Health Committee on Sept. 27th, 2023

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You mentioned a $5‑billion industry. That implies $2.8 billion in tax revenues. We're talking about a $100‑million program. You have received no indication from Treasury Board as to how much sales tax this industry generates. Nor do you have any indication of the impact that cost recovery fees and mitigation measures will have on this figure. It has to be said that some companies may disappear. We don't know anything about that, yet.

This is a $100‑million program, which you present as one for which the taxpayer pays. However, given the sales tax and the revenue generated by the tax, don't you agree that there is negotiating room to, first, really measure the true impact of this measure on businesses, particularly small businesses, and to adjust what is planned?

All over this grid, I see all sorts of figures: 58,000, 40,000, 23,000. There's still room for development. You're not basing this on any hard data.

[Dr. Celia Lourenco]

Thank you for the question.

As I mentioned, we are currently looking at the comments we received through our consultation, and we will adjust our proposal.

Based on the proposal we have consulted on, if we look at the majority of companies on the market, over 60% of the companies are small businesses. A large majority of them market only a small number of products, one to five products. Most of them maintain those products on the market, so they're not bringing in new products, for example.

If we're looking at the current fees being imposed on the majority of those companies, up to $2,000 a year is what a company, a small business, would pay in order to market their five products. That being said, we understand that could still be difficult for some businesses. We are looking at all the comments we have received and we'll take additional measures to mitigate impacts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We go to Mr. Davies, please, for two and a half minutes.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I want to explore the policy around this cost recovery, and I'll tell you what I'm thinking.

First of all, this idea that we're not getting money from this industry is wrong. NHPs pay sales tax. Pharmaceuticals do not. That's a policy choice. Every time a consumer goes to a store and buys a natural health product, they are sending money to the federal government, and probably the provincial government as well. They are being taxed.

Number two, it's been said repeatedly that these natural products are the only line of health products for which Health Canada does not currently charge fees. Aren't we comparing apples to oranges? Pharmaceuticals, particularly brand names, get 20 years' patent protection of monopolistic pricing power. Natural health products do not. Also, pharmaceutical products, for 80% of Canadians, are reimbursed through insurance plans. Natural health products are not. Taking one thing and saying, “We can have cost recovery for NHPs, just the same as we do for the other ones,” without taking into account the entire physical structure, strikes me as being not only unfair but financially wrong. I just want to state that.

I find myself unclear about the data. We say that the products are low-risk, but that low risk is not no risk. Well, there are no products that have no risk. A basketball, or a kleenex, or my coffee in front of me has a risk.

I'm trying to find out the actual data you have that suggests a change is required. You said 80% of the products in the sample were advertised with misleading product information and 56% were marketed with misleading label information. However, Health Canada's own compliance monitoring project from 2015 found the opposite. The label review found that 92% were compliant. How do you explain the discrepancy between those two reports?

[Dr. Supriya Sharma]

On the two reports, one was the CSED's, the OAG audit. There was a consumer protection organization that raised the issue around cancer claims. They looked at the ones that the consumer protection organization had raised: 88% of those made advertising claims that were false or misleading, and then 56% of the labels had false or misleading information. Again, though, it was a small sample. That's one they did.

When we did it at Health Canada, it was something similar. We had a look online, on the web, and used AI to look at that. We had 3,800. In that one, we found that 63% of them were making false or misleading treatment claims or false or misleading claims related to cancer. It's the 88% and 63%, but again, you have to look at how those samples were taken. That's the apples and oranges—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

The compliance rate is wrong....

[Dr. Supriya Sharma]

That was on the label. That's not advertising claims. That's on labelling overall, having the ingredients, etc., on that.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

That's on the labelling. Thank you for clearing that up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Davies, and thank you, Dr. Sharma.

We have Mr. Doherty, please, for five minutes.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Sharma, I want to go back to one of the comments you made earlier on. You referenced some deaths attributed to natural health products. One was the 18-month-old toddler in Alberta. I believe you're referring to Ezekiel Stephan.

Isn't it true that the situation is different from what you're stating? The baby didn't pass away from using or taking natural health products. The baby ultimately passed away because the parents didn't believe in going to the hospital. The baby was very sick, and they first tried home remedies to try to get the baby better. The death wasn't necessarily attributed to a specific natural health product. Isn't that correct?

[Dr. Supriya Sharma]

Again, the information we have is the same as people have in terms of what was in the news. My understanding was they were using natural health products and natural treatments instead of—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Like garlic tonics—

[Dr. Supriya Sharma]

—antibiotics, because the child ended up having bacterial meningitis. That's what—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

That's right. That's correct, but you can't specifically tie that to one specific natural health product that was mislabelled or dangerous. Is that correct?

[Dr. Supriya Sharma]

The point there, I think, was in relation to another comment from people thinking that a natural health product might be used for something that it's not—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

What you're saying is that your comments are being misrepresented. Is that right?

[Dr. Supriya Sharma]

No. I was just giving context, so the other context—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

With all due respect, I believe you to be a good person, but the context you used in your testimony today was to say that, well, a vast majority of these health products are safe. There was a tragic loss of a toddler from one. You used that as your testimony, and the reality of your testimony is that you misrepresented that situation. Is that correct?

[Dr. Supriya Sharma]

Respectfully, Chair, the idea is that we did a survey. Products are making claims again cancer. They're not allowed to make treatment claims against cancer—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I know, but I'm not talking about cancer.

[Dr. Supriya Sharma]

—and if somebody believes that claim and takes that medication for cancer instead of treatment—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Sure, but—

[Dr. Supriya Sharma]

—then that could have serious consequences. For a child who has meningitis and the parents believe—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

—Ms. Sharma, specifically for this testimony—

[Dr. Supriya Sharma]

I'm just trying to finish my sentence, Chair.