Consumer Alert: Opposition Grows to Bill C-51

[Guest guest]

Consumer Alert: Opposition Grows to Bill C-51

_http://www.vitalitymagazine.com/june_08_helkec51_

(http://www.vitalitymagazine.com/june_08_helkec51)

 

 

By Helke Ferrie

 

On April 8, 2008, the Harper government introduced Bill C-51 as an amendment

to the Food and Drugs Act. If passed into law, Canadians will no longer have

the freedom to choose between pharmaceutical drugs and natural health

products. The two categories we now have, namely drugs and natural health

products,

would be merged into one category called “therapeutic productsâ€.

 

Under Bill C-51, neutraceuticals derived from foods essential to life would

no longer be presumed safe, but become subject to drug testing routines and

prescription requirements. At the present time, only pharmaceutical drugs are

presumed toxic until clinical trials show at what dosage they might have some

therapeutic benefit.

 

Other key points in Bill C-51 include the following:

* This bill changes the definition of “sellâ€, such that even

health-related advice for which one doesn’t get paid would be subject to

Health Canada

’s approval or else be a crime. (For example, if a writer in Vitality stated

that Vitamin C helps to prevent cancer, this would be considered a crime.)

* Upon suspicion that one is in possession of unapproved health

products, Health Canada inspectors would have powers of enforcement exceeding

those of the police, such as entering a home or business without a warrant and

removing anything they wish, making you pay for the cost of removal, freezing

your bank account so you can’t take legal action, and fining you up to $5

million for disobeying the orders of Health Canada inspectors. (Better hide

those

calcium supplements under the mattress and flush your Vitamin D down the

toilet if you hear a knock on the door.)

* If, in the Minister’s sole discretion, he decides it would be good

for Canada to incorporate a foreign government’s regulatory protocol, such as

Codex, it would become part of Canadian law without parliamentary debate,

simply by a cabinet decision (Order in Council).

* Any research a university or institution might initiate involving

nutrition and disease would have to be approved by the Minister who would

decide whether the outcome of such research would be desirable, in terms of

risk-benefit considerations normally applied to toxic substances. If the

Minister

doesn’t like the proposed research project, it would not be approved.

Bill C-51 is likely in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and

our criminal code, as well as the rules governing scientific research, and

ignores some of the most important Supreme Court decisions of the last 20

years. Those decisions affirmed that disobeying the law is not a crime if such

disobedience prevents more harm than would have occurred had the law been

obeyed, as in the 2004 Truehope case.

 

What this bill does do well, however, is to prepare Canada for joining the

ongoing international United Nations Codex efforts to regulate foods and drugs

world-wide according to the one-size-fits all corporate model enforced by

the World Trade Organization. It also serves the Security and Prosperity

Partnership (SPP) process which has a central requirement that Canada, the US,

and

Mexico “harmonize†their health care systems and especially the regulatory

institutions governing therapeutic products. Yet the latest polls indicate

that 87% of Canadians are opposed to this process, especially with regard to

health care and therapeutics.

 

A HISTORY OF GOVERNMENT HOSTILITY TOWARDS NATURAL HEALTH PRODUCTS

 

Back in 1998, Chretien’s Liberals tried to amend the Food and Drugs Act so

that food-derived therapeutic products (i.e. vitamins, minerals, amino acids,

herbal medicines, etc.) would be classified as drugs, thereby starting the

harmonization process with the United Nations’ Codex Alimentarius agenda,

which

calls for maximum upper limits on nutrient dosages, as well as toxicity

tests. Under Codex, natural products would become drastically more expensive as

many would require prescriptions from doctors (whose knowledge of nutritional

medicine is almost nonexistent).

 

So, in 1998, under the rallying cry “Don’t treat our foods as drugs!â€,

Canadians caused what lawyer Shawn Buckley describes as “the most successful

petition drive in Canadian historyâ€. Hit by an avalanche of outrage, Health

Minister Alan Rock tossed this hot potato to the House Standing Committee on

Health which came up with 53 excellent recommendations for amendments to the

Food

and Drugs Act to “reflect contemporary scientific thought [because] the

weight of modern scientific evidence confirms the mitigation and prevention of

many diseases … through the judicious use of Natural Health Products.â€

 

We are still waiting for those 53 recommendations to be implemented.

