Public Accounts Committee on March 24th, 2022

[Dr. Stephen Lucas]

Mr. Chair, I'll start with that and turn to Linsey. We have a rigorous system of developing mutual recognition agreements with other regulators so that we have assurance that the standards they're inspecting to and their inspections methods conform with and are equivalent to those of Health Canada. Linsey can give you the practical experience of how we effect that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm afraid we're going to have hold off on that.

I'm moving through in a timely way here, so that we will have time for the fourth round, everyone. You'll be able to have the time to come back to these important questions.

I turn now to Ms. Yip. You have the floor for five minutes, please.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you.

I would like to commend Health Canada for responding so quickly and flexibly on products like hand sanitizers to help limit the spread of COVID. I do believe it did help educate the wider public and also to give them some comfort.

My first question is for Health Canada. If claims to cure and treat cancer are forbidden under the Food and Drugs Act, why would some claims of products preventing cancer be allowed? I think that's dangerous and misleading to the public?

What types of preventable natural health products are allowed?

[Dr. Stephen Lucas]

Thank you. Perhaps I'll turn to Linsey in responding to that.

[Linsey Hollett]

With respect to the first part of that question, I can say that from a compliance and enforcement standpoint, when we look at issues, including labelling issues, what we find is that lots of companies are in non-compliance, or in contravention, with their market authorization. As the member says, it is something that's not allowed under our legislation, nor would their market authorization allow them to make a claim, but in some cases, you still find the claim. Then, they are in direct contravention with the Food and Drugs Act and the regulations, and that is where our compliance enforcement would come in, including such tools as stopping sales, seizing product, and public communications. That would be in contravention of a market authorization, the act and the regulations.

Deputy, I think I will ask Pam if she would like to add anything.

[Pamela Aung-Thin]

Thank you, Linsey.

I will just respond by saying that examples of natural health products to treat cancer are certainly very rare. That being said, there is a wide category of products. One example is sunscreen, which is used in conjunction with other prevention activities for the prevention of skin cancer.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you.

During the pandemic, Canadians turned more to online purchases. More than one quarter of 75 licensed products did not show they had a natural product number. Also, it's something that I think the public really relies on: If they see this natural product number, it will help give them some sort of confidence in a product. However, there isn't such a requirement for this number to appear online. Can you clarify if there will be a requirement on how online products will be regulated with this number?

[Dr. Stephen Lucas]

I'll turn to Pam to speak to our labelling regulations and this question specifically.

[Pamela Aung-Thin]

We are definitely looking into this. Our recommendations for online products are definitely in development. You're right in that it's not currently required, but we are working on a proposal.

I'll just take the time as well to mention that one recommendation was around monitoring. It was around developing a risk-based monitoring program to identify unlicensed products and to take appropriate action. The department has been working on exploring various tools, including artificial intelligence web scraping, to proactively support monitoring under the program, including unlabelled products. Those next steps will include determining the feasibility of linking terms of the market authorization database with an external AI tool. There is work that is under way.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Could you give further examples of some of the AI tools being used?

[Pamela Aung-Thin]

I don't have the specific name of the actual AI tool, but we've been testing and piloting different ones that are available to do that online monitoring so that we can move from a complaints-based response to a more risk-based response moving forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Just at the chair's discretion, I have questions from our analysts here.

Dr. Lucas, could you or someone on your team help us with two questions? On page 1 of your management response and action plan, it states, “Dependent on the approved recommendation(s), seek regulatory amendments”. That quote then continued.

Our two questions are as follow. First, which recommendations are you referring to? Second, what is the process to seek regulatory amendments?

Thank you.

[Dr. Stephen Lucas]

Mr. Chair, I'll speak to the second question, and then, after I've done that, one of my colleagues—perhaps Pam—can speak to the specific part of the management response.

In terms of the process to seek regulatory amendments, the department develops a policy proposal. In general, we will consult stakeholders on it prior to seeking the authority of Treasury Board to publish it for formal consultation in Canada Gazette, part I. Indeed, in the case of the labelling regulations, we had for several years consulted a range of stakeholders on changes to the labelling regulations. Those were then brought forward into a proposal and approved by the Treasury Board in the spring of 2021 and gazetted in June 2021 on the basis of feedback from those stakeholders.

