I wonder what we're doing here, because we're told we need this for safety, and not for trade advantages.
There's a name for what is happening in the regulation of natural health products. Economists call it rent-seeking, where you basically up the cost and up the cost, so that you're left with a handful of large companies left standing that support the regulations, and support increased fees to the regulatory body. Look up rent-seeking. Jamieson would be one of the few companies to survive and be a quasi-monopoly.
If we want to have exports, why don't we have a voluntary licensing scheme that meets the same standards, and those companies that want to meet that to export can do it.
There are different things, but we're talking about safety here. Safety is measured in terms of how many deaths per million of the population per year are caused by an event. Lightning is more dangerous than the entire natural health product industry. My understanding is that lightning kills about one to four Canadians a year, so there would be about 10 deaths. Well, we can't point to 10 credible deaths in all of Canadian history caused by natural health products, but I can point to you examples where Health Canada restricting products have led to deaths.
What are we doing here? Are we having regulations to make the Canadian industry able to export? Let's have voluntary standards for whatever it takes to export. We're actually talking about health products that people use. Some people survive on them.
I was counsel for Truehope nutritional support, and Health Canada restricted access to that single product for a short period of time. The Canadian Mental Health Association held a press conference every time there was a death. The court acquitted Truehope, finding there was a violation of the law, but it was legally necessary, because more people would have died from the restriction of this single natural health product, which is now happily licensed by Health Canada. You couldn't get licensed back then.
I want to caution you. We are talking about products that people rely on for their very lives, and we never have an honest safety discussion. What are the consequences of our regulations? What are the consequences of ever increasing them, upping the prices, and dropping the number? We all know when you over-regulate, you restrict.
It's just funny, because Jamieson used to be the poster child for health freedom, with the decision in Jamieson (C.E.) v. Canada. It was one of the best decisions ever. When it was a small company, it felt very differently. If I were on the board of Jamieson, I would have a legal fiduciary obligation to support this rent-seeking, because it would be good for my company, not good for the safety of Canadians. I would have a legal obligation to maximize the share price of Jamieson and profits for the shareholders.
We're talking about different things. We can export by having voluntary standards. In no way do we need that for safety. Health Canada talks about safety. You tell me, how have these regulations saved a single life since they came into force on July 1, 2004?