 

In 2003, Conservative MP Dr. James Lunney (Nanaimo-Albertini, BC), a

chiropractor and naturopath, sponsored Bill C-420 which would have removed all

food-derived neutraceuticals from the drug category (and the reach of Codex).

It

was supported by more than 120,000 signatures. In his September 2003 Vitality

article, Lunney called for action: “It’s time to take the club out of the

hand of hostile Health Canada bureaucrats who know nothing about health and

care even less.â€

 

His comments came in the wake of Health Canada having shut down the Truehope

research project, run by the University of Calgary and a Harvard University

psychiatrist, involving some three thousand people being treated with

vitamins and minerals for extreme manic depression. It was shut down when

preliminary results showed this treatment to be far superior to conventional

drug

therapy and without side effects (all published in the mainstream medical

journals).

 

Truehope disobeyed Health Canada orders and continued to provide the

treatment to the trial participants in accordance with international medical

law.

Health Canada sued Truehope.

 

The court found Truehope’s disobedience to be legal, citing previous

supportive Supreme Court judgments. Health Canada’s conduct was found to be

arbitrary and inhumane. (Bill C-51 would make Health Canada’s treatment of

Truehope

the norm and allow it to ignore those Supreme Court decisions as well as

medical law.)

 

It is interesting to note that Lunney’s Bill C-420 originally had the full

support of Stephen Harper, at that time the leader of the Opposition. On April

27, 2004, he wrote the following statement to many Canadians, including me: “

Your comments and concerns regarding unrestricted access to natural health

products and [about the dangers of the] Codex Alimentarius are understandable.

Please know that the Conservative Party of Canada supports freedom of choice

for complementary treatments and natural health products. We believe that

Canadians should have access to a wide range of health treatments, as well as

an assurance that the products available to them are safe and effective.â€

 

He was endorsing MP James Lunney’s intent “to put the brakes on a

bureaucracy out of controlâ€. Harper’s Conservatives proceeded to promise

Canadians

freedom of choice between toxic drugs and bio-identical and nutritional

therapies that science has empirically shown actually work. But C-420 died when

the

Martin government fell.

 

WHAT HAPPENED, STEPHEN?

 

Introduced by the government on April 8, Bill C-51 is quite literally a Big

Pharma bill. That’s because Big Pharma is Health Canada’s employer, not

only through their user fees for product evaluations done according to their

own

time-lines, but because our government actually put Big Pharma in charge on

January 6, 1996. On that date, the Minister of Health passed an Order in

Council and bypassed parliamentary debate. This Order redefined the

“client†it

serves: all regulatory oversight of foods and drugs henceforth serves the

manufacturer, the Act’s “client†– not the Canadian people. That’s

why, ever

since the Mulroney era, it doesn’t matter whether the Conservatives or the

Liberals are elected: both have done exactly what their (commonly shared)

corporate clients want them to do. And now they are doing it again.

 

THE PHARMACEUTICAL AGENDA

 

Understandably, Big Pharma publications nowadays extol the virtues of “

biologicalsâ€, bio-identical compounds that are liver-friendly, or

applications

that by-pass the liver to reduce toxicity. If pharmaceutical companies hope to

survive at all, they absolutely must make the transition into biologically

friendly therapy. So, why sell their bio-identical raw materials to much

smaller

natural products companies (as they are now) when you could make expensive

drugs from them yourself? Big Pharma persuaded Australia to pass a law similar

to our proposed C-51 some years ago which, as predicted, killed all small

and mid-sized natural health product companies. Now Australia has only one

large nutraceutical company producing high-priced poor-quality stuff;

innovation

is also dead. Big Pharma has the whole market there.

 

Due to the enormous liability problems associated with toxic drugs,

pharmaceutical stocks are rapidly becoming as difficult to sell as gas-guzzling

SUVs.

Health Minister Tony Clement found that out personally: until recently he

owned 25% of Prudential Chem Inc., a company that sells chemicals to drug

companies. He was compelled to sell those shares after the government’s

ethics

committee told him this was a conflict of interest. The major investment

analysts have classified many pharmaceutical stocks as “don’t buy†or

“sellâ€.

 

Meanwhile, to help boost its profit margins, the pharmaceutical industry is

lobbying hard to get the Canadian government to legalize TV commercials for

drugs, a practice known as Direct to Consumer Advertising. In the U.S., drug

sales rose by more than 40% in one year when DTCA was legalized there, and New

Zealand (the only other country that permits DTCA) almost killed its health

care system because of the increased cost of drugs. Now they are reversing

this policy. Nevertheless, C-51 has a provision that would remove the current

barriers against Direct To Consumer Advertising in Canada.

