Bill C-51 - prescrip. for herbs and vitamins!!! PLS. READ - WILL AFFECT YOU

[Hux]

Hux - the bill has already gone through 2 readings. All that remains is a third reading and then Royal Assent.

Uh...no.

1st reading is basically introducing the Bill in the House, 2nd reading initiates debate in the House after which there is a vote to send it to Committee (which hasn't happened yet). If it passes at 2nd reading the Health committee puts it on their agenda and eventually will study it by hearing many witnesses in public hearings (you should attend!). After hearing witnesses the committee then does a clause by clause analysis of the bill (in many cases literally debating it word by word) at which time amendments are added and the Bill can be altered as little or as much as the committee chooses (note opposition parties have a majority on committees so the original (1st reading) version of the Bill can be pretty much gutted if the members choose to do so. Following that it returns to the House for more debate (report stage) then another vote (3rd reading) that if successful sends the Bill to the Senate. In the Senate it undergoes a similar process including another batch of public hearings at the Senate Health Committee. If more amendments are put up in the Senate then, yup you guessed it, more debate back in the House until there is agreement.

Then it can get Royal Assent which also takes awhile.

The other thing to keep in mind is most Bills that make a fair amount of regulatory change have attached to them a "coming into force date" which can easily be a year after Royal Assent which gives the relevant Departments a suitable amount of time to implement various changes the Bill requires.

[mattm]

Thanks hux, that's what I was looking for, an explanation of what that agenda actually meant with the readings and committee and such.

Since some of you guys are legal type guys:

22. (1) The Minister may designate an individual as an inspector for the purpose of the administration and enforcement of this Act and the regulations.

(2) The inspector may

( open a receptacle or package that is found in the place;

© examine a document that is found in the place, make a copy of it or take an extract from it;

(f) use or cause to be used a computer or other device that is at the place to examine a document that is contained in or available to a computer system or reproduce it or cause it to be reproduced in the form of a printout or other intelligible output and remove the output for examination or copying;

(g) use or cause to be used copying equipment that is at the place and remove the copies for examination;

(h) take photographs or make recordings or sketches; and

Since those clauses or whatever they are don't include anything to do with the act, does that mean the Inspector can do those things even if they make no reference to the act (steal documents that have nothing to do with the act, etc)?

Notice there are some letters missing like

(a) examine or test anything — and take samples free of charge of an article to which this Act or the regulations apply — that is found in the place;

and in that one is specifically says "to which this Act or the regulations apply"

I find things like this to be a bit of a concern, anyone else?

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3398126&File=84#20

Edited May 13, 2008 by Guest

[ollie]

No more burt's bees

Fear not. I'm sure Burt's marketing department is strong-arming our federal government as I type.

[mattm]

lol, I don't know, the guy on the commercial looks kinda old but I think they will be safe, the company that makes burt's bees is fairly big, I think, I hope.

There's a guy here I work with. His daughter is allergic to mosquitos. She got bit the other day at the cottage and they didn't have anything to put on it. Well, after some checking they find your run of the mill mosquito bite cream (not sure of the brand) and are about to put it on her but then notice that on the back it says if you are pregnant, do not use it. Whoa, what the hell is in the stuff, all it's supposed to do is relieve the itch and swelling of the mosquito bite, why is it so bad. So, the guy drives an hour into town and grabs some burt's bees all natural stuff and 30 minutes later the little girl is fine. The question is, why does the regular stuff have to be so toxic and if they take away the natural stuff, what happens in situations like that?

Not to mention, to be honest, mud or oatmeal will also take away the itch and swelling so again, why to toxicity involved in the stuff you buy at the corner store? And why should we be forced to use it (ignoring the mud and oatmeal). This is just one example of why the bill needs to be looked at. No one dies from natural supplements that I've ever heard, hell I've never heard of anyone even getting sick from them as most are non-toxic or have a harmful toxicity level at like a pound ingested which is why they don't need to be as regulated as synthetic pharmaceuticals (which kill people everyday).

Blah, blah, blah, CODEX ALIMENTARIUS, blah, blah, blah.

[Hux]

From Health Canada:

Bill C-51 and Natural Health Products – The Facts

[ollie]

No one dies from natural supplements that I've ever heard...

Maybe. But how many people have died by eschewing traditional medicine in favour of homeopathy?

[mattm]

no one. I don't know, I'm not a doctor. Who says you shouldn't take pharmaceuticals? If I have cancer, pump me full of the shit. To be honest, I think there's lots of weird shit in those stores that I wouldn't touch but I don't think it's dangerous. I'm more talking vitamins. We have a couple creams we use and they don't have din's which means they aren't technically approved by canada but work (and that's on a baby so there's no placebo value there as he's not old enough to be able to be cured based on the idea that he's using something that works).

Also, I just read that question and answer thing and you have to actually look at the product. See, it changes the act to cover "Therapeutic Products" and that's what many of the products we use are, they aren't Natural Health Products. NHP's have a din or dim number or something on those lines and have Natural Health Product on them somewhere. These are covered by a different act and that won't change (vitamin c and stuff like that).

Edited May 15, 2008 by Guest

[onthejourney]

Phishtaper - I apologize as maybe I am wrong. I read that in an article - several actually - by a reputable natural health proponent (who is also trained as a pharmacist). I thought I could trust his information, but maybe I am wrong. Like I said, I don't know everything and I think I will do some more research into that. Thank you.

Hux - unfortunately, the government website that I looked at in regards to how a bill is passed, didn't go into that much detail, so thankyou for making that a little more clear.

All in all, I still find some of the wording to be pretty open-ended in the bill, which would lead me to worry that it could be used wrongly in future situations. Also, I really don't trust a whole lot of what the government has to say in regards to all of this. I personally think they are trying to pacify the public now and like good little passive Canadians, we will go back to the usual and forget.

I truly believe that things are leading up to Codex compliance. Whether you agree or disagree with me on that - I honestly don't care because although I believe in the goodness of mankind, I don't believe that the powers that be (gov't (not all), the Big Five companies, etc.) have our well-being in mind. I believe that money drives them, and at whatever cost.

Call me jaded, call me a conspiracy-theorist, whatever. We'll see how this all plays out in the next 2 years.

[Hal Johnson]

The most important question here remains (unless maxwebster beat me to it):

Can I still get my Salvia fix on the cheap and easy???

[YearsAlongTheSea]

Salvia's like DMT for kidz with that still sport diapers...