Health Committee on Oct. 29th, 2024

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Does Health Canada contract with Deloitte?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Yes.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Okay. So, you expect the studies that you have commissioned with Deloitte to add value to Canadians. However, if anyone else commissions a study—maybe with Deloitte, maybe with someone else—you completely undermine it. You came in here this morning and started your remarks by saying, “with all due respect”. Then you completely dumped all over an industry for which, according to this Deloitte study—which I have no reason to doubt—“new labelling restrictions are likely to add substantial costs.” The study continues: “The results show that the new legislation will have dire consequences for the sector and the broader economy. The sector is mainly dominated by small businesses of less than 50 employees.” The sector “has grown from...$4.3 billion in [total] sales in 2007 to approximately $13.2 billion in [total] sales in 2021”.

So, as is so often the case, you and your government are going to be bringing the hammer down, as only a Liberal government can, on hard-working entrepreneurs and small businesses, all the while turning a blind eye to criminals, for example. This Deloitte study, which I referenced and have no reason to doubt, shows that 20% of the businesses I just mentioned would move their operations outside of Canada with regard to your government's heavy-handed approach. Why would you want businesses to move to the U.S., where Canadians would continue to purchase their products online, but Health Canada would then not have any ability to have oversight?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

In the first order, I didn't dump on the industry; I dumped on the bill. Those are two very different things. The industry's fantastic. The point that I made is that the bill is awful.

The second point is that my criticism of the Deloitte study is that it only dealt with vitamins and minerals and that it only dealt with hospital settings. It was very, very narrow in scope, and yes, it was commissioned by the industry.

The third point is that most of the issues that you're talking about that affect industry deal with labelling and with cost recovery, which this bill has absolutely nothing to do with. The exact cost.... I'll go back, to be very clear, because you talk about turning a blind eye to criminals. A blind eye to criminals would be giving a $5,000 fine to an incredibly negligent firm. If you are compliant, sir, you have absolutely nothing to fear from this bill. In fact, if you're working to be compliant, you have nothing to fear from this bill. It is only in cases of egregious negligence that these measures kick in. It is not us who adjudicate the penalty, but the courts. I would suggest to you that negligence resulting in potentially a death or somebody being hospitalized is a gross form of negligence that needs to be dealt with in the courts. It would, in fact, be blind—to use your nomenclature—to leave the system in place that would allow that kind of gross negligence to occur.

Lastly, in terms of the Canadian brand, why would you go and buy something from any country other than one that has the best regulatory regime to make sure that it's safe? Whether it's smoke-free Ontario or seat belts, I've heard these arguments again and again: that if you do something that creates safety, you're going to kill business; 10 out of 10 times, that is not the case. There's improved business, improved safety and improved outcomes.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Minister, I took note of one very loose thread you mentioned here about a precursor to meth. How do you reconcile that?

I would think everyone acknowledges that you have been defending the indefensible as of late, including defending this Prime Minister. Four out of five Canadians want him to step down, but you continue to defend him. Now you're defending your government's heavy-handed approach that targets small business while turning a blind eye, as I mentioned, to real criminals.

You will recall your government's Bill C-5. You introduced the subject of meth into this discussion, so I am going to ask you a question on this. How do you reconcile your government's legislation? For importing and exporting schedule I drugs and for producing schedule I drugs in Canada—that means running a meth lab, for example—it says that an individual convicted of running a meth lab or importing meth or a precursor product for meth, cocaine or heroin can now serve their sentence from the comfort of their home.

I think Canadians now know with hindsight that your government got it wrong when it comes to illegal drugs, but how do you reconcile coming down—

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I have a point of order.

I'm seldom one to do this, but this has come up repeatedly. How is this relevant at all to the private member's bill—a Conservative private member's bill—we're here to discuss?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Numerous questions of questionable relevance have come up. As I indicated before, I'm going to be consistent and allow latitude on this.

The problem with allowing latitude on this, Mr. Moore, is that you're out of time. If you could bring your question to a conclusion, we'll allow the minister 30 seconds to respond, and then we'll go on with the next person on the list.

Go ahead.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Chair. I was just about to conclude.

The minister mentioned meth. How does he reconcile coming down with a heavy hand on hard-working New Brunswick small businesses while allowing those who run meth labs to serve their sentence, if they're caught and convicted, from the comfort of their own home?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Give a succinct response, please, Minister.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

I wouldn't want to ask questions about this horrible bill either.

In the first order, the only people we're coming down hard on are the people who are negligent and wildly out of compliance. That's the only thing that Vanessa's Law does. If there's anybody in New Brunswick who is being come down hard on, it's because they're wickedly negligent. That's what we're dealing with here.

With respect to the policies you talked about on crime, Newt Gingrich proposed the same approach on crime that you're talking about. He called it the greatest disaster of his career. Every place where it's been tried, it's been an abject and total failure.

I will stick to science. I will stick to data. I will stick to evidence. I will not follow approaches that sound good for a slogan but have no basis in evidentiary truth.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Minister.

Ms. Sidhu, you have five minutes.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister and your whole team, for being with us.

Approximately 70% of Canadians use natural health products. You talked about sticking to data and sticking to evidence, but removing natural health products from the definition would remove Health Canada's ability to recall natural health products. Health Canada would be able to recall a head of lettuce contaminated with E. coli or milk contaminated with listeria, but unable to recall a natural health product contaminated with feces. You named a few things.