 

About 70% of Canadians are taking bio-identical natural medicines free of

deadly side effects and, therefore, do not require additional medication. But

if you take SSRI antidepressants for a long time, you are likely to get

diabetes or cancer - and that’s very good for the drug business. St.

John’s Wort

and Inositol are natural, cannot be patented, have no side effects, and are

likely to cure the depression – and that’s not good for the drug business.

Obviously, Big Pharma believed that something had to be done to scare the

living daylights out of the natural products industry and to take over this

potentially lucrative market. Bill C-51 does just that.

 

MEDICAL HOMELAND SECURITY

 

The single best source for understanding C-51 is the legal analysis provided

by lawyer Shawn Buckley, the president of the Natural Health Products

Protection Association, who won the Truehope case. In addition to the main

points

listed at the beginning, he also identifies the following issues in this

proposed Bill:

* C-51’s licensing provisions for natural health products are so

inappropriate to these substances that “over 60% [now on the market] will

fail the

licensing process and become illegal.â€

* Health Canada would only issue market authorizations if satisfied “

that the benefits that are associated with the therapeutic product outweigh

the risks†– and the “risks†are not defined! Buckley observes that

Health

Canada might consider it a risk that “people will not seek ‘proper’ (i.e.

mainstream) medical treatment if they take a natural health product.â€

* The search-and-seizure powers in C-51 dispense with basic principles

such as “reasonable groundsâ€, warrants, court applications – known as

checks and balances. When, in the opinion of Health Canada, we need to be

protected against a life-enhancing nutrient, they can enter a home or business

at

their disgression to confiscate the offending item, and our legal rights are

irrelevant.

* Since Health Canada inspectors fully expect that obstinate citizen

may refuse to give up their vitamins, or some bright scientists might discover

a potential nutritient-based cure for some deadly disease, C-51 proposes

penalties with real bite, such as $5 million and/or 2 years in jail.

Independent

thought, bright ideas, and personal autonomy would be quashed. “Why is it

necessary,†asks Buckley, “to raise the primary penalty by multiples of 500

and 1,000? This is probably unprecedented in Canadian history.â€

 

It is indeed unprecedented in Canadian history that a bunch of bureaucrats,

government lawyers, and undoubtedly their friends from industry created a

Bill which is so strategically focused on how to control or extinguish medical

research, therapeutic initiative, informed consent, and just plain old free

enterprise.

 

HAS GOVERNMENT ABANDONED THE HEALTH OF CANADIANS?

 

The idea that Harper’s Conservatives have the public’s best interest in

mind is beginning to appear absurd. Consider that a few weeks ago, they

defeated Bill C-517 which sought to make the labeling of genetically engineered

foods mandatory, as is already the case in 40 countries. The disastrous health

effects of those Frankenfoods are fully known now and documented in mainstream

medical and agricultural research. Yet not even the loss of international

trade entered the minds of those 152 MPs who voted this bill down. Hardly any

country buys our canola and beef anymore because of GMO contamination and the

use of carcinogenic hormones and antibiotics which are also the cause of

deadly superbugs. Quite aside from the health issues involved, bill C-517 was

an

absolute necessity to regain increased access to international trade.

 

As for the proposed Bill C-51, it cannot, must not, ever go to second

reading because it clearly violates some of the most basic human rights. C-51

is

probably criminal and certainly absurd. This Bill suggests a mind-set that no

democratic government can be permitted to indulge in on any topic.

 

Health Canada’s history is one of allowing a never-ending stream of

carcinogens, neurotoxins, gender-benders, and ecologically disrupting

substances into

the Canadian marketplace. Medical practice and agriculture are now replete

with drugs carrying deadly warnings and agricultural practices so lethal, most

of the rest of the world outlawed them decades ago.

 

With natural health products under attack from C-51, Canada’s medical

system, already close to collapse, could easily become totally overwhelmed as

all

those hundreds of thousand of Canadians relying on vitamins, herbs, and

minerals to keep them healthy will proceed to get sick or sicker when they’re

removed from the marketplace.

