C-51: The end of democracy?
I have received numerous requests from concerned readers, friends and family to examine the implications of Bill C-51 - An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts .
If you listen to some of the fear-mongering (note the ‘Nazi Germany’ reference) permeating the blogosphere, this Bill is designed to topple the natural health product industry, and even go so far as to "warrant action against a person who would give another person an unapproved amount of garlic on the recommendation that it would improve that persons health."
Uh-huh. The hyperbole is astounding. And it’s having the desired effect - Some Conservative bloggers have even gone so far as to abandon the party over this bill!
All this hype reminds me of the Urban Legends and other nuisance emails everyone gets warning that if they don’t forward this email to to five other people who need a hug, have cute pets, want to solve world peace or whatever else they’re told, then the universe will implode or at the very least they will have ten weeks of bad luck.
To me, this Bill is about safety and regulations - so that a natural health remedy actually contains what it says it does, and will have the benefit it advertises without unexpected side effects (eg.addiction)
Here is a portion of debate on C-51 from Hansard (April 30 @ 15:30):
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51 is a long bill of some 75 clauses and it affects a number of other acts.Members are already receiving correspondence from their constituents concerning natural therapeutic products. It will be a very significant issue for the government and Parliament to address with regard to the implications of the bill to these natural therapeutic products.
One of my constituents specifically wrote about her son who suffers from Lyme disease and requires certain drugs. It is not that these drugs would cure the problem, but they help in terms of quality of life or in the ability to control the effects of the disease. It is a very serious situation, and I know the minister is aware of that.
At the outset, there must be a declaration of the government that the implications of Bill C-51 will not be draconian in regard to the pricing or availability of natural therapeutic products so those who believe that those products are necessary for themselves or their family members will continue to have reasonable and appropriate access with appropriate health safeguards.
Hon. Tony Clement :
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to address the member’s comments at this time. I state categorically and for the record, there is nothing targeted to the natural health products industry in the bill. There is nothing that is draconian in terms of the effects of pricing and availability in the bill. Indeed, we seek to ensure that natural health products are available to Canadians.Of course we are always concerned about safety and efficacy, particularly safety. Natural health products, just as prescription drugs and certain other therapeutic products, have to be available in a safe way to Canadians.
I would say for a purveyor or manufacturer of a natural health product, if what is on the label is accurate and if what is claimed about the natural health product is accurate, there is nothing to fear from the legislation. Indeed, our government and our caucus want more natural health products on the marketplace for more choice for Canadians, but we will not stand by if there is a dangerous product .
I issue warnings practically every week about this or that dangerous product, some of which are natural health products, which can have an impact on cardiac arrest, strokes or liver damage. Things can have this kind of impact. We do not want those products available. We want Canadians to be warned and we want them to be safe …
Doesn’t sound all that nefarious, does it?
If you still have concerns, I would recommend that you call or write to your local MP as well as the Health Minister, Tony Clement. Talk to your health care provider and pharmacist. Try to get the facts from a variety of informed sources. Don’t rely on scare tactics and misinformation.
* * * *
Update : This article from the Globe - A Bill Worthy of Our Support - is about as balanced an assessment as I’ve seen so far: (The font size is very small, but it can be adjusted via the ‘view’ function in your browser.)
…Within minutes, critics - consumer advocates, industry, academics and journalists - pounced on the proposed legislation like a pack of wild dogs thrown a hunk of raw meat.
The new law, we were told, would:
-Weaken the drug review process;
-Allow for the rubber stamping of new drugs and turn Canadians into a nation of unwitting guinea pigs;
-Throw the doors open to direct-to-consumer advertising, transforming us into drugged-out zombies clamouring for every pill touted on TV;
-Place an unfair burden on the poor, beleaguered pharmaceutical companies by making even more onerous demands of them;
-Limit consumer choice by over-regulating "alternative therapies" as a sop to Big Pharma.This type of criticism is legitimate, though many of these views are uttered by rote and don’t represent the law fairly. More concerning is that the piecemeal attacks obscure the big picture.
The stark reality is that the existing Food and Drugs Act is dated, toothless legislation that has not been meaningfully amended in half a century. The status quo is indefensible …
…Bill C-51 - all 62 pages of legal jargon - provides no shortage of material for nitpickers with an agenda.
But, when all is said and done, it does a pretty good job of balancing competing demands and it should ultimately do a pretty good job of protecting consumers ….
Ironically, I found that link off this site . Well, at least they included one voice of reason.
* * * *
Additional links - Natural Health Products - Health Canada .
Natural Health Products Directorate - Health Canada.
Interesting tidbits here - How long before C-51 moves past the Blogsphere? - NetNewsledger.com
(Is it a conspiracy among the bureaucrats at Health Canada?)
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:42 am
A lot has changed in 50 years. Perhaps the minister should stress that this act was originally passed in the last century, and science and testing has improved since then. It is only reaonable that we should bring legislations that affects the health and well being of cdns into the 21 century.
There are many of us out here that still use grandmas cures for things, that we insist work.
