1. Bill C-6 Consumer Product Safety Act was introduced by Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq in the House of Commons on January 26 2009.

2. The House of Commons passed Bill C-6 on June 12 2009.

3. On June 16 2009, Bill C-6 was introduced at 1^st Reading in the Senate.

4. On October 7 2009 at 2^nd Reading, Bill C-6 was referred to the Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology for further examination, after more Senate debates than anticipated, and a massive public lobby effort confirmed Canadians would not settle for the passing of this unconstitutional bill. 

5. Senate Committee hearings helped the 12 Senators decide how to work with a bill that saw their offices overwhelmed with messages to accept speakers; namely Shawn Buckley. Very few witnesses were heard. Most of them supported the bill. Shawn Buckley was only one of a handful of witnesses that was invited to speak who was in opposition to the bill. Again, his presence in Ottawa was made possible by additional grassroots pressure that won the attention of the Senate. On November 25 2009, Senator McCoy even blogged “The long awaited Shawn Buckley is here at the Senate Social Affairs Committee…….”. The Senators were open to hear how Bill C-6 set a dangerous precedent.

6. The Senate Committee moved through Bill C-6 in a clause by clause review, voting on or making amendments to each section, before presenting its 12th Report to the full Senate on December 3 2009. This report outlined over 20 amendments to Bill C-6. On December 9 2009 all amendments were defeated 44-42 and 2 Abstentions. Although the amendments did not stick, this narrow margin showed a division growing in the Senate. Owed, to a large degree, by the cumulative actions of freedom groups across the country.

7. Two new amendments were tabled on December 10 2009. Senator George J. Furey and Senator Tommy Banks put amendments forward for the Senate to consider. These amendments targeted two issues – home-entry powers of inspectors and the disclosure of personal information and defence by reason of due diligence [meaning privacy of individuals and businesses]. They were debated and voted on. Bill C-6 passed on December 15 2009 with two amendments.

8. On Dec 11 2009, Bill C-6 went back to the House of Commons. Members of Parliament are on break until January 25 2010. There will be no movement with the bill, unless of course, Parliament prorogues. This is a real possibility with the Prime Minister needing to deflect some difficult criticism, that in part, is due to issues raised in Bill C-6. If Parliament prorogues then all government bills die on the order table.

9. If Parliament continues, the House of Commons has several options: (1) to pass the Senate’s amendments; (2) to amend or reject the amendments; or (3) reject one of the amendments and concur in or amend the other. If the House of Commons accepts the Senate’s amendments then Bill C-6 will be given Royal Assent. And it would become law.

If the House of Commons decides on one of the latter, then it informs the Senate by way of a message. The Senate may reconsider its amendments and then has three options: (1) to accept the decision of the House of Commons; (2) to reject the decision and maintain its amendments; or (3) to further amend what the House of Commons has put forward for consideration.

There is a fourth and most interesting option, and that is to have the House “float” or “leave” Bill C-6, which means it does nothing with the Senate’s amendments and allows the bill to die on the Order Paper.

10. The House of Commons needs to allow Bill C-6 to die on the Order Paper. SEND your name and email address to info@nhppa.org to receive the NHPPA alert that give you our next action.

CLICK HERE to watch Shawn’s 2 hour appearance before the Senate Committee on November 25 2009.

CLICK HERE to learn more about NHPPA Board Member John Biggs’ grassroots initiative – Suspend and Review the NHP Regulations.

CLICK HERE to read the NHPPA’s position statement on Health Canada’s “no fixed end date for the compliance and enforcement” announcement.

CLICK HERE to subscribe to the Charter of Health Freedom alerts.

The preceding is an important update as forwarded from www.nhppa.org (National Health Products Protection Association). To subscribe to their updates, contact info@nhppa.org or visit their site.

Here is her summary at the time of posting (5:45pm PDT, 25 Nov 2009) –

Live Blog Bill C-6 – Part 5

Posted By Senator Elaine McCoy Nov 25 2009 02:57PM

The long awaited Shawn Buckley is here at the Senate Social Affairs Committee………

4:55pm So here we are, at last, listening to two lawyers tell us what is wrong with Bill C-6.  The Senator sitting beside me leans over and says Sean Buckley “is very good.” Ms. Cherniak is pointing out that the Bill is “setting up good corporate citizens to fail.”