 

Faced with evidence of such abysmal stupidity, we cannot afford to leave our

health to the mercy of this government. Fortunately, there is massive

opposition to Bill C-51 in the making, including the Canadian Health Coalition,

the

Council of Canadians, the National Union of Public and General Employees

(NUPGE – 340,000 members), and many doctors working in nutritional and

complementary medicine. Nutraceutical producers are becoming noisy and

articulate.

 

The second reading of Bill C-51, scheduled for May 8, mysteriously was

cancelled. Google might have the answer for the government’s timely

hesitation:

on May 7, Google had 60,000 entries for “Bill C-51 + Canadaâ€. By May 11 it

was 70,500. Most of them are against it.

 

A NEW THREAT ON THE HORIZON

Bill C-52 Rears Its Ugly Head

 

While completing this article in C-51, I was made aware of a new threat –

Bill C-52. While C-51 targets the freedom to manufacture natural health

products, freedom of research, and the personal right to health care choices,

Bill

C-52 expands the government's powers by including all businesses. Download the

legal analysis of C-52 from the Natural Health Products Protection

Association website (_www.nhppa.org_ (http://www.nhppa.org/) ).

 

The government's and the Prime Minister's television ads and comments on

C-52 want us to believe they protect consumers. This is NOT true. Instead, C-52

removes fundamental safeguards on privacy and property rights, the

requirement for warrants, access to the courts etc. in direct violation of

Section 8 of

the Charter and Criminal Code provisions, the basis of Common Law for about

a thousand years.

 

Having passed second reading on May 1, C-52 could, by way of a cabinet

amendment (i.e. without parliamentary debate), add C-51 to its regulatory

Schedule

I, so the government would give themselves both Bills regardless of what

Canadians say. I believe it is our duty to inform ourselves about both Bills

and

stop our government from committing high treason against fundamental human

rights. Come to OISE on June 26th and join the resistance!

 

TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT YOUR ACCESS TO NATURAL PRODUCTS

 

Go to _www.stopc51.com_ (http://www.stopc51.com/) and

_www.healthcoalition.ca_ (http://www.healthcoalition.ca/) and read their

beautifully organized

information, especially the “Draft Discussion Paper on Bill C-51†by lawyer

Shawn Buckley.

 

Schedule a visit to your local MPs as soon as possible. Do not go alone,

always have a witness or two or three. Hand them Buckley’s analysis and

demand

that C-51 be killed.

 

Attend the roundtable discussion featuring prominent activists such as Shawn

Buckley, Dr. Shiv Chopra, and Mike McBane of the Canadian Health Coalition

at OISE on June 26. I am the moderator. Health Canada spies are welcome!

 

Write to Prime Minister Harper and tell him what you think. Be polite.

 

PUBLIC RALLIES PLANNED

 

The next Rally to protest Bill C-51 and C-52 will be held on the north side

of Queen's Park at 11:00 am on Saturday June 14, with a march to follow. The

march route will be down University to Dundas, then over to Yonge and back up

to Queen's Park.

 

A panel presentation about Bill C-51 will take place at 7pm, June 26, at

OISE, by donation. There will be a pre-event rally at Queen's Park sponsored by

the Canadian Natural Health Coalition. Rally starts at 6 pm from the north

side of Queen's Park, and heads to OISE on Bloor St., for the start of the

panel presentation. For more info, see ad on page 132.

 

Resources & Sources:

* S. Chopra, Corrupt to the Core: Memoirs of a Health Canada

Scientists, Kos, 2008, in press, orders 519-927-1049

* M.McBane, Ill-Health Canada: Putting food and drug company profits

ahead of safety, CCPA, 2005

* Regarding Bill C-51 – sample of provisions, not complete:

* Sections 13 & 18.7 restricted availability of natural health

products

* Section 15.1 (4) arbitrary powers to grant prescription status

* Sections 31 & 3 (3) historically unprecedentedly high fines and jail

terms associated with new definition of “sell†and “personâ€

* Sections 3 (6) & 18 academic freedom stopped and research dependent

on Health Canada’s permission

* Sections 3(6) & 30 (7) importation of international regulations

without Canadian input or parliamentary debate (e.g. Codex)

* Section 23 unprecedented powers of search and seizure (including

bank accounts); powers exceed those of police

* The debate in Parliament on Bill C-51 following First Reading can be

accessed from the parliamentary website by putting “Bill C-51 + Canadaâ€

into google. The fastest way to get at the actual parliamentary debates on any

current or past bill is by typing LEGISinfo into google and then just going

down the list of bills. Or by typing www.parl.gc.ca.

