Public Accounts Committee on March 24th, 2022

[Linsey Hollett]

As has been said, since March 2021 we have been and are now in the middle of a successful project piloting proactive inspections. I will mention, however, as I stated a couple of minutes ago, that we have actually been ramping up activity in the proactive inspection area since 2017. It is correct that in our commitment to the management response action plan, there is a window during which we will assess the results of the pilot, consult the stakeholders, and then determine our path forward with respect to a permanent inspection program.

However, in the interim, with the one-year pilot that we are soon concluding, between that pilot's ending and our assessing the output and consulting with stakeholders, that does not mean that inspection activity will stop. Inspections will continue. We will continue with the momentum that we built up over the last number of years, so there will not be a period—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I would like to thank all the witnesses with us today, particularly Mr. DeMarco. He and his team did a tremendous job in producing the report.

I also want to emphasize that I totally agree with my colleague, Mr. Lawrence. He pointed out that this report reveals the erosion of our trust in the institutions that are supposed to protect us.

What I understand from the recent testimony and recent responses is that there has already been progress. I am very pleased to see it, but this needs to continue. What the report shows is that there is still a lot of work to do.

The false sense of confidence is very serious, especially at a time when science is being valued less and less. We need our institutions to be exemplary, especially Health Canada.

I'll give an example, a personal one. When I was pregnant, there was very little information about the potential effects of hand sanitizers that contained alcohol. Some people said I should not use it because it could harm my baby. Others ignored it. There was very little information on this. To be honest, I have to say that this was at a time when there was already a lot of uncertainty. The situation was far from ideal. I would have liked to have more information before buying a product. I especially would have liked to know that the product had been inspected and that manufacturing standards had been met.

What I learned from the report is that this was not necessarily the case. The impact may not be felt now, but it could be felt over the next few months or years. I hope that won't be the case.

Mr. DeMarco, can you tell us about the differences between regulations for verifying good manufacturing practices for health products and regulations pertaining to good manufacturing practices for medication?

Can you tell us more about the impact of this regulatory difference on society and on consumers?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Thank you for the question.

Exhibit 2.1 of our report compares three types of products: over‑the‑counter drugs, natural health products and cosmetics. You're right, there are differences between the three. Drugs and natural health products may have similar benefits and purposes, but they are regulated differently.

I understand that the different regulations are an issue, but I can't explain the rationale behind them. Health Canada officials should explain it to you.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Thank you.

What would happen if natural health products were regulated in the same way as drugs? Could there be an upside to that?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

I'm sure Health Canada can answer that.

It's not that the department failed to approve the recommendations. In this case, the department agrees with the recommendations. Health Canada's report and research show that issues have come up, and the department is aware of them.

The deputy minister himself stated that Health Canada was working on amendments to the legislation that will modernize the program.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You have 30 seconds left.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

I will go ahead and ask my question even though Health Canada officials will not have enough time to answer in the 30 seconds I have left. This will give them some time to think about why the regulations are so different.

I know that a pilot project is currently under way, but why haven't the regulations been implemented yet?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

MP Desjarlais, you have six minutes, please.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the members of the committee who've already spoken. I think they've addressed some good points. I know that our colleague Mr. Lawrence—he's not here—mentioned his advocacy for the quality of the report here and how damning it truly is. I think it's of serious concern to this committee to know that these reports in fact can reveal devastating facts about our public service and the areas that need to be improved.

Right from the audit period from February 2017 to December 2019, there was also an extension, I understand, for two months to look at new products and site licences approved between April and May o 2020.

I'd be remiss, as a member of the New Democratic Party, if I didn't mention my concern with the fact that the Office of the Auditor General has workers on strike outside of our office, outside of this meeting. I'm growing more and more concerned about the impact of keeping those workers locked out of the Office of the Auditor General and the relationship it has to the quality of these reports, especially as it relates to the comments by my colleague Nathalie on trust in institutions. We need to be able to trust the Office of the Auditor General and these reports.

Although I do believe this report to be of good quality, I'm growing more and more concerned about the fact that we have over 100 employees of the Office of the Auditor General outside our office right now who can't do the quality of work that we expect this committee to do. I'm concerned about that. I think it's a very legitimate concern.

Many, many people are concerned about our work here. They're concerned about the potential impact of not being able to have the credible reports that this committee needs in order to do the work that this country has done for over 150 years. These reports, I believe, have everything to do with how we understand our role at public accounts. The trust of this institution is so important. The work we do at this committee is some of the most important work this country can do on behalf of Canadians.

I admire and respect every single member of our team, not just my colleagues around this table but also my colleagues who also work in the Office of the Auditor General. I respect that work. I just need to know, as a member of this committee, whether or not any future reports coming to this committee, including this one, especially during the period between April and May 2020, are impacted by the workers being locked out right now. Can we expect delays to the quality of our reports moving forward if all of this continues?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Thank you for the question, and also for the endorsement of the important work of this committee as well as our office. We have a great team at the Office of the Auditor General. As commissioner, I'm an integral part of the Office of the Auditor General.

We are looking forward to a new mandate regarding the labour negotiations from Treasury Board next week. The labour disruption has proceeded for a long time, and we do foresee delays in our work, including delays for upcoming publications of audits. We will not be issuing substandard work, though. If there's an impact on our work, it would be to delay the release of reports rather than to issue reports on time that are not up to audit standards.

