SoVote

Context: Department of Health's Regulatory Changes for Natural Health Products Committee Business (HESA) - Oct/30/23

11:40:13 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I know everything is important here, but we heard important testimony from Ms. Sheldrick. We want to know more. We want to ask questions. She lost her son, and many members of the committee want to pose questions to the witnesses. We want to work together. I urge my colleagues from the other aisle to listen to the testimony, so we can work together. The other question I want to ask is whether they can stay until the next panel, because it's very important to ask questions. That's all, Mr. Chair.

101 words

The Chair

11:40:59 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Ms. Sidhu. Although those were all valid points, they were not points of order. The motion is in order. The motion is allowed. It may not be something that everyone likes, but members are acting entirely within their rights. Go ahead, Mr. Doherty.

45 words

Mr. Todd Doherty

11:41:16 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll go back to the last question that Mr. Davies.... Again I think it frames what we're talking about here with this motion and the reasons why we have concerns with it. The transcript reads: Mr. Davies:: I think it would help Dr. Sharma and all of us with this. In that case, did the product that was given make a claim that it would treat the particular ailment the child had? Dr. Supriya Sharma: We don't have the details.... She says, “We don't have the details”, yet it's one of the cases that she cited as to why it is so important that this industry face costly regulations—costly regulations that could potentially see the demise of 60% to 70% of these small businesses, if what we're also hearing from those officials is that the majority of the businesses in this industry are small to medium-sized businesses. The Canadian Health Food Association is the largest Canadian organization dedicated to natural health and organic products. Their members consist of over 1,000 businesses across Canada, including manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers, distributors and importers of natural health products. Indeed, natural health products are an important source of organic and wellness products used by over 71% of Canadians. The industry is a $5.5-billion industry. It generates $2.8 billion in taxable revenue and supports over 54,000 Canadian jobs. As I said, many of them are small to medium-sized businesses. After accounting for the full supply chain and increased economic spending, its total footprint is estimated to be $11 billion of GDP. Within the sector, 86% of the businesses have 50 employees or less. The reason I say that is that these small businesses are the backbone of this industry, and these regulations are at risk of closing the doors of these small businesses. Ninety-four per cent of those businesses within the sector have 200 employees or less, and 97% have 500 employees or less. These discriminatory regulatory changes under the outdated and broken self-care framework will crush the small and medium-sized businesses. They'll have a profound impact: 83% of these businesses say they will struggle to absorb the costs that these regulations will bring in, and 76% of the industry responded to indicate a high likelihood of product removal from Canada. This means Canadians won't have access to these products. Sixty-six per cent say employment will suffer, resulting in devastating job losses. One in five businesses will be at risk of closing. Our colleague, in his intervention, mentioned his concerns. My primary concern on this is not just the testimony of Dr. Sharma, which I find suspect—I'm sorry, but I gave her multiple opportunities to withdraw those comments. As I said in my testimony, I believe her to be a good person, but it is misleading when you stand here before a parliamentary committee and you provide testimony as such and you don't have all the facts. Because she is a doctor, we just take that testimony at face level, but I think that behooves all of us to do the research on that, which is why I questioned her that day. Overwhelmingly, it is this Canadian industry that we are at risk of decimating due to these unnecessary regulatory changes. I'm not discounting the testimony that we heard today and the written submissions as well. I think again, as Dr. Ellis had mentioned, on the 700 deaths that are being attributed to mislabelling, when we ask for data on that, we're not able to access that. At least, I haven't seen the data on that. I'm sorry. It's not deaths. It's 700 adverse effects. That was my mistake. Those are events and cases that.... Again, that's why I made that mistake. It's because it was my understanding that it was deaths. If we had the data, then perhaps we could accurately state our facts. Again, it's what we need. Going back to Dr. Sharma's testimony, I take no joy in doing this, but Canadians deserve for us to do our jobs when we come here. I've said it before and I'll say it probably multiple times during the course of our committee work. Committees are supposed to be masters of their own destiny. We're here to do the job. We have medical experts on this committee. Sadly, we are relegated to...not talking out the clock, but having to take control because, as we've seen in the past, when we ask questions or we push for discussion outside of the government agenda, debate gets adjourned or we get railroaded. That's sad. With that, Mr. Chair, I will cede the floor to the next speaker. I support my colleague's motion. Thank you.

823 words

The Chair

11:48:06 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Dr. Kitchen, go ahead, please.

5 words

Mr. Robert Kitchen (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC)