* Groups opposing C-51 (only those I knew about at time of going to

press)

* International Society for Orthomolecular Medicine (founded by Dr.

Abram Hoffer) centre phone 416-733-2117

* National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE); President

James Clancy

* Ontario Medical Association’s Section on Complimentary Medicine,

Chair Dr. Linda Rapson drrapson@ sympatico.ca

* Canadian Health Coalition, Director Michael McBane,

www.healthcoalition.ca

* Canadian Coalition for Health Freedom

trueman

* Natural Health Product Protection Association (their lawyer is Shawn

Buckley)

* Truehope Nutritional Support Ltd (they won their case in court

against Health Canada when the latter shut down a clinical trial using natural

substances to treat bi-polar disorder at the University of Calgary

 

To access the above as well as new organizations go to _www.stopc51.com_

(http://www.stopc51.com/) and _www.healthcoalition.ca_

(http://www.healthcoalition.ca/) . Important documentary material analyzing the

issues:

Discussion Paper on Bill C-51 by lawyer Shawn Buckley – may be accessed on

the two websites above. It contains all the legal details, section by section,

analyzed in ordinary language.

 

Important documentary material analyzing the issues:

Discussion Paper on Bill C-51 by lawyer Shawn Buckley, President of the

Natural Health

Product Protection Agency (NHPPA) – may be accessed on the two websites

above. It contains all the legal details, section by section, analyzed in

ordinary language.

 

Dr. James Lunney, PC Member of Parliament for Nanaimo-Albertini, BC. He

wrote an excellent article for Vitality Magazine’s September 2003 issue

available on their website. It presents the reasons why he introduced Bill C-420

then with the support of then PC Leader, Stephen Harper. To understand how

outrageous the current Bill C-51 is, it is imperative to read Dr. Luney’s

article. He is now on record as being opposed to C-51. He called me after First

Reading of C-51 and said : “You have to start a prairie fire to stop this

bill!â€

 

 

Garry Anderson wrote an excellent in-depth analysis of the principles

violated by Bill C-51. The important point he makes involve the secrecy of the

Governor-in-Council method to by-pass parliamentary and public debate, the

abuse

of science and the abuse of the international Precautionary Principle evident

in the wording of C-51. Must read! Available from him at

_garryanderson_ (http://garryanderson (AT) shaw (DOT) ca/)

 

For the background information on Direct-to-Consumer-Advertising (DTCA) go

to Canadian Medical Association Journal January 2, 2007, p.19, which explains

the current legal action by CanWest against health Canada to remove

prohibitions against DTCA on the grounds of Being a violation of the Charter

rights

of free speech (Big Tobacco was defeated on that argument by the Supreme Court

years ago). Bill C-51 proposes dropping Section 3 of the current Food and

Drugs Act which would be dropping that prohibition. The experts on DTCA, its

effects on public policy, health and Medicare are Professor Joel Lexchin of

York University, Professor Barbara Mintzes of the University of British

Columbia

in Vancouver, and Professor Alan Cassels of the same university and

co-author (with Patrick Moynihan) of Selling Sickness: How The World’s

Biggest

Pharmaceutical Companies Are Turning Us All Into Patients, Nation Books 2004.

The

research and published letters to the media are available on the website of

the

Canadian Health Coalition _www.healthcoalition.ca_

(http://www.healthcoalition.ca/)

 

What happened in Australia when a similar bill was introduced and how it

effectively killed all choice in natural health products came to me via on May

9, 2008, from Croft Woodruff at _croft.woodruff _

(croft.woodruff)

 

For details on how Canadians feel about the issues involved in Bill C-51 as

well as the recently killed Bill C-517 (which would have made labeling of GMO

products mandatory) go to Council of Canadians _www.Canadians.org_

(http://www.canadians.org/) and read the latest document published by them

entitled “

Not Counting Canadians: The Security and Prosperity Partnership and public

opinionâ€. C-51 harmonizes Health Care with this newly proposed treaty which

would eliminate public debate, as the treaty over-rides national rights and

citizen involvement in policy. According to independently conducted polls, 87%

of Canadians want to retain our ability to set our own standards with regard

to environment, health and safety issues – which this treaty would stop.