Wake-up call
Bill C-51 has become a wake-up call for the average Canadian, grabbing the public’s attention and becoming a commonly discussed topic. Regardless of which side one takes – STOP or AMEND – this political exercise shows that health rights and freedoms are cherished by Canadians and are not to be taken for granted. With one side of the country connecting the other side of the country at the grassroots level, this will no doubt become an election issue.
Lorna Hancock, Executive Director, Health Action Network

Targeting natural products?
Health Canada says Bill C-51 isn’t targeting natural products, but that’s not clear. Bill C-51 includes sensible advancements, but it also gives Health Inspectors the power to act even without reasonable cause; that’s a problem lying in wait. Inspectors have the same imperfections as the rest of us and errors could cause irreparable harm to natural product suppliers and seriously inconvenience customers. Bill C-51 includes other provisions, including research requirements that could have unintended consequences. Bill C-51 needs changes to make the law workable within practical limitations of reasonable and effective implementation, before being enacted. Some politicians are listening – David Emerson, James Lunney and Joyce Murray – and so is Health Minister Tony Clement, who introduced changes on June 12. Consumers should remain diligent to ensure that changes and other improvements are implemented into Bill C-51 as it progresses.
Michael Bentley, Sierrasil, Vancouver

Worst aspects
Here is my summary of the worst aspects of the long and complex Bill C-51, which doesn’t seem to have any positive attributes:

1. All natural health products (other than food) will become “therapeutic products.”

2. Every natural health product seller must separately license each product and pay a fee to renew this license every year. The proposed fees alone will more than double the prices you are paying today.

3. To sell a “therapeutic product” without a license will be deemed “prescribing” and will render naturopathic, homeopathic and traditional Chinese medicine practitioners, along with other practitioners of natural healthcare and stores selling natural products, liable to prosecution.

4. The prescribing of natural health products will be restricted to licensed practitioners, therefore, members of the public may lose the right to possess any natural health product, including all herbals, without a prescription. Typically, when any product becomes subject to prescription, the price increases ten-fold.

5. Information about the ingredients of natural health products – in any form, including newsletters, magazines, books, emails, even peer-reviewed papers – will be deemed part of the natural product label, with the threat of prosecution if the information doesn’t agree with views held by Health Canada.

6. Government-appointed inspectors will have the power to enter your home or place of business, at any time, without warning or a warrant. If they find a controlled herb or vitamin without a prescription, you could face seizure of your home and possessions, fines of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment for peer-reviewed papers – up to six months for a first offence.

The last time Canadians spoke out against similar proposals, it was the biggest outcry from the people in Canadian history. Hence, a special category was developed: Food, Drugs, & NHP (natural health products). Big Pharma is now again trying to gain control of a very lucrative market, encompassing 70 percent of Canadians. It’s nothing personal, just smart business. It’s time to tell government again, loudly, to leave natural health products alone.
Dr Michael Colgan, Colgan Institute
www.colganinstitute.com

Overregulation and monopoly
In order to ensure an innovative and competitive industry, we must NOT over-regulate and cause a monopolization of the industry by a few large firms. In Australia, the industry went from hundreds of manufacturers to only four in 10 years, after Bill C-51 style regs were introduced. Our radio show Health Empowerment with Croft Woodruff has received a large amount of feedback from listeners about Bill C-51 and the message is clear. People do not want their foods, vitamins, minerals, enzymes and fatty acids treated like drugs. These products are safe and effective.
Andrew McGivern, co-founder and director, Omira Health Centers Inc
www.omirahealth.com.

