[GunsforGuevara]

First of all, I am Canadian. I work over in South Korea. Second of all, your debating abilities are quite suspect. Your references have been shown to be from biased sources and your idea of a dialogue consists of hyperbole and and misappropriating facts to suit your doomsday 'conspiracies'.

Go to LEGISINFO - The Library of Parliament's research tool for finding information on legislation to read the legislative summary on bill C-51.


Here's the purpose of the bill:

A. Health Protection Legislative Renewal

The purpose of the Canada Health Protection Act(4) would have been “to protect the health of the people of Canada.”(5) It would have included principles relating to both assessing and addressing risks to health: principles “based on science, weighing risk against potential advantages, the concept of precaution, allowing for informed choice by consumers, considering health determinants, and sustainable development.”(6) The Act would have created a product tampering offence as well as a deception offence, which would prohibit “deceiv[ing] consumers regarding the health and safety benefits of a product.”(7) It also would have “describe[d] the respective responsibilities of the various participants in the supply chain, including the responsibility of the manufacturer to monitor adverse health effects after a product has been sold and to take corrective action when necessary.”(8)

Here's the part about 'health products'

C. The “Food and Consumer Safety Action Plan”

For health products, progressive licensing would be established, which would “shift the focus from pre-market review to one that continuously assesses a product’s risks and benefits both before and after it reaches the market.”(17) A progressive licensing framework would involve new obligations on the part of manufacturers, which could include active post-market surveillance and reporting, and issuing risk information to the public.(18)

Here's the protocol stated for natural health product manufacturers:
What exactly is wrong with this part?

The bill requires persons (defined to include individuals or organizations as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code) to:

* obtain a clinical trial authorization before conducting clinical trials on therapeutic products that do not have a market authorization (new section 10), and to conduct clinical trials in accordance with the regulations (new section 11). (The procedures relating to obtaining, amending, suspending or revoking clinical trial authorizations are set out in new sections 18.2 to 18.6, and regulations relating to clinical trials can be made under new paragraphs 30(1)(w) to 30(1)(z.1).);
* obtain a market authorization before advertising, selling or importing for sale a therapeutic product (new subsection 12(1)). (The procedures relating to obtaining, amending, suspending and revoking market authorizations are set out in new sections 18.7 to 19.1.); and
* obtain an establishment licence before carrying out a controlled activity (i.e., before manufacturing, collecting, processing, preserving, labelling, packaging, importing for sale, distributing, wholesaling or testing a therapeutic product) (new section 13). (The procedures relating to obtaining, amending, suspending and rev

This part discusses the enforcement of the rules:

E. Powers of the Minister (Clause 8, New Sections 19.8–20.3)

Many of the powers listed in this section reflect a progressive licensing approach. For example, subject to the regulations, the Minister can compel the holder of a clinical trial authorization, market authorization or establishment licence to provide any information within their control that is considered necessary for the administration of the bill (new section 19.8). The Minister can also, subject to the regulations, require the holder of a market authorization or establishment licence in order to “compile information, conduct tests or studies or monitor experience” to obtain additional information about a therapeutic product’s effects on health or safety (new paragraph 19.9(a)), or report such information to the Minister (new paragraph 19.9(b)).

Subject to the regulations, the Minister can also require labels of therapeutics to be revised to reflect information necessary to prevent injury to health (new section 20.1), require the holder of a market authorization to conduct a reassessment of a therapeutic product within a specific timeframe (new section 20.2), and publicly disclose information about the risks or benefits associated with a therapeutic product (new section 20.3).

G. Administration and Enforcement (Clauses 9–10)

The powers of inspectors under the existing Food and Drugs Act are amended in part to reflect changes in technology, e.g., examining documents contained within computers (new paragraph 23(2)(f)) and using copying equipment (new paragraph 23(2)(g)). The amendments also authorize an inspector to enter or pass through or over private property without being liable for doing so in carrying out their functions (new subsection 23(4)). New subsection 23.8(1) provides that if an inspector believes on reasonable grounds that there is a contravention of the Act or the regulations, he or she can direct a person to take a measure that is necessary to identify or respond to a risk of injury to health related to the contravening activity.

Notice if you actually read any of this, that the first part sets rules for manufacturers. The second part may seem harsh to you. But what I see is good police enforcement against the businesses that peddle such bullshit. As long as companies follow the standards (i.e; obtain licenses, conduct legitimate clinical trials, or be truthful about their product) set forth, there should be no problem.

Why should health companies not be subject to the same standards just like other products?