Things like, keeping slices of raw onion in every room to ward off colds, or hanging cloves of garlic from doorways, eating an onion sandwich daily, (worked in our home), and best of all, putting vicks on your feet, and wearing stockings to bed to cure a cough. That also works. My mother used bread wrappers instead of socks.
But, those are my decisions and will cause no harm to others, but if I get other problems I want to know what I buy from the drug store or natural food store has in it what it says on the label, and it has been tested. I want phony cures off the shelves.
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:40 pm
The hyperbole is astounding.
That statement may seem like a hyperbole but in fact the Bill does give the regulators power to do that if they deem it necessary. It is unlikely they will start with garlic, but the long-winded bill is ambiguous enough to be applied as seen fit. A bill should be written clearly so that there is no room for interpretation. If a bill could be interpreted this way by some, as it has been, doesn’t it mean that it could be used in a court of law this way? As soon as millions of dollars are at stake the stakeholders will use the statements in the bill for their best interest.
Section 10 under therapeutic products states No person shall conduct a clinical trial in respect of a therapeutic product that does not have a market authorization unless they are authorized by a clinical trial authorization to do so.
Will trial decisions and standards be the same for natural products versus chemical products? Will the pocketbooks of the pharmaceutical companies have an impact on who receives market authorization? One certain outcome is that prices of natural supplements will go up as was seen in Germany when similar legislation was put into place.
Pharmaceutical companies directly fund studies to “statistically prove” that their products do what they indicate based on their selective research. However, on the flip side, there is little research done prior to public release to determine what the long term implications are of using the products. They wait until severe cases force the product off of the market after they are discovered to be unsafe.
In most cases this research may not be possible for natural products as they don’t have access to large insurance company funding the way pharmaceutical companies do. It is already easier and more cost effective to get “chemical drugs” due to OHIP and insurance company funding than it is to find and afford natural remedies.
This bill does indeed seem anti-democratic by paving the way for taking away people’s options for meeting their health care needs. In fact the bill itself seems very liberal wanting everyone to conform to one way of thinking. I am encouraged to see some CPC members and supporters taking a stand against this bill.
I’m all for more certainty that what I am buying contains what it says and does what it says. However, I am less concerned that it does what is says because I consider it my responsibility to inform myself based on multiple sources about how best to solve a particular health concern rather than depending on the government or the pharmacist to do my thinking for me.
The bill does have some good things in it and that is why some people are calling this the Trojan horse bill because certain things seem like ideas that many natural health care supporters would appreciate. Nobody wants to be taking things that could be potentially dangerous. However the bill contains far too many avenues for the rich and powerful pharmaceutical companies to exert even more control over how Canadians manage their health.
The act does need to be updated to today’s standards. Some people consider today to be the information age and therefore all information should be available. A more useful amendment to the act would be to ensure that all product information for natural or chemical products be available to consumers. Canadians should have access to the all information regarding who funded clinical trials about a product, how much and what research was done into side effects and long term usage implications, and then each person can make an informed decision as to whether the risks of taking a therapeutic product outweigh the benefits or not. This mentality of consumer choice rather than government control should be a concept the Conservative Party would readily support.
When Health Canada decides to fund natural remedies along side chemical drugs then they have the right to put more regulations into practice. The government should choose one or the other: Either fully endorse and fund natural health care products to the same degree they do pharmaceutical drugs or leave them alone. Family doctors are funded by the government and they prescribe the drugs, and the government pays for drugs in many cases. When you go to your family doctor why is it not possible for your doctor to recommend a natural product?
I would recommend that you call or write to your local MP as well as the Health Minister, Tony Clement. Talk to your health care provider and pharmacist. Try to get the facts from a variety of informed sources. Don’t rely on scare tactics and misinformation.
Why is it only suggested to talk to people who are clearly going to be in favour of this bill? I would also suggest talking to people who know things about natural health products such as homeopaths and people who work in health food stores. Better still, read the bill like Mike Brock did, prompting him to withdraw support from the party as shown in the link in your post. He quotes various parts of the bill that give him concern.
What we have read of the bill so far indicates that there is validity in the concerns that are being expressed by natural health care practitioners and others opposed to the bill and it’s not just fear mongering. We can’t just whitewash over the concerning parts of the bill because other parts seem to have good intentions. This bill as it stands now should be struck down. Perhaps another bill that doesn’t have such a controlling, socialist tone to it could be conceived.
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:35 pm
A more useful amendment to the act would be to ensure that all product information for natural or chemical products be available to consumers.
That sounds like a good plan but how would it be enforced? You still need some sort of oversight and intervention.
Why is it only suggested to talk to people who are clearly going to be in favour of this bill?
Your ‘Health care provider’ could indeed include homeopaths and people who work in health food stores. Otherwise, I would have used the word ‘doctor’.
Also, your local MP may not necessarily be in favour of the bill.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:56 am
[...] written to several Conservative MPs expressing readers’ concerns (and my own) about Bill C-51 and am very pleased to have received this response from Cambridge MP Gary Goodyear , whose [...]
May 20th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
[...] trying to allay fears that have been stirred up by the natural health products industry regarding Bill C-51 (An Act to Amend the Food and Drug Act ). As previously noted , Cambridge MP Gary Goodyear is also [...]