Thank you.
I have to say, I'm a little perplexed by Mr. Julian's argument, which is that the industry is already virtually 100% compliant since there have been only three cases where there was a request for a voluntary recall and the company refused to do so. In his opinion, why do we need this law at all?
It would seem to me a rather dangerous way to govern, saying that most people are in compliance, so why do we need the law? Do we say that about speeding around schoolyards? You can say that most people actually slow down around schoolyards, so you don't have to have any kind of law to prevent people from speeding around schoolyards.
I would like to ask this of Ms. Hoffman specifically.
This law is all about applying Vanessa's Law to natural health products. That's it. It's removing that protection for natural health products. Within Vanessa's Law, there are a whole bunch of different things.
I've heard that amendments are being considered that would water it down and take away some of the protection of Vanessa's Law. I wonder which of these we can do without. Is it the requirement for hospitals to report adverse reactions? I think we need that one. Is it the ability to recall? I think we need that one. Is it the ability to apply higher, more severe forms of punishment? I think we need that one. Is it the requirement to change labelling, if required? I think we need that one. Is it the requirement that a natural health product producer might be asked to do more research into their product? I think we might need that one.
Is there anything in Vanessa's Law that you think we could do without if we want to amend this?