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?