So there is a disruption to our work, but it will not result in our publishing or tabling with Parliament substandard work. I can assure you of that.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

I want to thank the commissioner for that answer.

I think it's very important that this committee understands what the commissioner said. There will be an impact and delay to our work, to a committee as critical and important as this, because of the fact that we're not respecting workers.

I do want to really thank the Office of the Auditor General for the work it's doing and for the advocacy to ensure that Treasury Board does its part. I do believe the Office of the Auditor General, from speaking to members there, has done the best it can to ensure that a fair deal is reached. It's very critical, to the point that the commissioner mentioned, that the Treasury Board does its job too so that we can restore confidence in this committee and restore our schedule.

As was mentioned by the commissioner, there will be a delay. We need to get on top of this. This should be a non-partisan issue. We need to protect our institutions. We need to protect the people who work at the Office of the Auditor General. We need to make sure that we have a report in a timely fashion so that all Canadians can ensure that this institution continues.

I want to thank you, Commissioner, for your honest answer and for your support in ensuring that we come to a swift and good conclusion on behalf of everyone at the Office of the Auditor General and we no longer incur the delays that you have cited.

I have one minute left, so maybe I'll just mention this quickly for an answer in the next round. I want to touch on the idea of traditional medicine and how important traditional medicine is for indigenous people. The regulation of it is something of concern. Regulating traditional medicines and how medicines can be sold or even put on the market is concerning to indigenous people. I'll elaborate more later.

Thanks so much to the commissioner.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You still have 45 seconds.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Well, in that case, I'll continue my question on traditional medicines.

When traditional medicine is considered for the purposes of ensuring that indigenous people have access to these products, there's also the fear that these health products could be appropriated by non-indigenous people to exploit our traditional understanding and our way of using these medicines in a sacred and reciprocal way.

There are huge concerns with the regulation of how we post these on the public market. Indigenous people do not want to see non-indigenous people harvesting these and then creating exclusive zones, where these products can be put on the market for purchase.

Indigenous traditional medicine needs to continue to be excepted, and needs to continue to be unregulated in the sense that indigenous people have been regulating it in a way that is traditional to our own understanding and ways moving forward.

I would like to have some clarity. I know we probably won't have enough time here, but how can we protect that, and how is this law, that we're debating in relation to the principle of 2014, related to this?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Again, just to remind everyone, this will be Dr. Lucas' last round. There will be a quick question after this round for Dr. Lucas. I don't want to interfere, but it's coming from the analyst, so it's worth raising.

MP Patzer, you have the floor, for five minutes.

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

Thank you.

I'm wondering if there's about a 30-second answer to the last statement that was made by my colleague from the NDP just to finish that point. Is there anything that you guys want to comment on about traditional medicines?

[Pamela Aung-Thin]

I will speak briefly to it, and then I'm happy to come back to it.

In terms of non-traditional medicines, including indigenous medicines, homeopathic products, and others, how a retailer chooses to group the products is outside of the purview of Health Canada. We recognize that there is an abundance of choice, when it comes to what we call “self-care products”. Knowing which product to purchase for oneself and one's family can be challenging.

In an effort to provide better support, we are proposing the changes to improve natural health product labels so that they're clear and legible. I can come back with more detail on that, and more specifically on indigenous traditional medicine, when we have more time.

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

Thank you.

Go ahead, Dr. Lucas.

[Dr. Stephen Lucas]

I'm going to indicate that the regulations pertain to products that are sought for sale. For products, such as traditional medicine, where a community or indigenous group harvests and uses them and are not for sale, they would not be subject to regulation.

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

Thank you for that.

I guess this question is more for Health Canada. Over 70% of Canadians are regularly using natural health products. Why aren't the penalties higher on those manufacturers who fail to meet Health Canada's standards? Both you and the report have mentioned that you cannot force a recall of a product, and you are not notified when a new product enters the market. 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.

What are your thoughts on that?

[Dr. Stephen Lucas]

As I indicated, and as is outlined in the report, Health Canada does believe and will seek the opportunity to include in Vanessa's Law natural health products, such that those increased fines and other powers, such as product recall, can be granted.

In regard to information on when products are brought to market and requirements for site license information for quality review, we are taking steps now and have been taking steps to strengthen that, as my colleagues have noted. We'll be making modifications to the regulations to build in those requirements. On the side of notification and the site licence information, those would be regulatory changes, but we are taking steps in advance of that at this time.

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

You say that you will be asking for that. Are there any timelines for when that's actually going to happen? This report has identified many flaws, but one for sure is, how do you deter people from taking advantage of Canadians?

You said you will, but when is that going to happen? Is there a timeline in place for when that's going to happen? What assurances do we have that this is actually going to take place?

[Dr. Stephen Lucas]

I think the department's commitment, as outlined in the response to the audit report and our management response in our testimony today, clearly commits us to seek the legislative change needed to add natural health products to Vanessa's Law and we will seek the earliest possible opportunity to do that in consultation with central agencies and others to enable that legislation to move forward as quickly as possible.

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

Okay. For lots of regulations, there's a mandatory review time frame. Is there one in place for Vanessa's Law, or is this something that is basically just left up to your department to do whenever it sees fit?

[Dr. Stephen Lucas]

Mr. Chair, I'm not aware of a mandatory review time for Vanessa's Law specifically, but as I indicated, we are committed to having that legislative change made as quickly as possible. The decision was made at the time to not include natural health products, and we want to see that change made at the earliest possible opportunity.