Bill C-51: An Interview with Federal Minister of Health, Tony Clement
by author Terry-Lynn Stone

A: Well, I actually, respectfully, contend that’s incorrect. When I talked about a risk-based approach to approvals for natural health products, that’s what I meant. The risk-based approach is what we will incorporate into the approvals process. If the natural health product has been around for hundreds or thousands of years, without deleterious effects, that will be taken into consideration. So you don’t have to do a whole new body of research if the thing’s been used for 5,000 years in China, for instance. The one thing I would say, though, is if there’s a brand new compound that’s chemically complex, never been seen before, then, yes, we would like to know that this particular compound can be used safely. As well as, what are the limits to its safe use if used in conjunction with other products? That sort of information should be on the label. But for the vast majority of the natural health products that have been used for many, many years, then that information is incorporated into our approvals process. I’m not the expert on natural health products. I’m the health minister who takes political accountability for these things. So my point of view is the legislation is there to protect the health and safety of Canadians. If the health and safety of Canadians is not affected, I shouldn’t be interested.

Q: Given that no one’s ever died from using natural health products, that we’re aware of, why is it necessary to restrict them at all?

A: Well, first of all, perhaps no one has died in this country, but just across the border there were three Americans who died last month by ingesting toad venom, which they considered to be a virility product. So these things do happen. Here in this country, I issue warnings every week about products that may in some way increase the risk of stroke or heart condition or might cause liver damage. These things are on the markets or maybe sold over the Internet. And so there is a health and safety angle to this that I think most Canadians would expect Health Canada to be involved with. Having said that, the vast majority of natural health products, in my opinion, are safe to use, can be beneficial in their use, and I in no way want to restrict them.

Q: I know you have already touched on this a little, but I want to be really clear on your opinion here, so given the history of natural health products, doesn’t it make more sense to test for safety rather than to insist on efficacy?

A: Well again, I know there’s a raging debate about some of these issues—we can set up a meeting or a telephone conversation with some Health Canada officials who can specifically go through the efficacy versus safety issues. The fact of the matter is, I think in most cases under this proposed legislation, it’s all about labelling, labelling, labelling. Tell us what’s in the package. Tell us what’s in the bottle. Give the consumer the right to choose and allow him or her to make an informed choice—as long as health and safety isn’t compromised. Health and safety is my primary concern.

Q: How do you think placing natural health products into a category of their own addresses consumer concern around Bill C-51?

A: Natural health products have been in their own category since 2004. We make that more explicit in Bill C-51 and the amendments. And I think that’s a good thing. We don’t want the Codex to be applicable, and the natural health products industry doesn’t want Codex to be applicable. So those groups out there who are saying, “Treat us like a food,” are selling out the industry, as far as I’m concerned. In fact, what we’re saying with our legislation is keep it as a separate category. We’ve had regulations in place since 2004. That will not change. And we think it’s what the industry expects, and what Canadians expect, generally.

Q: So during consultations around those regulations, the natural health industry made 53 recommendations to the Canadian government and they accepted them. Why have these not been adopted by your government in totality?

A: Let’s face it. Those were made a long time ago and we were only elected two and a half years ago.

Q: So you’re saying that it takes time?

A: No, I’m saying that we’re a new government and we’re looking at it through a new pair of eyes.

Q: So how are you going to do that? How are you going to ensure that Canadians don’t get the wrong message if you revisit everything?

A: Well, I guess through consultation. You made a comment earlier about how the bill was rushing through, but it’s quite the opposite. It has not been voted on second reading yet and if we’re successful and it is voted on second reading, it’ll go to committee for yet another round of consultations, another round of potential amendments. So this process is going to be quite involved and certainly there’s lots of opportunity for improvements to the bill. Beware of the politician who says this bill is perfect. I don’t think my bill is perfect. I think it can be improved upon and that’s why we have a public process by which we get that feedback.

Source: alive Special Web Exclusive