Health Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We have a point of order from Mr. Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

We need to fix the sound in the room so that I can hear the interpretation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault. We'll do that right now.

Could you hold off for a second, Dr. Hanley? We want to make sure it's not dangerous for those listening in terms of the sound levels.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Is it better now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Yes. The sound in the room seems fine.

Go ahead.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Once again, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Look, I just want to emphasize that we're all concerned about the viability of the natural health products industry, just as we're concerned about the safety of Canadians.

First, I want to call out my colleague for calling into question the integrity of Dr. Sharma as Health Canada's chief medical adviser. To call her testimony “misinformation”, even if there is disagreement over what she said, is frankly outrageous.

I want to just clarify that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Dr. Kitchen, on a point of order.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I guess the question is on using the word “misinformation”. His interpretation of the word “misinformation”, if you look it up in the dictionary, is totally different from what the actual terminology is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

That was a point of debate, not a point of order.

Go ahead, Dr. Hanley.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

What Dr. Sharma said, or was trying to make the point about, was that, if natural health products are making claims against serious diseases and people believe these claims, they may be using those treatments instead of treatments that could potentially help their own condition or that of their loved ones. That was the context for what Dr. Sharma said. Using the word “misinformation” associated with her is to call into question her integrity.

I also know that my Conservative colleagues are equally concerned, if not outraged, at some of the regulatory gaps that we presently experience with natural health products and that Health Canada and the Minister of Health are currently trying to address with these changes. Let me quote the testimony from some of my Conservative friends at last year's public accounts committee when they looked at this issue.

Conservative MP Jeremy Patzer asked Health Canada officials: “Why aren't the penalties higher on those manufacturers who fail to meet Health Canada's standards? ...The maximum fine for violating the law is only $5,000. It just seems like it's not a large enough deterrent to stop the bad actors from violating the rules that have been imposed.”

MP Philip Lawrence asked, “Do you not find this disturbing, and are there any products out there right now that are supposed to be recalled and are not?”

MP Jeremy Patzer asked, “Again, when we're seeing things such as, literally, every single site had issues but it's only a $5,000 deterrent for having contaminants in your product, what is the level of the sense of urgency to actually get some real, strong deterrents and actual teeth that are going to prevent bad actors from taking advantage of Canadians...?” He goes on to ask, “What are you guys going to do and what is the level of urgency to make sure that we actually get real teeth...?”

Further to that, MP Patzer asked, “How do we make sure Canadians are confident in the products they're buying, when there are so many holes, gaps and issues, whether they be contaminated products, expired products or not even knowing where these products are manufactured or where they're coming from?”

Look, we called this meeting to hear from witnesses to get evidence on the very questions that were being posed about getting the balance right between product safety and the viability of the natural health products industry, and in fact its ability to thrive with complete consumer confidence. That's why we called this meeting to hear from witnesses with various points of view.

It is on that note that I move that the debate now be adjourned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We have a motion to adjourn debate. That motion is not debatable. We must proceed directly to a vote.

The question for the committee is whether the debate now be adjourned.

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

Chair, I'd like to request a recorded vote, please.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Debate on the motion is, therefore, adjourned.

We've reached the end of the first hour. I would now invite our panel for the second hour to come forward.

Colleagues, do we have consensus to allow the witnesses who haven't had a chance to take questions to remain in the event that some of the time allotted for questions in the second hour could be used to pose questions to all four witnesses? Are we okay to proceed in that fashion? I see heads nodding around the table.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

To those who are here, you are more than welcome and in fact are encouraged to stay. We're going to hear opening statements from the next panel. Then there will be an opportunity for members of Parliament to question anyone they wish to from either of the panels. If you could do that, we would greatly appreciate it. Thank you for your patience.

We will allow for the next panel to get themselves set up. I would ask them to go ahead and do that now.

Colleagues, I don't actually want to suspend the meeting. I think we can use the time productively. There is a housekeeping matter that I want to bring to your attention. That is simply on the matter of study budgets. You would have received from the clerk two study budgets for upcoming studies. I'm hoping we can dispense with them rather quickly.

One is in connection with the very study we're looking at now. The amount requested for witness expenses, working meals and headsets is $8,250. That's been circulated.

As you know, colleagues, this is essentially a pro forma amount that probably will not reflect what will actually be spent. It is simply to allot those funds so that whatever expenses are incurred in the conduct of this study will be available to us. The first is in connection with this particular study on the Department of Health's regulatory changes on natural health products.

Is there any discussion on that proposed budget?

Dr. Ellis, go ahead.

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

I'm sorry, Chair, but you said $8,250. Do we have an idea whether it will potentially be 10% or 20% more or less?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

That's the maximum it can be. That allows for an envelope of four witnesses to travel from Toronto and one to travel from Quebec, with one headset and one working meal for each of the witnesses. That's the total amount we're allotting. It will almost certainly be less.

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

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Are there any further questions or debate in connection with that study budget?

(Motion agreed to)

The second budget is with respect to Wednesday night's meeting to bring in the Minister of Health and Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. The total amount allotted for that is $1,000, which is made up of two headsets and one working meal. Are there any questions?

Again, we anticipate that the amount expended will be less, but it's necessary for us to block the funds.

Go ahead, Dr. Ellis.

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

Mr. Chair, for that particular meeting, my understanding is that the ministers will come. I don't understand why they need extra headsets. They already have headsets. Also, why do they need a meal? They would also have a per diem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I'm advised that the ministers will be accompanied by officials who may be participating remotely.

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

Mr. Chair, not to belabour the point, but anybody who works for the current Government of Canada would realistically have already been allotted a headset. It would, to me, seem duplicative for us to buy another one.

Once again, if those folks are at home, they don't need a meal, because they're going to eat at home. If they're here, they're also, then, working in their own working environment. Why should we have any budget for this?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We're trying to cover our bases in the event that someone doesn't have a headset. As I said, these funds are being allocated, but they will only be spent if necessary. We doubt it will be necessary, but we're erring on the side of caution.

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

I would certainly be happy to approve this if we can revisit it and understand exactly how much was spent with respect to that. If we can revisit this after the meeting.... I think it would make sense to understand.

Again, I'll underscore the point. I don't want to be buying headsets twice for folks. Also, if people choose to work from home, they can eat their own peanut butter sandwich. As well, if they want to come to work, they'll work in Ottawa. If we can revisit that budget after the meeting and understand exactly what the implications are.... I realize fully that it's not a lot of money, but it's the actual point of it. If we could do that, I would happily support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I'm happy to have a conversation after the meeting and include the clerk in it, Dr. Ellis.

Is there any further discussion on the motion to approve the study budget for the appearance of the ministers on Wednesday? I'm seeing none.

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you very much, colleagues.

I see that our witnesses are now in place.

Thank you for being with us.

I'd like to welcome our second panel of witnesses. Representing the Canadian Health Food Association, we have Aaron Skelton, president and CEO, and Adam Gibson, member. Representing Food, Health and Consumer Products of Canada, we have Gerry Harrington, senior vice-president, consumer health.

Thank you for taking the time to appear today. You'll each have up to five minutes for your opening statements.

We're going to begin with the Canadian Health Food Association.

Mr. Skelton and Mr. Gibson, it's as you wish. You have five minutes. The floor is yours.

Welcome to the committee.