Bills C-51 & 52 Standing Committee on Health Input

[Guest guest]

Here is _Canadian Coalition for Health Freedom's _

(http://www.canadiancoalitionforhealthfreedom.ca/) (Trueman Tuck) in depth

input _Report From The

Trenches_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2008/05/08/c51_committee_on_health_outcom\

\

e_report_from_the_trenches.htm) . Trueman has been _advocating for

over 35 Years _

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2008/04/27/bills_c51_c52_more_regulations\

\

_to_protect_us_of_course.htm) for Freedom of Choice. This

provides an historic account of attempts to usurp our _access to nutrients_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2008/05/02/our_therapeutic_foods_are_not_\

\

drugs

...htm) . The 5 minute House of Commons Standing Committee on Health certainly

does not provide justice to this issue. Below is Trueman's input. _The

complete report for all to see is here._

(http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/Committee/392/HESA/Evidence/EV3483343/HESAEV\

\

28-E.PDF)

_http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/Committee/392/HESA/Evidence/EV3483343/HESAEV\

\

28-E.PDF_

(http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/Committee/392/HESA/Evidence/EV3483343/HESAEV\

\

28-E.PDF)

When reading the _full transcript _

(http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=239899 & Lang=1 & PA\

\

RLSES=392 & JNT=0 & COM=13189) please keep

in mind the following:

_Alternative Medicine Unwittingly Being Used In The Battle To Restrict

Access To Nutrients _

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2005/01/27/alternative_medicine_unwitting\

\

ly_being_used_in_the_battle_to_restrict_access_to_nutrients.

htm)

_http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2005/01/27/alternative_medicine_unwitti

ngly_being_used_in_the_battle_to_restrict_access_to_nutrients.htm_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2005/01/27/alternative_medicine_unwitting\

\

ly_being_

used_in_the_battle_to_restrict_access_to_nutrients.htm)

_Canadian Health Food Association (CHFA) Member Questionnaire _

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2003/09/29/canadian_health_food_associati\

\

on_chfa_memb

er_questionnaire.htm)

_http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2005/01/27/alternative_medicine_unwitti

ngly_being_used_in_the_battle_to_restrict_access_to_nutrients.htm_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2005/01/27/alternative_medicine_unwitting\

\

ly_being_

used_in_the_battle_to_restrict_access_to_nutrients.htm)

Canadian Coalition for Health Freedom is the only group advocating our

nutrients be treated as foods - no smoke and mirrors of third category or such

that some are pushing for their own self serving interests (as per the two

links

above). There clearly is no need for separating nutrients from foods as

they, in the main, are already covered under our food regulations and _are a

safer

subset of foods_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2005/05/11/use_abuse_of_regulations_to_pr\

\

otect_pharma_monopoly.htm) .

Chris Gupta

_http://tinyurl.com/5fk5ud_ (http://tinyurl.com/5fk5ud)

-----------------------

Mr. Lui Temelkovski: We will start with our second panel.

On the second panel, we have the Canadian Health Food Association, and

Penelope Marrett and Anne Wilkie. Welcome. We have _Truehope Nutritional Support

Ltd_ (http://www.newmedi

aexplorer.org/chris/2007/03/01/truehope_drags_health_canada_into_federal_court.h\

\

tm) ., and Ian Stewart. We have the Canadian

Coalition for Health Freedom, and Trueman Tuck. Then we have the _Natural

Health

Products Protection Association_ (http://www.nhppa.org/) , and Peter Helgason,

and the Canadian Men in Nursing Group, with James D'Astolfo and Branden

Shepika. Welcome.

" --- please, for five minutes. If you have additional information that you

may not get through in the five minutes, please do supply it to us. We look

forward to receiving more.

Thank you.

Mr. Trueman Tuck (Coordinator, Canadian Coalition for Health Freedom): Thank

you very much.

The last time I appeared here was three years ago, on _Bill C-420_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2005/11/24/first_crack_in_big_pharmas_wal\

\

l_bill_42

0.htm) . I think it's very important that we understand that whether we're

talking about what we're not supposed to talk about, _Bill C-51 as Bill C-52_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2008/05/22/_summaries_of_bills_c51_c52_f

reedoms_at_risk.htm) , or whether we're talking about Bill C-420, the

_Natural Health Products Regulations_

(http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodnatur/about-apropos/index_e.html) , we're

talking about a continuous process that I

first encountered, as did over 10,000 small businesses and the million-plus

consumers that I represent. I think it's very important that we understand

that.