Senator Eggleton says Health Canada insists it will act under the law.  Of course, says Mr. Buckley.  But there’s an exemption for trespass.  Even the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act requires court oversight.  Why not here, as protected by section 8 of the Charter?

“Is this the slippery slope to state power against individuals without court supervision?”. Good question!  Part of our traditions, I might add, going all the way back to the Magna Carta.

4:59pm: Now Senator Eaton (ON) asks about trespass.  Then she interrupts him and substitutes her own opinion.  She believes Health Canada, not the clear wording of section 20(4) of the Bill. Mr. Buckley calmly refutes her (Health Canada’s) position.

Then other senators try to correct her and another senator who seems to believe the same spin.  The Chair tries to keep it to questions.  Senator Eaton says she disagrees and then says she doesn’t understand what he’s saying.  Hmmmm — not hearing what the lawyer is trying to explain.  She continues to argue. Fortunately, Mr. Buckley keeps his cool.

5:10pm: Now Senator Martin (BC) … sure enough she plays the baby crib story. The debate version of politicians kissing babies, perhaps?

So what’s best for Canadians.  Mr. B. Neatly separates the emotion from the need to protect civil liberties.  It’s procedural fairness, State control vs freedom and the Rule of Law that is the issue here.

Now Senator Martin also disagrees. And begins to sing Health Canada’s song yet once again.

Mr. B talks of a need for review of  executive (State) action.  Amen.

Next comes Senator Segal (ON).

5:19pm: “Health Canada says it’s a reasonable person. What do you say to that, Mr. Buckley?”

“Can you imagine a civil servant saying they want broad powers to act unreasonably?”  A few shy smiles around the table — and a chuckle when he observes he’s never heard Heath Canada called reasonable before today.  Based on extensive experience defending against unreasonable exercise of power.

5:32pm: “Opinion should not colour the law. Statutes should be clear and not subject to how the winds blow”, says Ms. Cherniak.  Mr. Buckley agrees.

Senator Ogilvie (N.S.) takes a run at being a lawyer instead of a mere scientist.  Why oh why is this concept of the Rule of Law so hard to grasp?  Is it because we’ve always had it?  Does no-one remember King John (of Robin Hood fame) in 1215?  Who was so bad his barons held him hostage until he finally signed a “Big Charter” (Magna Carta)?  Whew!

So now Senator Ogilvie also says he disagrees.  Amazing … is he giving evidence too?  Ah well, I suppose it’s just as well to know where he and others on his side of the table are coming from.

5:43pm: Senator Dyck (SK) asks whether the bills goes further than necessary.  She’s a scientist so she understands risk.  But that’s not what she asks — instead she focuses on due process, a legal question.  Mr. Buckley answers again.  The Rule of Law is too important and should not be abandoned.  Senator Dyck is civil enough not to argue with him, whatever her own opinion may be.

6:00pm: At least the heart surgeon amongst us, Senator Keon (ON), understands that no-one should stand above the law.  Fair enough, but that’s why we usually insist on judicial overview to make sure the law is fairly exercised.  Absence of review is tantamount to a total lack of accountability.

The last senator to speak is Joe Day (NB). “It’s not the platitudes of Health Canada we’re being asked to approve.  It’s the words written down.”. Ah, well said.  Mind you, he is carrying on and on refuting previous senatorial oratorical positions ….

But time is up.  The Chair says we have to go … and so we will.  A good session, all things considered.  Powerful points were made and received.  Now it’s up to the Committee to treat ALL evidence with respect.

http://www.albertasenator.ca/hullabaloos

If you would like to apply, please do so via the Contact page, and indicate your previous/current projects involvement.  WordPress knowledge is required.

Thank you!
-Admin

- – – – – – -

Good Evening,

Just wanted to let you know that Senator McCoy is live blogging the Bill C-6 Committee hearing tonight.  (and also today, Oct 29 -admin)

http://www.albertasenator.ca/hullabaloos/

Thanks and be well.

