Health Committee pushes for mandatory pharma conflict of interest disclosures
The proposal follows claims that pharmaceutical lobbyists “infest Parliament Hill,” striving to curb their undue influence through mandatory conflict of interest disclosures.
In a parliamentary first, physician MPs on the Commons health committee proposed Tuesday that all witnesses must disclose conflicts of interest before testifying. The motion, driven by concerns over pharmaceutical lobbying, seeks to bring medical-grade transparency to Parliament Hill, as reported by Blacklock’s.
Doctor MPs suggest health committee witnesses be compelled to disclose conflicts following complaints pharma lobbyists "infest Parliament Hill." https://t.co/QdTbV9MNFL #cdnpoli @MarcusPowlowski @DougEyolfson @InnovativeMeds pic.twitter.com/UAIOIs2pmq
— Blacklock's Reporter (@mindingottawa) June 18, 2025
Liberal MP Dr. Marcus Powlowski led the charge, arguing that health committee witnesses should meet the same disclosure standards as medical professionals. “There should be a requirement that any conflict of interest be declared beforehand,” he said, urging bipartisan support. “If the Conservatives are in agreement, we should have it.”
Conservative MP Dr. Matt Strauss endorsed the idea but questioned enforcement, asking if it would be based on the “honour system.”
At his vaccine pushing presser this morning, conflict of interest riddled Dr. Moore reads from a script & won't deter from it when his teleprompter froze
— Tamara Ugolini 🇨🇦 (@TamaraUgo) November 14, 2022
Who writes his scripts? Surely it wouldn't be his board member colleagues at Pfizer. #onpoli pic.twitter.com/BKnGaThsSQ
While supportive, the committee deferred a formal vote.
Liberal MP Dr. Doug Eyolfson also backed the proposal, citing past witnesses who hid funding ties that shaped their testimony. “There would have been a very different context had those conflicts been declared,” he said.
The motion echoes concerns raised during the 2014 passage of Bill C-17, or Vanessa’s Law, which expanded federal powers to ban risky prescription drugs.
Then-Conservative MP Terence Young sponsored the bill after his daughter Vanessa’s tragic death in 2000 from a Health Canada-approved prescription drug for a digestive disorder, which was taken as directed.
The changes would impose significant cost and logistic challenges for natural product businesses, with additional red tape barriers, signalling the beginning of the end of non-pharmaceutical based healthcare in Canada.
— Rebel News Canada (@RebelNews_CA) June 24, 2023
READ MORE: https://t.co/MiGzyXotBU pic.twitter.com/iJbSnEjwJ4
Young criticized “drug industry representatives who infest Parliament Hill” for wielding undue influence. Condemning Big Pharma’s unchecked power, he said, “They knew all along that potentially life-threatening drugs were being pushed on patients,” noting no industry executive has faced jail time despite widespread harm.
This proposed rule could set a precedent for accountability, ensuring witnesses’ allegiances are clear. As the health committee deliberates, its physician MPs are united in demanding transparency to protect the public interest.


COMMENTS
-
Fran g commented 2025-07-04 10:57:22 -0400BigPharma has had a free ride since 1986. We need to cancel their exemptions from liability. Government and corporations are too captured by BP, either from getting huge payoffs or blackmailing. We, the people, need to take back our rightful health freedoms.
-
Robert Pariseau commented 2025-06-18 21:47:15 -0400GETTING???!!!
-
Bruce Atchison commented 2025-06-18 21:16:52 -0400I hope we get some sort of accountability from these experts. Big pharma is getting too big and powerful.
-
Robert Pariseau commented 2025-06-18 15:37:20 -0400Guess who’s going to push back?