Health Committee on Oct. 31st, 2024

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

I'm always asked to follow up on rat poop questions from the Conservatives here. It puts me in an awkward position, I have to say.

This law, the proposed law, would remove the protection of Vanessa's Law and its applicability to natural health products. The assistant deputy minister of the regulatory, operations and enforcement branch of Health Canada appeared before us earlier in the week. We asked her specifically whether the government already has the power with a stop-sale to be able to prevent the sale of a product on the market that is dangerous to people. She said that this does not give them the power, when a product is actually on the shelf, to prevent its being sold. This would be one of the changes that would occur if this law was passed, and it would prevent the recall of natural health products “that present a serious or imminent risk of injury to human health”.

The Canadian Health Food Association has already responded to the question about recall, although I'm not totally clear where you were. I think it was that you approve but that you don't like the way it was done. I think Mr. Maddox basically said the same thing.

I want to ask the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. You represent what, 5,000 or 7,000 businesses? A lot of people in Canada work in businesses. You represent natural health product businesses, but you represent a lot of other people too. Are you really telling us that you don't think the government should have the ability to recall products “that present a serious or imminent risk of injury”, that the government should not have the power to take those off the shelves?

[Michelle Auger]

No, we're not saying that.

In fact, we represent 97,000 small and medium-sized businesses from across the country, and about 2,000 of those are involved with natural health products. What our members feel is unfair is the way that these policies are being put in place. They're being tacked on piece by piece. There's no long-term vision, and they're not getting a lot of information or detail from Health Canada as to why these pieces are being implemented and how they're going to impact their businesses. That's why our members are upset.

I don't think they would oppose a stop law, but what they are opposing is the way in which these policies have been tacked on. They want to be part of the conversation. They want to be sitting at the table, talking to Health Canada and asking it questions about how these new policies continue to impact their businesses.

I did mention Bill C-69, which had natural health product implications. We're still waiting for a response from Health Canada as to how those will impact some of our members.

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

While we can appreciate the fact that you were unhappy with the process—the kinds of consultations and things—this question still remains: Do you really not think that the government should have the power to pull a product off the shelves when it presents a serious risk to people?

[Michelle Auger]

From our members' perspective, it's not that they're opposed to regulation within that industry; it's about being part of the conversation. I'm here representing the voices of small businesses, and that's what they're telling us. They don't want to be included in the pharmaceutical process. They believe that NHPs need to be regulated separately.

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

However, you also represent 70,000 businesses—hundreds of thousands, millions of Canadians. You represent them as well. Yes, you have to advocate for companies that produce natural health products, but I would also suggest that you have to advocate for those many Canadians who work in other businesses. Do you really think they should have to be in a situation where they are subject to possibly consuming unsafe products because that's counter to the interests of a small group of natural health product companies?

[Michelle Auger]

I think our small business owners have told us that they want to put the proper safety measures in place. They want those checks and balances, but they want to make sure that those don't hinder their ability to compete with U.S. companies, the Amazons. They want to be able to sell to their consumers at affordable prices, and some of these new policies, like I mentioned in my testimony, will increase costs substantially.

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

We heard from the Conservatives, and there was talk about confidence in natural health products. Don't you think some of these laws are actually required in order to give consumers confidence in a product? I'm a little surprised by businesses, because the vast majority of businesses are compliant. Isn't that right? For those businesses that are compliant, I would think they would be a little worried that not giving these powers would allow the bad actors to spoil the reputation of the rest, the good actors. I would think that it would be in the good actors' best interests to see these powers be enacted because it would give consumers confidence in the business. I would think that it would be in the businesses' best interests that well-regulated—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Dr. Powlowski, I'm sorry, but you're out of time.

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

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Right now, nicotine is considered a natural health product, although I consider it a hard drug, given that it is toxic and incredibly addictive. So it has a negative effect on people's health.

Nicotine replacement products are currently subject to the Supplementary Rules Respecting Nicotine Replacement Therapies Order, adopted on August 9, 2024, as a result of their insertion into the provisions of Vanessa's Law.

I believe that, given how dangerous they are, these products shouldn't be removed from the list of products subject to the same laws and regulations as drugs.

Do you agree with the amendment I want to propose so that the provisions of Bill C‑368 do not apply to nicotine replacement products?

[Jules Gorham]

I think we would agree. If it's because of nicotine that natural health products should continue to be included in the definition of drugs, I think that nicotine should be removed from the list of natural health products, and then removed from the category of therapeutic products.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

In fact, that's what's at stake. This is one of the arguments made by those opposed to the change that was made, which subjects natural health products to parameters other than those set out in Vanessa's Law. The Canadian Cancer Association is a big advocate for that. There aren't a lot of arguments to say that's not true.

