otherwise, I can serve tea.

[Geneviève Reed]

I don't have any objection to someone else answering.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Do you want to start with someone else to answer Ms. Davidson's question and give Ms. Reed...? She's answered so many questions.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Okay, why don't we start over here with Mr. Taller.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Okay, Mr. Taller.

[Joel Taller]

For the most part, the industry manufacturers and importers in the natural health product industry would find these penalties quite severe, because for the most part they're small and medium-sized manufacturers, and this would be a significant deterrent on them in being able to ensure that they comply with provisions that would be like this for products that are governed by analogous legislation. From our industry perspective, these are too severe, as a matter of fact, but that's for an industry that's composed of small to medium-sized corporations.

[Jeff Hurst]

Similarly, we're an industry that is comprised of both large manufacturers and medium and small, and I can certainly agree that from a small manufacturer's point of view, that situation would probably cause them to go out of business. But I would also say we would support whatever that deterrent is. I think it needs to be a penalty that steps in there and ensures that's not happening. So we would certainly support the penalty. I think you'd hear different things from our individual members, depending on their size, on what that should be, but I think we would all agree it should be substantial enough to deter the situation.

[Lucienne Lemire]

I think it's necessary to have these penalties because I think we've seen so often situations where an industry or company will say they'll pay it; they still made more money doing it, so they'll do it again, because they still come out ahead. So I think it needs to be significant.

I think the thing to remember is that it doesn't say it's $5 million; it's “up to”. So I think that's an important detail. I think they have to have enough clout to be able to deal with a situation that really needs that kind of penalty.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Go ahead, Ms. Campbell.

[Gail Campbell]

As a consumer, I absolutely believe that the penalties should be severe, and they are severe. So don't break the law. Don't bring in unsafe products. The more severe, the happier I am as a consumer that my family is safe. But the problem I see is in the enforcement of the penalty. If someone is breaking the law, I worry about the legal system enforcing it, and the lobbyists who might break it down to nothing. So I think the penalties have to be severe. As a consumer, that's going to inspire our confidence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Ms. Bose.

[Anu Bose]

Madam Chair, I will answer for Options consommateurs.

We agree that, yes, a fine is a very good deterrent. I think the heavier the penalty, the merrier. But I think public disclosure, or what the British call “naming and shaming”, is probably a better deterrent than a financial penalty, because in the long term it will have an impact on the earnings of the company and the shareholders will not be very pleased.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you.

Ms. Reed.

[Geneviève Reed]

I agree with fine increases.

Oh, I'm speaking English.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Look at what we've done to you today.

[Geneviève Reed]

It's very late, though. I've been up for more than 12 hours. Sorry.

I agree with fine increases, but I know there is also a scheme here.

The bill provides for a very interesting system of corrective measures. The ultimate goal is for products to be truly safe. So this system enables a business to review its practices and to correct the problem if there is an unfortunate incident.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you so much.

Mr. Burns, would you like to make a comment?

[Don Burns]

Sure.

I think it has already been said many times that the magnitude of the penalty is important if it is to be a deterrent; but more importantly, there needs to be a real risk to manufacturers and distributors that they will be caught.

If the fines aren't actually imposed, whether they're minor fines or not, there's not going to be a deterrent. The existing legislation allows for significant penalties, but they're rarely ever applied. So it doesn't mean much unless there's application.