As I've indicated, we are finalizing the proposal on those natural health product labelling regulations to propose it again to Treasury Board for consideration of its final form this spring.

Pam, in regard to the specific point the chair raised about the management response, I'll turn to you.

[Pamela Aung-Thin]

Yes. Thank you for the question.

We are assessing the tools that are required for the pre-market to strengthen our oversight. When we were developing the MRAP, we expected that they would include changes that require regulatory amendments. We're finalizing those recommendations now and we'll be working towards bringing forward a regulatory proposal. However, just to reiterate the deputy minister's response, we are certainly continuing to move forward our regulatory proposal specific to label changes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much to the two of you. I'm getting a thumbs-up from our team here, so I appreciate it.

Dr. Lucas, I know you might well sign off any moment now, so I do want to thank you for appearing today. I know we're in good hands with your two associates.

I'm now going to turn to our third round. To kick it off for the Conservatives is MP Patzer, please.

You have five minutes.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My question is to Health Canada. How many people have you fined $5,000?

[Dr. Stephen Lucas]

Mr. Chair, I'll pass that question to Linsey Hollett.

With the chair's recognition of my schedule, I will sign off at this point and thank the committee very much for the opportunity to appear on this topic. We're certainly committed to keeping the committee updated as needed on our progress in addressing these important findings and recommendations.

Linsey.

[Linsey Hollett]

Thank you, Deputy Minister; and thank you, Chair, for the question.

As to the exact number since the inception of the program in 2004, I will have to commit to getting that information back to the committee. What I can say is that in deciding which cases would go that route, and by that, I mean prosecution, and if successful, in fines, is something we administer very closely with the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. It is not a space in which we act alone. They are the ultimate decision-makers.

However, with respect to the member's question, I can commit to getting the exact number post-meeting, if that is acceptable.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

It is. Thank you.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Yes, we would definitely like that number, because the report points to it. You guys have acknowledged that changes are needed. We've had no assurances of when those changes are going to happen and we don't have any kind of sense of urgency on when this is going to happen.

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, who quite frankly are having negative experiences?

There are people who are taking products out that they're thinking are going to help them with cancer but in some cases aren't. What are you guys going to do and what is the level of urgency to make sure that we actually get real teeth to prevent these bad actors from taking advantage of vulnerable Canadians?

[Pamela Aung-Thin]

Thank you for the question. I can start off and perhaps my colleague Linsey can add in anything she wishes.

As we outlined earlier, there are a number of recommendations in the report and we have agreed with all five of them. I'll also add that leading up to the report there already had been work started, and that was clearly under way to tackle some of the gaps that came out later in the report.

I think the deputy minister covered fairly extensively earlier that we continue to pursue legislation through Vanessa's Law to provide additional protections for consumers, and that follow-up continues fairly vigorously as we work with our colleagues not only internally but with central agencies to move that forward.

Linsey.

[Linsey Hollett]

Thank you, Pam.

With respect to a sense of urgency, I will just point out—and hopefully it will be helpful to the committee—that we really come at regulated parties and issues of non-compliance on two fronts. First and foremost, always, is mitigating risk to safety. Once that is done, we look at punitive measures, and that's where we come in with prosecutions and fines.

As was said, in all respects, we are looking to bolster our tools and our authorities, but certainly in that first instance of assessing risk proactively to Canadians, we do feel a sense of urgency. That is why you see the inspection pilot program. That is why we will continue inspection activity while we are assessing the pilot to keep momentum going, because we do agree with the member that there is a need to do more in this space.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Really quickly to the commissioner, from your findings, is $5,000 enough of a fine or should it be higher?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

The difference between the two columns in exhibit 2.1, $5,000 and $5 million, is disproportionate to the levels of risk. There's no indication that the risks from natural health products are 1/1000th as important as the risks from over-the-counter medications. There does need to be a revisiting of that. The signal that it sends to potential bad actors is that this is not important when you have a maximum fine of only $5,000.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

We're turning now to MP Fragiskatos.

You have the floor for five minutes. Go ahead, please.