When I started in 1972 on an holistic, spiritual lifestyle choice, I did not

believe in medical doctors, I did not belive in pharmacists, I did not

believe in synthetic drugs that I'd lived a lifetime. I'm 60 now and I work 14

hours a day, seven days a week. There's a million-plus consumers that worked

with our Canadian Coalition for Health Freedom in 1997 to stop the July 1, 1997

attempt to make drugs out of our nutrient-rich foods, food extracts and food

concentrates and our foods that are rich to begin with, the healthy food.

So this whole world is upside down. We want people to be eating healthy

foods, we want them to be eating nutrient-dense extracts and concentrates, we

want them to be going to naturopaths, chiropractors, herbalists. We don't want

big pharma ruling world, we don't want the Natural Health Products Regulations

to be forced on us, in complete contradiction to the 1998 study process.

I appeared last before this committee in 1998. If you check our coalition's

message then, it was quite simple. We created the largest grassroots uprising

in Canadian history, by the admission of the Liberals, and started working

with the Liberal government. They did a great job. The 1998 report was one of

the most extensive stakeholder consensus in the history of this country. From

a consumer and a micro small-business point of view, the Natural Health

Products Regulations are illegal, outside of authority, were never brought to

this committee and need to be cancelled immediately, and the majority of our

membership in small business is ignoring them, increasingly, the large

businesses are ignoring.

Health Canada is federal, criminal investigative police officers. Their

actual act started in 1884. All that is in federal jurisdiction is to charge

people a crime under the Criminal Code or under the criminal powers of 91.27 of

the _BNA Act _ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_North_America_Acts) if

there's a serious adulteration or harm causing serious national death or

adverse events. That's all there is. Eighty per cent of what Health Canada

does,

including the entire Natural Health Products Directorate, is outside of federal

jurisdiction. The Bloc have been the greatest champion of keeping the feds

out of provincial jurisdiction of any part of this country, and I'm surprised

they would allow the Natural Health Products Regulations and/or Bill C-51 and

Bill C-52 to intrude upon exclusive civil property. There's a dozen things

it's intruding on.

There won't be time for me to go through our paper here, but we've

identified in _here the 12 reasons _

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2008/05/07/bill_c51_may_8th_2008_cchf_inp\

\

ut.htm) that no party and no member should

support Bill C-51 or Bill C-52. It ties into getting rid of the Natural Health

Products Regulations, it ties into going back to the standing committee reports

and getting this committee to do an update of that wonderful report.

Dr. Grant Hill, who I worked very closely with, is highly respected. He

introduced a private member's bill to create reverse onus to try to get control

of Health Canada. Judy and Grant and others that were involved with me at that

time, including the Liberals, all knew that Health Canada was out of

control. There's no administrative review process for Health Canada, there's no

police internal affairs process and we have documented cases of criminal

activities that the RCMP will not investigate, including what was raised here.

So we're requesting that this committee reconvene the same type of format

that they did in 1998. The victimized small businesses, the victimized

consumers who are suffering because of this bureaucratic nonsense that exists

illegally in Health Canada, we would like the opportunity to bring this out into

the

open again, as was done in 1998.

Thank you very much.

Hon. Hedy Fry:

It was on mandatory reporting of adverse--

Mr. James D'Astolfo:

Yes, it was on adverse reports for health professionals. We believe it's up

to the patient to tell their provider that they are taking natural health

products. But at the same time, we need to provide tools so that health

professionals can talk with their patients effectively about natural health

products

and identify for them and work with them on reporting adverse reactions and

on whether the product is safe enough and won't interfere with other

treatments they're getting.

I think it's very important that health professionals are mandated to report

to Health Canada, with support and education coming from Health Canada, to

try to deal with adverse reaction reporting.

Mr. Trueman Tuck: May I add to those last questions? I have my mike on. I

had an answer to those questions, too.

Mr. Lui Temelkovski: Half a minute, 30 seconds.

Mr. Trueman Tuck: Okay, that's tough.