Different and safer
The tough language of Bill C-51 appears to threaten Canada’s Natural Health Products and services. However, Health Canada officials and Members of Parliament assure us that this bill will not touch existing NHP regulations, but just update old Food and Drug regulations. They agree that NHPs are “different than and safer than” drugs and they are aware that Canadians will be very upset if Natural Health Products and services are unfairly restricted. I hope Health Canada keeps its promises.
Bob McCandless, Master Herbalist, Vancouver

Delay too long
The Natural Health Products Drug Regulations, Bills C-51 and C-52, clearly do not belong in our Rule of Law and constitutional, democratic and people-focused society. Given the absurd and blatantly transparent stance of this government against the wishes and safety of Canadians, there is no need to waste time on any more studies, especially in light of the government’s record of inaction on previous promises. The 1998 Standing Committee Report has covered all the necessary points and must be implemented promptly. A ten-year delay is too long already.
Chris Gupta, P.Eng., London, Ontario

Towing the line
While Health Minister Tony Clements claims that C-51 is about increasing safety, many who’ve read the fine print are cynical of the real driving force behind the proposed bill. And for good reason. Over the last year, Canadian pesticide rules have been weakened; Bill C-517 to label genetically engineered organisms was defeated; and the HPV vaccine was given the red carpet, despite very serious reactions and troubling questions behind its lobbying. This, coupled with a record of top Health Canada scientists being gag ordered for not towing the pharma-cartel line, and the well documented revolving door between industry and regulators over concerns as diverse as aspartame and the wireless industry, clearly unveils the hypocrisy of what is preached versus practised when it comes to “protecting” Canadians.
Rukshana Enjjineer,
Vancouver

Compromising integrity
In the mid-1990s, the federal government attempted to classify and regulate a large group of medicinal herbs, including common spices, under the category of drugs. The resulting public outrage directly led to a classic Canadian compromise position, which created a third category called natural health products (NHPs) that were neither foods nor drugs. With Bill C-51, the government wants to place NHPs in the same category as drugs, under a larger classification called “therapeutic products.” This compromises both the integrity of NHPs as an independent category and future access by non-medical practitioners, who make up the majority of those who actually use them.
Todd Caldecott, Dip. Cl.H, RH(AHG), ayurvedic practitioner, medical herbalist, Vancouver
www.toddcaldecott.com

Change it or scrap it
Many people have written me to express their concerns about Bill C-51, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act. My colleagues and I in the NDP caucus oppose Bill C-51 as it now stands. We have taken this position for a number of reasons, including the view that it may open the door to direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals, that it puts too much power in the hands of the Minister of Health, and that it may be a thinly veiled attempt to regulate natural health products.

The NDP has always viewed natural health products as a vital component of our health care system and believes that a separate category is needed for licensing purposes, and ensuring safety and efficacy. Bill C-51 lumps natural health products and traditional medicines in with drugs under a category being called “therapeutic products,” which appears to reverse a long-standing position of having a separate regulatory framework. This, combined with a huge backlog in the licensing of natural health products – a consequence of flawed implementation by consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments – has raised alarm bells. For these reasons and other concerns related to advertising, adverse reactions and life cycle licensing, we are opposed to Bill C-51 as it is presently written. If it is sent to committee, we want to see a comprehensive study with enough time for a full range of witnesses. It is essential that this bill not pass without the amendments necessary to set up a reasonable approach for dealing with natural health products. Thanks to all of those who have been in touch with me to raise concerns about Bill C-51.
Libby Davies, MP, Vancouver East

Town hall meeting
I am very concerned about the Conservative government’s proposed changes to regulations covering natural healthcare and products contained in Bill C-51. That is why I invited you to join me and my special guests at a Town Hall meeting to discuss the potential impact of this bill.

What effect will C-51 have on your access to natural health products, your naturopathic physician, traditional Chinese medicine and other forms of complimentary medicine and therapy? Just where do we stand? And where do we go from here? This forum gave us an opportunity to hear about and be heard from regarding these important questions. [Joyce Murray’s invitation resulted in an overflow crowd at Kits House in Kitsilano on June 13.]
Joyce Murray, MP,
Vancouver Quadra

Understanding the context
Bill C-51 needs to be understood in the greater context of where the regulatory environment for Natural Health Products (NHPs) stands today. Although natural health products have their own set of regulations, they are currently defined as a subset of drugs under the Food and Drug Act (F&DA). Industry has expressed growing concern that the interpretation and implementation of these regulations is being done through a pharma lens. Although the regulations are not perfect, current industry issues tend to stem primarily from the interpretation and implementation of the regulations by government. This is an important distinction.

