Evidence of meeting #136 for Health in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was industry.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Director, Regulatory Affairs and Policy, Canadian Health Food Association
If there is a gap and recall is the gap, then they should go through proper stakeholder consultation to fill that gap, yes.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Okay. Do you think the government should be able to use an injunction to stop the actions of a non-compliant company if there is an immediate risk to human health, yes or no?
Director, Regulatory Affairs and Policy, Canadian Health Food Association
I think the government might have gaps in its powers, and they should consult on those.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
I'm not talking about gaps in powers.
So you don't think the government should have the power to recall a product.
Director, Regulatory Affairs and Policy, Canadian Health Food Association
That's not what I said.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
You do think there should be a power. Okay.
Do you believe the government should be able to recall lettuce contaminated with E. coli or milk contaminated with listeria?
Director, Regulatory Affairs and Policy, Canadian Health Food Association
The government can recall milk and lettuce.
Director, Regulatory Affairs and Policy, Canadian Health Food Association
Yes.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Okay.
Do you believe that the government should be able to recall a health product that's contaminated with E. coli, yes or no?
On a point of order, Chair, I'm asking the witness a question. I'm finding the intervention by my colleagues from the Conservative Party in trying to feed answers to the witnesses a disservice to this committee.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Yes, I agree. Mr. Naqvi has the floor. He remained perfectly silent when Mr. Doherty posed his questions. I would ask that you extend the same courtesy to him.
Go ahead.
Aaron Skelton President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Health Food Association
May I answer on behalf of CHFA?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Health Food Association
I think it's important to look at what is being discussed, what product we're discussing, and then apply appropriate powers to that. I would say, wide-sweeping powers for recall, no, but depending on the risk profile and history of those products, and depending on the situation, then, yes, a recall may be appropriate.
I would remind this committee that when this was discussed at this committee back in 2014, it was deemed unnecessary. I would respect that decision, and if that decision needs to be revisited, it should be revisited in a more thorough manner.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Skelton, would you agree with me that, if government has powers to recall a head of lettuce, another vegetable or consumable product because it has E. coli or some other bacteria and it may jeopardize human health, that same power should, at least, extend to something like a natural health product?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Health Food Association
No. I think the risk profile was determined for those products and, at that point, recall was appropriate. It was reviewed for NHPs and it was deemed not appropriate.
Liberal
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When I look at the natural health products file, which I've studied quite well, a number of things lead me to say that the problems observed over the past 10 years stem more from Health Canada than from the industry. We can come back to the methodology used by the Auditor General, which consists of targeted inspection rather than randomized or randomized inspection.
The industry isn't perfect either. It's going to have to continue to improve. I imagine you agree with that.
That said, in the matter of voluntary recalls, Health Canada said that the cases it had to manage were not very problematic and that the industry was collaborating. In total, the department had 350 cases to manage. The department put out a public notice 31 times, which is what it does when the cases are more serious. Of the 31 cases that received public notification, only three were problematic.
However, Health Canada has clearly had a lot of trouble enforcing its own regulations, conducting regular, well-defined inspections, communicating its expectations to industry, clearly analyzing adverse reaction reports, and so on.
Taking a step back, including natural health products under the provisions of Vanessa's Law seems to be more of a response to Health Canada's operating problem than a response to industry's lack of compliance.
Is my analysis valid?
Director, Regulatory Affairs and Policy, Canadian Health Food Association
Yes, I agree with you.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Can you tell us about the methodology used by the Auditor General?
Her report is based on a review of a sample of 75 products that were known to be problematic at the outset. When it's determined that about 900 products are problematic, for example, and percentages are established, they may seem high, but it's important to remember that the sample consisted of only 75 products that were already known to be problematic. So it's a methodology that produces skewed results.
Director, Regulatory Affairs and Policy, Canadian Health Food Association
From what we understood from the report, the methodology was not to determine whether products made in Canada and offered over the counter to consumers complied with standards. The objective of the review was to determine whether Health Canada was taking the necessary steps to ensure that products in Canada were compliant. There's a difference between those two intents, and I think the intent has been a bit distorted.
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
In that sense, Health Canada was more problematic than the industry.
Now, the industry surely wants to have a position of authority or prestige and protect its brand. Is the industry really against non-voluntary recalls, in other words, mandatory recalls?
What would you think if, for example, Bill C‑368 proposed to remove natural health products from the provisions brought in by Vanessa's Law, but still gave the minister the power to proceed with product recalls? Would you agree with that?
Director, Regulatory Affairs and Policy, Canadian Health Food Association
I believe so. Essentially, we at the Canadian Health Food Association are saying that the process by which Health Canada acquired these powers was inadequate. If we redefine natural health products so that they are now under the drug category, that changes everything. A change in the definition of these products involves changes not only in the act, but also in the regulations, as well as in all the policies and directives that follow.
We need to be able to review recall powers without having to redefine an entire industry. Otherwise, we would be the only country to define natural health products as drugs. Other countries define them more as food. The industry would be happy if this could be done, because it would prevent other changes that would make natural health products look more and more like drugs.