11:48:09 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank my colleague for educating a lot of us on some of the inconsistencies and possible misinformation that was provided by Dr. Sharma on this very issue of the unfortunate demise of this young child. It's interesting, as my colleague presented to us today, the stacks of information we've received from all across this country. He's on the east coast. I'm in the Prairies, and my colleague is on the west coast. It's going all across.... We've all received this. As he has indicated, I know that our colleagues across the way have received it as well. In pointing out so many issues here, when we look at this motion that's being put forward to us, it's very clear and very straightforward, because the reality is that what we're seeing here is a discussion on regulatory changes that were presented in Bill C-47, dealing in particular with sections 500 to 504, I believe. The changes are being imposed upon small businesses in Canada, which provide, as my colleague has pointed out, tremendous economic benefit to this country, and that's going to have a huge impact on consumers and the rights of those consumers to choose what they would like to use, whether it's vitamins.... I take vitamin D and vitamin C. I use the Jamieson brand. That's what I use. It's a product that I've used for many years. It's very clear on that exactly what I'm taking, but there are so many other ones out there. Ultimately, the process is that there's a regulatory step that's in place. Could it be improved? Yes, it could be, and maybe the industry.... In my conversations on this with people, they've indicated that they are prepared to make those changes to adjust that so that we can have that avenue. On the issue of dealing with it such that people can actually read what's put out there, they've also indicated the great value of maybe adding more into it. However, that said, the packaging part now becomes a huge aspect of it, because if we're dealing with a hundred tablets of vitamin C in a small tube, the amount of paper that has to be produced to be able to put on there in a print that people can read.... I have to put my glasses on, and if I don't have them with me when I do it, that's on me to know what I'm reading and what I'm not. Ultimately that cost to the industry is going to be in the millions and hundreds of millions of dollars, which in turn is going to have a huge impact and result in Canadians all across this country.... I like to use the term “trickle-down effect”. It is a huge trickle-down effect. I talk about it from the petroleum industry point of view and how shutting down the petroleum industry, the coal industry and the energy industry trickles down to those small communities. The same thing happens here with natural products. You start impacting that, and that trickle-down effect is going to affect small businesses. A small community that has a small business person in there who maybe employs one or two people lays off one person. That person has a family of five. Where do they go? They move somewhere else. That community is impacted and so on. It trickles down. The schools get impacted because they don't have the kids in the schools. These are huge impacts, and we need to be aware of that. This motion is basically saying, “Enough of all of this.” Let's support this and go back to the government to say, “Enough. We don't see this as acceptable. These changes are a huge impact on the economy and on the industry.” Our witnesses today talked a bit about adverse effects. One of the things I wrote down when she made the comment about it was, how many? How many adverse effects do you...? Dr. Sharma has said 700. That's 700 out of a population of.... What's the population of Canada? It's 30 million-plus people—

728 words

C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023

Ms. Sonia Sidhu

11:52:51 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. Calling the testimony of Canada's chief medical officer misinformation is dangerous. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

24 words

The Chair

11:52:59 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you. That's debate. Its not a point of order. Dr. Kitchen, go ahead.

15 words

Mr. Robert Kitchen

11:53:05 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The research out there says that, in hospital situations, 7.5% of the patient population that gets admitted to hospitals is due to adverse events for regulated prescription medications. That's huge—7.5%—when you compare that to 700 for natural health products. Ultimately, “The Canadian Adverse Events Study”—this is from back in 2004—showed that, of that 185,000 of the 2.5 million hospital admissions, 70,000 of those could potentially have been prevented. This is with regard to prescription medications. To turn around and say 700 from natural health food products.... Look at the difference. There's a huge difference between those numbers. I think this is a very educational part. We need to be very aware of these facts. We need to turn around and say that, yes, there are adverse effects. Yes, the industry needs to make certain that they're doing what they're doing, and it needs to be stepping up to make certain that that's done. I believe that the industry is doing that and making the steps, and it's prepared to make changes. However, when all of a sudden this government turns around and starts putting in right-to-sell, per-item costs for that industry, it's a huge cost, and that's an annual cost for every product they have. Then you turn around and take a look at the class of the level of the product that they're trying to sell. I remember when I was a regulator dealing in the industry and in my profession. People brought across the table a new ultrasound machine. It had to go in front of Health Canada, and in front of Health Canada, it had to go through the process of making sure that it was appropriate. That cost was huge. Now, granted, we're talking about a product that's providing ultrasound treatment to somebody. Yes, there are a lot of issues that can result in various side effects there, so that product needed to be regulated appropriately. However, the costs were huge. When we're talking about a health food product—like a vitamin—and we classify that and have these huge, thousands-of-dollars costs.... Then, on top of that, you have the site licensing fees, which are supposed to be based on a cost recovery, yet no one has done an assessment on exactly what that cost is. These are huge amounts. I think the steps and the processes are not in place to follow those aspects and to make certain that we are doing what we should be doing. My colleague has put forward a motion that we're dealing with that I think we need to look at, and look at immediately, to turn around and say to the government that this is wrong. The regulatory process has been put forward. Many people in the industry have put forward their information. It's time to turn to the government and say that this is not acceptable. Either it goes back to relooking at this, or we end it as we speak. With that said, Mr. Chair, I want to thank you for the ability to speak on this. I ask my colleagues to support this motion.

558 words

The Chair

11:57:00 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Dr. Kitchen. Before I recognize Dr. Hanley, I just want to say something to the witnesses. You committed to be here for one hour. We are now approaching the end of that hour. The first thing I want to say to you is thank you. However, the second thing is that, if we are able to dispense with this motion, I will be asking the committee to allow you to stay until the end of the meeting in case there are questions for you. That may be a decision that we will take. I understand that you committed to be here for an hour, so if you wish to leave, you're free to do so. If you are able to stay, there's a chance that you may be able to further contribute if we can deal with the motion and if the committee agrees to include you in the rounds of questions after the next panel has a chance to present their opening statements. With that, next on the speakers list with regard to the motion is Dr. Hanley.

183 words

Mr. Brendan Hanley (Yukon, Lib.)

11:57:58 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to our witnesses for their patience. We're all concerned about the viability of the natural health products industry.

25 words

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

11:58:10 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

8 words

The Chair

11:58:13 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

We have a point of order from Mr. Thériault.

11 words

Mr. Luc Thériault

11:58:15 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

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

16 words

The Chair

11:58:23 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

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.

40 words

Mr. Brendan Hanley

11:58:40 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Is it better now?

4 words

The Chair

11:58:47 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Yes. The sound in the room seems fine. Go ahead.

10 words

Mr. Brendan Hanley

11:58:52 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

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—

86 words

The Chair

11:59:28 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Dr. Kitchen, on a point of order.

7 words

Mr. Robert Kitchen

11:59:30 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

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.

42 words

The Chair

11:59:48 a.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

That was a point of debate, not a point of order. Go ahead, Dr. Hanley.

15 words

SoVote

House Committee