The Natural Health Products Directorate (NHPD) is the branch of Health Canada charged with regulating our industry. Therefore, this concern with unfair interpretation of the regulations rests with them. Many in our industry feel that the Standards of Evidence requirements are too stringent, given the low risk profile of our products. Further, there is little perceived transparency within the NHPD and many in industry feel that the regulations are being applied inconsistently and without sufficient consultation with stakeholders. There are other significant concerns as well.

The 1998 Report of the Standing Committee on Health made 53 recommendations to government, which would form the guidance basis of the proposed regulations. The very first recommendation calls for the Food and Drugs Act to be “amended accordingly” to recognize NHPs as unique. The NHPD, however, has not made this a priority and does not understand the need to define NHPs as a separate category.

Suddenly, Bill C-51 appears with proposed amendments that would fundamentally change the Food and Drugs Act. Our industry was not consulted in any meaningful way and no separate category was even mentioned. In fact, our NHPs were further entrenched under the drug framework by placing them under the all-encompassing category of “Therapeutic Products.”

Given this context, we can now look at what the response to C-51 has been. Some groups are calling to kill the bill outright. Others, such as the Canadian Health Food Association (CHFA), are calling to amend the bill to create a separate category for NHPs. Those wanting to stop the bill are looking at the potential negative impact of specific provisions within the bill. Those wanting to amend the bill are looking at this as an opportunity to get that separate category we were promised when we, as an industry, initially accepted the regulations. The two positions are not mutually exclusive. The CHFA has noted several areas within the bill that are of major concern. However, those calling to kill the bill have had a much easier job in creating a simple message for the public and much confusion between the two positions has resulted. It is much easier to say, “kill the bill” than it is to start talking about categories, standards of evidence, etc.

Where is all this headed? The bill has not yet passed second reading, but when and if it does, it will go to the current Standing Committee on Health which will analyze it in detail, invite witnesses from various interest groups to speak and then make any necessary recommendations for amendment before returning it to parliament for final reading.

One possible outcome is that public outcry over the bill (and there is a lot of that) will stop it from proceeding further. Another possibility is that the CHFA will be successful in lobbying for a separate category and therefore have the bill amended. Possibly, all these efforts will have no effect at all and the bill will proceed into law. Lastly, there could be a federal election call at which point the bill will simply die.

My personal hope is that we attain a separate category now and then remain at the bargaining table to ensure that the category truly reflects the interests of Canadian consumers of natural health products. Our industry has to make a standing commitment to engage government on all levels so that our voice is heard.
Ben Banky, www.tallgrass.biz

Battle not over
On Friday June 13, Minister of Health Tony Clement and Penny Marrett, president of the Canadian Health Food Association (CHFA), officially declared “Battle Ground C-51” to be over. All Canadians can safely return to their homes and rest assured that the CHFA and Clement will protect their constitutional rights and freedoms. Ms. Marrett agreed that the proposed amendments have resolved the concerns of more than three million Canadians, who rose up in June to protest the action of Minister Clement in attempting to destroy the constitutional rights of Canadians.

More than 75 percent of Canadians use a natural health product on a regular basis. Bill C-51 challenges their right to do so. In an attempt to quell the uprising among the MPs in the House of Commons and concerned Canadians, Clement has brought forward a small token offer to reduce slightly the damage that Health Canada will do to our Constitutional rights. Health Canada cannot be given discretionary powers; its criminal actions in the past have demonstrated corruption and abuse. In the 2006 court case Regina vs. Truehope, uncontested testimony given under oath by the Canadian Mental Health Association showed that Health Canada’s actions led to the death of innocent Canadians. Health Canada’s Assistant Deputy Minister Meena Ballantyne reviewed the case and stated, “Health Canada fully supports actions taken…”