All we need to do, then, is to propose an amendment to keep nicotine replacement products in the category they should be in. So I understand that you would agree with that as well.

[Jules Gorham]

Yes. I'm not a nicotine expert, as our association doesn't represent any nicotine companies, but I couldn't agree more.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

What are your thoughts on inspections? Do you think that's important?

[Jules Gorham]

Inspections are a key component. The natural health products regulations came into force in 2004, 20 years ago, but it wasn't until three years ago, in 2021, that inspections started, as a pilot project. That remains a key element.

You can't regulate products before they're put on the market, but you can't regulate them after they're put on the market. There has to be a balance for the system to work and keep Canadians safe.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

When there were inspections, did you know what they were going to be about? Were you provided with the criteria that Health Canada was concerned about?

[Jules Gorham]

Interpretations change every day. The way inspectors interpret and apply inspection rules is becoming increasingly strict. There is no education or training to support the process. The new document to that effect is currently the subject of consultations. It shouldn't be used for products on the market, but it already seems to be, even though it hasn't been published yet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Gorham.

I now give the floor to Mr. Julian for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to go back to you, Mr. Maddox, on your comments about policing unregulated products entering Canada. You stated in your introduction, “If we do not invest in policing these unregulated products”, we will see a greater use of this loophole. You also properly pointed out, “Unapproved products create potential health risks for consumers and punish companies that are deeply committed to the Canadian market while operating here in good faith and good practice.”

What would you like to see the government do when it comes to unregulated products? It's very germane to this overall discussion about how we are in a sense undermining the health products industry by the lack of consultation that went around the original adoption of the omnibus legislation.

[Peter Maddox]

Absolutely. That's a great question.

Certainly, we're not against the personal use exemption as it stands, whereby Canadians are allowed to purchase products from outside Canada for three months' supply. The key there is that the person selling them to the consumer can't be commercializing those products in Canada. If they have a Canadian-facing website, if they're doing promotions toward Canadians, then that product would be commercialized. All of a sudden, it's outside what we would consider the personal use exemption.

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

Are you seeing this?

[Peter Maddox]

We're seeing this, absolutely, to the point where there are natural health product companies based in the U.S. and elsewhere that have websites that would appear to be Canadian-based websites but are actually somewhere else. They're purposely promoting their products to Canadians, and Canadians are buying those. They think maybe they're buying them from an organization that sells regulated products, but the regulation of dietary supplements or natural health products in the U.S. is very different than in Canada. People could be importing products that have ingredients that are not allowed in Canada but that may be allowed in the U.S. We see that as a big health risk.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Gorham, are you concerned about unregulated products coming from outside? Do you have an estimate of what the impacts are on the natural health products industry here in Canada? To what extent is it undercutting our existing industry?

[Jules Gorham]

I think the undercut is unknown, and it's just going to get worse. What's happening right now in Canada for NHPs is that we are seeing that the risk of being compliant in Canada is becoming one where companies literally have to judge whether they can afford the risk or not. If they can't afford the risk, they don't have to follow Canadian regulations. They can set up a warehouse in Arizona or Plattsburgh right over the border. They can sell the products without the need to go through our pre-market approval system or have any of these other regulations on cost recovery coming down the pipeline. They can sell those products back into Canada.

In terms of the threat, it's not just U.S. companies selling to Canadians that's undercutting. It's the fact that the environment here is becoming so strangled by red tape that Canadian brands are going to lay off Canadians and move over the border. They're already being given grants to do so by U.S. states to sell those products unregulated back into Canada. It's a loss-loss.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Gorham.

Mrs. Goodridge, you have five minutes. Go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all of our witnesses for the opportunity to share their side of it.

Like many of my colleagues, I was absolutely blown away that the Minister of Health would come here and decide to describe in such horrendous detail...talking about rat feces, trying to say, “This is an industry I totally support, and it's very compliant—but there are rat feces, urine and foreign bodies.” Then, when we tried to drill down with officials later on with regard to how many cases we were talking about, we didn't get an answer. I asked for that information to be available to us. Unfortunately, we don't have it by today's meeting. I'm not sure if we'll even get it, unfortunately.

We heard in earlier testimony that you guys are pretty confident, because of the amount of detail, that you know exactly which person it is, and that the rules brought forward by this bill weren't even used in dealing with that case.

My question for you, Ms. Auger, is this: Did the minister's testimony impact businesses that you have talked to?