From a consumer point of view, the consumer wants to be able to make

informed freedom of choice. The whole regulatory system is geared to the

assumption

that the drugs are safe and properly risk benefited and everything.

I actually co-authored a book called _Death by Modern Medicine _

(http://www.deathbymodernmedicine.com/) with a naturopath and a medical doctor

that you

can look up. We proved that in North America the most heavily regulated

professions, nurses, doctors, and pharmacists in the most heavily regulated

facilities, hospitals and care homes, in the most heavily regulated products,

prescription drugs, were killing seven jumbo jets a day, and I can provide

scientific evidence to this committee. We've used it in court. We've

commissioned a

risk study that I'll provide every member.

The whole paradigm that there's some big bogeyman that consumers have to be

protected from is not only out of federal jurisdiction, it's a violator of

our most basic human rights. Thank you.

Ms. Penelope Marrett:

At the same time, I think we need to make it clear that in the legislation

that exists today, there is no separate category for natural health products.

There was a recommendation in the 1998 report, but in the current Food and

Drugs Act, there is no separate category.

Mr. Ian Stewart:

On behalf of Truehope, a third category is not only sought after, it's

necessary. How can a vitamin-mineral supplement, which we typically would take

just to maintain good health, fit into the categories that exist today, when a

vitamin-mineral supplement has a profound therapeutic value to correct

disorders that are typically treated with medications?

We don't fit in either category, and our struggle through this whole process

is to maintain our purpose and to continue what we do to help people,

especially those on the threshold of suicide, those who have tried all other

treatments within the medical model and have failed. We do take those people

and

get them turned around. So how can we fit into the categories that exist today?

Aside from that, the big concern for us is not just the category but the

abuse of process within the categories, and the means by which we can address

those concerns and that evidence that comes forward during the process.

_Mr. Trueman Tuck:_ (http://www.deathbymodernmedicine.com/) It's very

important to understand that the U.S. had this same issue in the early 1990s

and

they resolved it by creating in 1994 the Dietary Supplement Health and

Education Act and they basically recognized exactly what Truehope has just

said,

that the vitamins had a powerful, necessary and positive...and it was so

powerful a movement as it was in Canada that in 1994 it was put through both

the

Congress and the Senate with 100% consensus and that's what we were hoping in

1997 when we invested the time and money, as over a million consumers and tens

of thousands of small businesses, we were hoping that with the 1998 report,

they did start the legislative renewal, by the way. I attended one of them. We

thought that we would get a harmonization of this category with the U.S.

third category that was food and that was appropriate for what we had. That did

not happen and the regulations came out of the blue and sabotaged it.

The second question, from a consumer point of view, we feel that we need to

be able to make informed freedom of choice and the point has been made around

the table that doesn't mean having a federal bureaucrat telling me that I

can or can't take a product, but it does mean that the federal government has a

responsibility to provide me the statistics so that I can make informed

choices from evidence-based statistics of what's likely to harm me, what's

likely

to kill me or my family or loved ones.

Thank you.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Is enforcement currently adequate, in your opinion, Peter

or Trueman?

Mr. Trueman Tuck: Basically, what happens is that...I'll confess, okay, from

Health Canada's point of view, I'm a criminal because I have a family

business, Tucksdiscountvitamins.com. I import from the U.S. kava kava,

alcarnatine,

which is on _Schedule F_

(http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/alt_formats/hpfb-dgpsa/pdf/legislation/e_k-schd-f.\

\

pdf) , and our group of small businesses which

has included Truehope, Strauss, Bell Lifestyle, BIE...we have a group of

businesses. Four of our businesses have faced Health Canada in massive criminal

trials over the last five years. Our small businesses have invested over a

million dollars in legal fees to basically tell Health Canada that if they can't

convict us of a criminal offence in front of a jury, they have no federal

jurisdiction, so they should leave us alone.

So, in the U.S., the _Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act_

(http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/dshea.html) --I got it right that time--we did

a

study. If you go to New York State, you have about 70,000 products on the

market.

So when they started these illegal health regulations...we complained to the

SREG by the way for three years that within the SREG- the Scrutiny of

Regulation committee--these are illegal and outside the criteria and that

committee

hasn't heard any of this in three years either.