Health Committee on Oct. 31st, 2024

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

If I understand correctly, recalls aren't a problem for the industry. It's in the interest of any industry to want things to be done in compliance. So it would be a matter of proposing an amendment that would mean that the minister would retain a right to recalls, but would not have the power to define the parameters of pharmaceutical products. In a way, it would be a matter of redefining fines and sentences that are more appropriate. Would you agree with that?

[Jules Gorham]

Yes, we would agree with that. Like everyone else, we understand that the department can easily establish that a $5,000 fine isn't high enough. However, you have to understand that going from $5,000 to $5 million is a huge difference. It's not a matter of a few cents.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Have you looked at what an acceptable fine would be?

[Jules Gorham]

There would have to be consultations between people in the industry, members of your committee and experts to determine what an appropriate fine would be, without compliance creating an additional risk for businesses. We live in a world where, in Canada, natural health product companies that comply with laws and regulations are at risk. In fact, the department can decide tomorrow that they're no longer compliant, and then they will be subject to a $5‑million fine. So it would be a matter of discussing them to see what measures would be appropriate. It could be a fine, but it should not put a company out of business.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Gorham and Mr. Thériault.

Next is Mr. Julian for a full six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for their testimony. Their comments are very valid, especially when it comes to the government's lack of consultation. That was clear in each of the presentations.

There's also the whole issue of products that come from outside the country and that are currently subject to no regulation at all. That's also a very important point to make.

We understand that the health product industry is really important in terms of jobs. It's important in terms of health for Canadians. I'm a consumer myself, as is my family. It's really important for the health of communities across the country. Your presentations have been, I think, very effective in making the case for that.

There is one thing that does troubled me, though, as we've been examining this file. It is the very small number of non-compliant companies. Mr. Thériault just referenced the fact that over the last five years, there were 350 voluntary recalls. Thirty-one of them were forced to issue public warnings. Ultimately, three companies, in some cases with dangerous contamination, simply were non-compliant. That troubles me, because I know the industry is safe. The vast majority of operators in the industry are very effective and understand that health and safety concerns need to be paramount.

I want to start with you, Ms. Gorham.

If we pass this bill, those non-compliant companies could continue to be non-compliant. Can you advise this committee what we should do with that small number of operators that, to my mind, tarnish the industry by refusing to work with Health Canada on voluntary recalls when they are required?

[Aaron Skelton]

I would echo your statement that any non-compliance is a concern for any industry. I mean, there is a backbone of trust within our consumer base.

I think we would like to draw attention, though, to those three incidents. If we take the number of products on market, which Health Canada has claimed is 50,000, three out of that 50,000 is...we're talking about 0.006% that resulted in issues.

I don't believe that recategorizing and redefining a therapeutic product to bring natural health products in line with pharmaceuticals is the solution to that problem. As my colleague mentioned, would industry be open to discussions about recall powers that don't require this reset of definition? To put it on the record, yes, we would.

I think there could be other tools that could be used to bring those who stay non-compliant back in compliance. This is not the appropriate solution, because of the unintended consequences of that recategorization.

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

Thanks for that.

What you're saying is that if Health Canada had consulted with you on the recall issue for what is, I completely agree, a tiny percentage of the industry.... The vast majority of industry is compliant and responsible; a small number of operators, for whatever reason, are non-compliant. If there had been full consultations, are you saying that the industry would agree to a recall without that reclassification, as you mentioned?

[Aaron Skelton]

Yes, I think our membership has stated that before. I think we'd be open to that.

However, without the opportunity for consultation.... Without getting notified that it was in the budget, that opportunity did not exist.

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

Thank you very much.

I'd like to go to Mr. Maddox now on the same question.

What would you advise us when it comes to that small number of companies that are just non-compliant? To my mind, what troubles me about it is that it tarnishes the whole industry. We have an extraordinary industry, with the highest possible standards, and then you have a small number of operators that, for whatever reason, don't want to comply.

[Peter Maddox]

I think my question there would be, how did that small number of operators get to that point in the first place? I believe that if Health Canada was doing the appropriate number of inspections and using their other powers up to that point, we wouldn't have companies getting to that point.

We've always been about process. We've always been about enforcement. There's no point layering another enforcement tool onto a group of powers if you're not already enforcing them. They don't really have meaning.

For us, we're not against Vanessa's Law. Obviously, it serves a very big purpose across a number of industries and potentially with the products that we represent. However, I feel that there has to be process in terms of bringing that in, and then there has to be enforcement in terms of utilizing that if and when it's necessary.

Right now, it feels like a sledgehammer trying to kill a bug. I feel like that's a bit of overkill.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Harrington, I have the same question for you.