- – – – – – -

Second Reading

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Martin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Nancy Ruth, for the second reading of Bill C-6, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products.

Hon. Tommy Banks: Honourable senators, the objects of Bill C-6 are laudable, as Senator Day mentioned in his opening remarks on the bill. The questions that I have about the bill, some of which have been addressed by Senator Day, are not about the objects of the bill but, rather, about the processes that it proposes to attain those objects.

Some honourable senators believe that government ought to be less intrusive of personal rights and ought to be more careful of approving of individual rights in some circumstances. Senator Day referred to some of those things, and I had the pleasure yesterday of a briefing with officials from the Department of Justice, both of which have made me realize that it is one thing for us to sit here and make law; it is another thing to apply and administer the law. In making the law that others must apply and administer, we must be careful to strive, as we always do, for the balance between the larger public right and the rights of individual Canadians and their enterprises. We must ensure that the fulcrum is placed in the correct perspective. We must ensure that the public interest in the present bill does not trample on the interests of individual Canadians or of their enterprises.

(1420)

I call to honourable senators’ attention some of the provisions of this bill, some of which have already been referred to by Senator Day, in the hope that honourable senators will find them interesting, as I do in my naïveté. I hope that these provisions will be addressed by the committee to which I hope the bill will be referred for study, and I hope that some of the questions can be answered and some of the concerns allayed.

In the preamble, paragraph 8 says something novel to me. I have not seen this before. It says that the Parliament of Canada, along with the Government of Canada, “enacts.” I have not heard that language before and I am not sure whether there are any implications.

Clause 15 says that “The minister may disclose” confidential business information “to a person or a government . . . without the consent of” the person whose property it is. Clause 16 says that may happen, “if the person to whom or government to which the information may be disclosed agrees in writing to maintain the confidentiality” of that confidential business information.

I am interested in knowing the extent to which we can rely upon that undertaking.

Clause 18 says that “The Minister shall decide on the number of inspectors,” and that he or she “may designate an individual as an inspector.” However, there are no qualifications for such inspectors set out in this bill. When, in other legislation, persons other than peace officers, in the normal sense of the word, are empowered to do some of the things that are included in this bill, we have an assurance, on the basis of who those persons are, of the qualifications that they have. When a policeman is empowered to enter places and to ask for identification, and to seize things, we know that the policeman has graduated from depot, or has received training to properly exercise that authority. The same thing is true of a fisheries officer or a park warden. There is no set of criteria of which I am aware for the proper discharge by these inspectors of the powers of investigation, intrusion, and seizure that they have, under the proposed bill. There may be some that are not contained in the bill.

Clause 20 says that an inspector — the kind to which I have been referring — may enter a store or a factory, without a warrant, and without any authority other than that that has been granted in this bill of having been appointed by the minister, and the inspector may in that place take and seize things. The inspector may demand that things be moved and stored at the expense of the owner. The inspector may take documents, including confidential business information.

I understand that in a store, or perhaps even in a factory, there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, I am imagining an office of an enterprise that may operate three or four factories, or three or four distribution centres, or three or four stores in malls, for example. I think that in an office, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, under this bill, an inspector can enter that office without a warrant. The inspector can require the person in charge to identify himself or herself to the satisfaction of the inspector, and the inspector can take and seize property. The inspector can turn on a computer and can take away documents that are in that computer and distribute them in the conditions that I described previously.

This situation may be okay. I may be naive in asking these questions, but I am not sure that it is okay. I think that if someone were to come into my business office, which I regard as private premises, if they are going to take things or demand that I identify myself to them to their satisfaction, I expect that they would be required to have a warrant, unless they were in hot pursuit or had some other authority to do those things. I do not think a police officer can go into a private business office and demand that someone in that office identify themselves to the satisfaction of the police officer.