We continue to say no to Bill C-51 and its amendments. Accepting the amendments and sending the bill to standing committee is the same as signing a blank cheque for government abuse. Accept nothing less then the removal of C-51. We want a new Natural Health Products Act, administered not by Health Canada, but rather by the people. For more info, visit www.stopc51.com
Anthony Stephan, True Hope
Raymond, Alberta

Amending the bill
While it’s great that the government has been alerted to the passionate concern for access to natural health products, I haven’t been persuaded that suppression of access plays any role whatsoever in the government’s intention with this bill. There is a difference between intent and unintended consequences and, in this regard, the officials I’ve listened to seem anxious to amend the bill to eliminate any ambiguities that could be misapplied. There are definitely hang-ups with importation and access to certain products that have yet to be solved, but these are issues unrelated to C-51.
Dr. Neil Tessler, ND, president, Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians

Myth or reality
The federal Bill C-51, the Food and Drugs Act, has triggered strong opposition from the natural health products (NHP) industry and traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) communities. Since it will have a grave adverse impact on TCM, I lent my support to the opposition.

Faced with the strong reaction, Health Minister Tony Clement and his Conservative MPs tried to pacify the public. They said the bill wouldn’t affect the current regulations controlling NHP and TCM. It’s unfortunate that words and promises made by our federal and provincial ministers nowadays are not very credible. The ministers often say one thing and act differently. The Health Minister’s “promise” concerning Bill C-51 is simply misleading the public. Readers who are interested to read the contradiction between Clement’s words and the fact, in its entirety, can find it in the “Myth and Reality” section of the Coalition Against Bill C-51’s website: www.ACoalitionAgainstBillC51.com.
Gabriel Yiu, Dawa Business Press

Omnibus definition
Bill C-51 is now dead. The House has closed and members did not bring the proposed bill up for second reading, even though it was regularly on the order papers every day. We have been heard and they are regrouping. The Liberals, at the last minute, decided not to support this bill after all. The bill will now have to be re-introduced with Tony Clement’s proposed amendments when they get back to work in September and they will have to start it from scratch at first reading. It is, therefore, vitally important that they don’t even think about bringing it back, in any shape or form, with no matter how many amendments, because this bill is pernicious from start to finish and nothing will improve it.

What most people have not yet grasped is that bill C-52 has gone through second reading and will go to committee in September. If C-51 was pernicious, C-52 is outright diabolical. Furthermore, C-51 can be tagged onto C-52 by an Order in Council (cabinet decision without parliamentary debate, media inquiry, public input via our respective MP’s office etc. - passed into law without discussion!) if they feel like it and to avoid another public uproar.

Secondly, C-52 has an omnibus definition of “hazardous products” like C-51 did with “therapeutic products” and their definition of a “hazardous product” includes the media. My letter to you could be defined as such a product. Due to this omnibus definition as the basis of the entire bill, they can import any other hazard, as they see fit. The current act governing hazardous products overlaps in many of its provisions explicitly with the current Food and Drugs Act, so they are within their rights to assume that the areas of responsibility in both C-51 and C-52 may also overlap, should either become law.

My book What Part of No! Don’t They Understand? covers both bills. My view is that we need to take the government to court and do a Charter challenge on C-52 as soon as parliament resumes, so the committee cannot discuss it until the court has ruled. If we allow the committee process to start, the expert witnesses will be brought forward that the government wants, and the committee is stacked – mostly Liberals and Conservatives who both support this bill.

Why do they support this bill? Both bills are strictly intended to serve the purposes of NAFTA and now the Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (SPP). The US just brought in a law that takes liability away from the consumer of implants. This was the main reason Ireland voted no to the EU Constitution on June 12. Read the SPP documents and you will see what I mean. Health and hazardous products are explicitly mentioned in this and other treaties.
Helke Ferrie, KOS Publishing

more to come…