[Gerry Harrington]

We have no objection to recall power. I have to put it as bluntly as that. It's a reputational thing from our perspective. The way NHPs were attached to Vanessa's Law caught everybody off guard, but the business of recall.... In Canada, there are very few products that can't be recalled. The growth in exports of products from Canada speaks to confidence internationally in how these products are regulated. To exclude them from what is, quite frankly, a fairly routine consumer protection measure has reputational risks to us.

Yes, I think the process could have been better, but I just cannot find it within myself to object to recall powers for a product as extensively regulated as this product.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Harrington.

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Next is Dr. Ellis, please, for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'm going to direct my questions to Ms. Auger and Mr. Skelton.

Ms. Auger, could you refresh the committee's memory? In the early stages of your statement, you talked about how the confidence of small and medium-sized enterprises in Canada in this government is very low. Was that your term? Do I have it correct?

[Jasmin Guénette]

The level of optimism that we referred to at the beginning of our presentation referred to the general state of the economy and how they perceive the future of their own enterprise. The level of optimism right now for small business owners is low because they are worried about the future of their small business. There are many reasons for that, and one is the current economic conditions, which they perceive to be difficult.

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

Thank you for that, sir.

Of course, we on this side of the House would contend that those economic conditions are directly related to the policies of the NDP-Liberal government. That being said, is it not true that, inside this particular space, the majority of these small and medium-sized business owners are women as well?

[Michelle Auger]

We don't necessarily know the makeup of our membership. We could probably do some digging and get back to you on that, if that's something you'd like.

From our perspective, our membership is split between male and female. I think we're probably closer to 60% on the male side, but for this specific industry we don't know the accurate makeup.

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

Thanks very much.

Mr. Harrington, do you have a comment on many of the businesses in this sector being female-led businesses?

[Gerry Harrington]

Over my career, there has been a massive change in gender in industry in general.

I would also highlight that women are the majority purchasers of natural health products.

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

Thanks very much.

Of course, comments of the minister—and I hate to say them out loud again—referred to this bill as “a cuckoo bananas bill”, and, of course, as many of you heard, the minister, and even the officials, continuously referred to this unknown factory “full of urine and feces”.

I'll turn to Mr. Skelton.

How do you think these inflammatory and provocative comments from the minister are going to affect consumer confidence in the natural health product industry in general?

[Aaron Skelton]

I think we're disappointed that we're here in the first place. Moreover, we're bewildered that this conversation has to continue. This is an industry that has a very strong reputation and a very high trust among Canadians. We've recently surveyed that over 81% of Canadians use these products.

To revert back to your question about ownership and who's running these businesses, the vast majority of these SMEs are female-founded or led and operated. Any comment that takes the 0.006% and paints a brush across a full industry I don't believe would be helpful to that industry, no.

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

Thanks very much, Mr. Skelton.

Ms. Gorham, we asked officials to talk about this factory full of rat feces and urine, and, of course, they couldn't name it. I find that very disturbing, to be honest with you. We have a minister out there basically trying to ruin an entire industry for a reason I don't know. It's a $13-billion industry. They were continuously referring to that factory. If that really were the fact, of course, you would expect officials to have an answer as to where this factory was and how terrible it was. Do you have any insight for us as to where this factory full of rat feces is? It seems a bit odd to me.

Listen, I know it's not humorous, but that being said, these are the minister's own words, which he kept referring to over and over again. For a Canadian—and I'm a very proud Canadian—to think that a minister would go on at length, numerous times, to suggest that any industry in Canada was a factory full of rat poop and urine is absolutely ludicrous.

[Jules Gorham]

I'm going to start by saying—and I think I speak on behalf of Aaron and myself, all of our members, and probably all of industry and us around this table—that we are pretty shocked to see that, on one hand, we're being said to be, and you are being told that this is, a very compliant, very co-operative industry, but then, on the other hand, the worst-case scenario in the past 20 years of this regulatory system is used to shame and stain a Canadian industry, one that we are all very proud of. We've all worked very hard to get it to where it is. I'll start by saying that.

As for the situation we believe he was referring to, I don't know, because they didn't say the name, but I think we do know because, like I said, it was the worst case. I will say that although that happened since 2023, since Vanessa's Law was passed, since the definition was changed, that situation was resolved using the powers they already had previously. The site licence was suspended for 30 days. The company was given a chance to course correct. It submitted its course correction to Health Canada. Health Canada didn't accept it, and the company's licence was cancelled. That worked.

I just find it a bit surprising that what is used to justify the need for this omnibus bill.... This omnibus bill's powers were not even used in that situation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Gorham.

Dr. Powlowski, please, you have five minutes.