Health Committee on Oct. 31st, 2024

[Michelle Auger]

I mean, we weren't here for that testimony. I can't speak on behalf of our members directly on how they felt about it.

We know, based on the small businesses we represent, that they just want to be compliant as much as possible, but they also want to be able to compete in Canada and reach consumers. By tacking on all this additional cost and these regulations, it's really hard. It's hard for small businesses. They're really concerned about all of these new rules.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you.

Ms. Gorham, you were saying earlier that U.S. states have realized that our regulatory system has become an absolute failure because of this omnibus piece of legislation. The U.S. states are incentivizing Canadian businesses to leave Canada and go to the States.

What kind of economic impact will this have on Canada?

[Jules Gorham]

There have been some attempts to separate out Vanessa's Law and say that there's no cost to it. What we are saying is that there are six major changes rooted in this redefinition of NHPs as therapeutic products. The six major changes—two legislative and the others regulatory—make it very hard for a small company to stay competitive and to compete with the big guys. We have two very big guys in Canada, and a few medium guys. The rest are small, and there are a lot of micros. We can look at indigenous businesses in that space, as well. I think they are smaller than what would be defined as a micro NHP company. It becomes very hard to stay afloat. It becomes very hard to even stay competitive.

When you walk into a natural health food store to buy.... I'll use vitamin C, because it's well known. There's a reason there isn't just one. There are many options in vitamin C. There is no patent IP protection on NHPs. You spend on innovation. You spend on research. You put a product out. Someone can copy that product tomorrow, and it will be on the shelf right beside yours. To stay competitive, prices have to stay within a range people can afford. You can't price yourself out of the market.

What's happening in the States is that they're not facing this regulatory burden. It's a lot cheaper to operate. Even with the exchange rate, you can sell your products into Canada online on the 90-day importation at a much lower cost. The Canadian consumer, unknowingly, is going for the product they can afford. It's available to them. It ships to their door. In the meantime, we're losing jobs, production and retail here in Canada.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you. It's incredibly troubling.

You brought up the indigenous piece. Will this impact traditional indigenous medicines?

[Jules Gorham]

I would like to say yes.

I believe there's a reason why those things need to be studied before any change in legislation or regulation is made. There's a reason why those studies need to be done. I can't tell you what those impacts are, because it's not up to me to do the study. We don't have those study results in our hand.

I would assume that communities that have been foraging and making their teas are under these regulations. These are considered natural health products. Therefore, the rules also apply to those communities and medicine people.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

I know we heard, through testimony, that 84% of women utilize natural health products. You highlighted the fact that your lipstick can't be recalled, but your lipstick is something that I think is in a unique space. There are all kinds of conversations around cosmetic products that have happened through decades of regulation.

It really troubles me that, when we asked whether there was a gender-based analysis.... Again, I asked the minister's officials whether they would table this. We still don't have it. Hopefully, we will before we have to make these decisions. We are left to trust that there was a gender-based analysis done on this.

Ms. Gorham, do you have any statistics, by chance, on how many of these small and micro businesses are run by women entrepreneurs?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Ms. Gorham, give a brief response, please. Mrs. Goodridge talked right through her time.

[Jules Gorham]

I don't have actual statistics, no. However, looking at our membership and the micro and small space, especially the start-up space of women's health, we believe probably 45% to 50% of those are female.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you.

Ms. Kayabaga, go ahead, please, for five minutes.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to start by making a comment about the point CHFA raised around consultation.

Health Canada tabled the records of four meetings with CHFA in 2023 where Vanessa's Law was discussed. They also tabled evidence of presenting at two CHFA regulatory conferences, where they highlighted plans around Vanessa's Law. They also, in fact, sent evidence of meetings in 2021, 2020 and 2019, all on Vanessa's Law.

Therefore, accusations by opposition members that the minister or non-partisan Health Canada officials lied are not factual. It's—

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Wait a second, Ms. Kayabaga. There's a point of order by Mrs. Goodridge.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is absolutely inappropriate, as per our standing orders, to accuse someone of lying. I think it is—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

The accusation was actually levelled by Mr. Doherty. You may want to take your point of order up with him.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

That's not a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Ms. Kayabaga.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you. Hopefully, I will not lose any time from that, Chair.

My questions are going to be for Mr. Harrington, from Food, Health and Consumer Products of Canada.

We heard this week from the minister that there are some benefits to industry maintaining Vanessa's Law, such as in precision regulating. Could you talk about how Vanessa's Law can benefit the NHP industry and how passing Bill C-368 could actually harm the industry instead of serving it well?

[Gerry Harrington]

Yes. Thank you for the question.

I mentioned previously that from the industry perspective there's a reputational risk from any weakening of the authorities around natural health products, but from a consumer perspective I think there are other really important considerations.

One of them.... Let's take the example of the nicotine order that we were discussing and that Mr. Thériault brought up earlier. In the absence of Vanessa's Law authorities, as he pointed out, it would be impossible to deal with the current challenge around a specific product that was introduced by a tobacco company without also interfering with the availability of legitimate smoking cessation therapies. What Vanessa's Law does, as it continues to be modernized, is give us new tools to deal with that without disrupting consumer access.

The other one is something that we're working on right now. I've mentioned our challenges around the labelling file. This is a regulation that was passed just in 2022. We are in a position where industry is simply not going to be able to comply by the current compliance deadlines for that. The ability of the minister to issue exemption orders under the most recent changes under Bill C-69 will give us a mechanism to potentially deal with that.

I wouldn't say that we rely on Vanessa's Law for our well-being, by any stretch, but there are benefits. We're talking about modernizing legislation that, until Vanessa's Law came along, had been virtually untouched for 50 years. This is important for regulating in the environment we're in, where change is constant.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

What is the actual impact of Vanessa's Law on industry? Do you think it causes businesses to flee? Some of the statements that have been made are that businesses will flee Canada. Is this an accurate representation of Vanessa's Law?

[Gerry Harrington]

I can see no reason, from our membership's perspective, to fear or flee because of Vanessa's Law. In terms of the impact on our industry, we had concerns when it was first introduced about things like how it handles confidential business information. The primary concern was that half of these products are affected by it and others aren't, but at the end of the day, I think the law, by protecting consumers, enhances the reputation of the industry. We've yet to feel any really negative impacts from its passage.

I might add just one final point. The other products that our members sell, the OTCs, have been under Vanessa's Law for a decade now, and this has not created any challenges for us.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Do you think the government should be able to mandate a recall? If you do, can you lay out the importance of that?

[Gerry Harrington]

There are two aspects. Again, one of them that I mentioned before is reputational. The other aspect—and I think it was a good point raised earlier in this discussion—is the competitive situation of manufacturers. You not only face the possibility of those people harming the reputation of the industry, but you also have to compete with people who aren't following the same rules. From an industry growth perspective, there are additional protections there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Harrington.

Thank you, Ms. Kayabaga.

Mr. Doherty, you have five minutes, please.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Chair, I'll take this round.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Dr. Ellis.