How is it fair for all Canadians' health? Can you explain that?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

It's a great question. Of course, it isn't fair, and it is dangerous.

Moreover, I've had the opportunity to meet with all kinds of companies, and what they tell me is that they want a fair and level playing field. I think it's deeply unfair to create a circumstance whereby good actors that respond quickly to stop-sale orders and voluntarily comply are left to compete with companies that don't. That's what would happen here. If you're a bad actor, all you'd face is a $5,000 fine. That's a cost of doing business. Basically, you can operate however out of control you want, and we're put in the terrible position of trying to comply and create fairness.

I can tell you that the companies I talk to don't want that. We have a lot of fantastic Canadian companies employing people and growing their business to multiple billions of dollars. What they're asking for is to make sure that Health Canada has the powers to keep a level playing field so that the good actors—the ones trying to keep people safe, be a good business and have good business practices—aren't put in a disadvantaged position because there are weak regulations to deal with bad actors. That's what this is about. To me, that's fundamentally fair.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you.

The public accounts committee, including CPC members Jeremy Patzer and Philip Lawrence, requested that Health Canada revise the fines and penalties, in their NHP 2022 report. The government agreed with the public accounts committee, as lack of a proper deterrent has led to “high levels of industry non-compliance” within the NHP industry.

Why do you think the CPC members have flip-flopped on this issue? Can you talk about that?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

I don't know. In fairness, there's been an enormous amount of misinformation, and that misinformation has created a lot of fear in businesses.

When I actually talk to small businesses that are in this space, I explain Vanessa's Law: If they're compliant, or even trying to be compliant, they have nothing to fear. This is good for their business, and they're fully supportive of it.

This is one of the reasons I'm talking so plainly today. We have to cut through the misinformation. It's really doing an enormous amount of damage. By the way, the false and misleading claims are.... We have to have a conversation at this committee regarding all the claims about products that cure cancer. Just to pick on that as an example, there are people who take products thinking they will cure their cancer, and they avoid traditional treatments. I don't mind you using something in conjunction with your traditional treatment, but you should be talking to your physician about that. When companies are making boldfaced false claims, that can change consumer behaviour in a way that's injurious to their health.

That's what I'm concerned about here. This false argument that somehow it hurts the economy to have strong regulation is malarkey. We know the natural health products.... I hear from consumers all the time. They like to buy their products from Canada, because they know they're well regulated. They know that what's in the bottle is going to be safe, and that they can trust what's in there. What a marketing opportunity. What an advantage over other countries. Why would we want to lose that? Why would we ever do anything to undercut that? We would be taking away one of the greatest competitive advantages that we have, which allows so many different Canadian companies in this space to be booming.

I am their biggest ally. I want them to succeed. I want them to be selling more all around the world. It is my deep and heartfelt belief that having strong regulations and protecting those products is exactly how we get it done.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you.

Do you want to add anything else? Do you want to provide a message to Canadians?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

The big thing here is that there's.... I get frustrated with the attempt to use misinformation to confuse these businesses, which are just trying to make a living. They're getting letters and false information, being spun left and right, and told things that are completely false.

Most of the issues they're being told to worry about have nothing to do with this bill. I would welcome it if the committee wants to have a conversation in a more in-depth way about how we can do a better job with natural health products and supporting them. I'm totally open to that.

Luc asked a very fair question, whether there is a way to amend this bill in a way that isn't injurious to people's health and improves the industry. I'm absolutely open to that, but killing Vanessa's Law and the ability to recall, that's just not smart. That is actually going to hurt industry, as well as public safety.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Minister.

I now give the floor to Mr. Thériault, so that he can ask more reasonable questions.

Mr. Thériault, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Minister, let's not exaggerate. We're not talking about repealing Vanessa's Law. It will continue to apply to pharmaceuticals and other products.

With respect to methamphetamines and precursors, I recommend that you reread section 7.1 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which gives you ample power to intervene.

What I'm going to say now isn't directly related to the bill, but I'll take advantage of it since you're before me, and it will facilitate your interactions with the industry. At a previous meeting, I asked you a question about the expert panel that wrote the final report on the legislative review of the Cannabis Act. That committee recommended revising packaging and labelling rules to allow for QR codes for cannabis. You told me that you were going to do so and that there would be a QR code for cannabis products.

If it's good for cannabis products, is it also good for natural health products?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

I think it's important that there be equal treatment for any type of product in order to protect the public. We have to make sure that all the regulations are logical and useful. In fact, I'm very open to having a conversation about that.

In your example, it might be a good idea to contrast the information for both. If there isn't equality, if the answer isn't good, I'm really open to having a conversation about that.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

However, you answered that you were moving forward with a QR code for cannabis products. I imagine that natural health products could also work with proper use of a QR code. Is that a “yes”, a “no” or a “maybe”?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

It's a “maybe”, and I would say I'll answer with a lot more information quickly if it's not—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

So for cannabis products, it's not a “maybe”, but a “yes”. For natural health products, though, it's a “maybe”. Okay. I appreciate that.

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

That's all the time you have.

Mr. Julian, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thanks, Chair.

I'd like to come back to the question about non-compliant companies. I asked about the 350 recalls, and I understand the issue around delays. Putting aside the issue of delays, though, how many of the 350 recalls were with non-compliant companies? Was it one actor, or a number of companies?