This bill says that an inspector, under the act, can do those things. The inspector, with a reasonable suspicion of contravention of the act but without a warrant, may seize and detain, for any time — I repeat, any time — the materials, the stuff, the thing, the information that the inspector finds there. Furthermore, the inspector may order the owner or the person in charge to establish, as I said, their identity to the inspector’s satisfaction, and the inspector may seize, move or store the seized property in another place at the expense of the owner. If an inspector believes on reasonable grounds that there is a contravention of the act or the regulations under the act, the inspector may order any measure that the inspector considers necessary to remedy the non-compliance and to take those measures herself or himself if the person does not follow the order. I repeat: The inspector can order any measure that the inspector deems necessary.

Such an order may be reviewed by a review officer upon application of the person who is the subject of the order, provided that the application is based on grounds that involve questions of law or a mixture of law and fact. However, then clause 34 says that an order continues to apply during a review. This provision appears to present a possible conflict. It appears that if the order continues to apply, then the measures ordered by the inspector may be undertaken by the inspector while the review is still in progress. Proposed regulations under the act must be laid before both Houses of Parliament. That is good. The minister shall take into account any report that is made on them by a committee of either house. That provision is good.

However, clause 36 says that a proposed regulation that has been laid before Parliament need not again be so laid prior to the making of the regulation, whether it has been altered or not. Clause 37(3) says that under this act:

An interim order is exempt from the application of sections 3 and 9 of the Statutory Instruments Act.

Honourable senators, there is only one reason, as I have said before, again and again, for the inclusion of language like this in the law, and that is to escape parliamentary scrutiny. We have a Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, including statutory instruments, for a reason. The reason is to ensure that those instruments are compliant with the intent of the law. These provisions are in these acts to escape that scrutiny. I would be glad to hear of another reason for the inclusion of this kind of language in acts of Parliament, but no one has come up with one yet.

An interim order, as I said, is exempt from the act. This act provides fines of up to $5 million, or two years in jail — this offence is starting to sound serious — or both. It sounds like these offences are close to criminal prosecutions.

(1430)

The next clause states:

39. If a person other than an individual —

— which is to say “a corporation.”

— commits an offence under this Act, any of the —

— corporation’s —

— directors, officers, agents or mandataries . . . is a party to the offence —

And there are some directors here, I think.

— and is liable on conviction to the punishment . . . even if the person —

That is to say the corporation.

— is not prosecuted for the offence.

40. In a prosecution for an offence . . . it is sufficient proof of the offence to establish that it was committed by any employee, agent or mandatary of the accused, even if the employee, agent or mandatary is not identified or is not prosecuted for the offence.

41. If an offence . . . is . . . continued on more than one day, it constitutes a separate offence for each day on which it is committed or continued.

Five consecutive days could result in fines of $25 million in the aggregate or 10 years in jail in the aggregate. We should be careful when we are passing laws that contain those kinds of penalties.

Here is a train of thought to follow senators: If, as per clause 49, an individual authorized under the act to issue a notice of violation,

. . . believes on reasonable grounds that a person has committed a violation, the designated person may issue. . . a notice of violation. . .

Clause 50(1)(a) says that if the person named in the notice pays the prescribed penalty,

(a) they are deemed to have committed the violation . . .

Clause 50(2) says that instead of paying the penalty, the person may request to enter into a “compliance agreement with the minister.”

Clause 51(2) says that if they do enter into such an agreement, the person is deemed to have committed the violation. However, clause 52(1) says that if the minister refuses to enter into a compliance agreement, then the person who made the request is liable to pay the fine, and then the person is deemed to have committed the violation.

Clause 52(3) says that if the person does not pay the fine, the person is deemed to have committed the violation.

If you are charged under this act, you are guilty, no matter what you do.

Clause 56 (1) is good, I think, but maybe I am being naive.

56. (1) A person named in a notice of violation does not have a defence by reason that the person

(a) exercised due diligence to prevent the violation; or

(b) reasonably and honestly believed in the existence of facts that, if true, would exonerate the person.

Clause 62 says:

In any proceeding . . . a notice of violation purporting to be issued . . . is admissible in evidence without proof of the signature . . . of the person appearing to have signed the notice of violation.

Clause 64 says that orders made under this act are not statutory instruments under the Statutory Instruments Act.

See this duck? This is not a duck under the terms of this act.

Clause 66 says:

A document appearing to have been issued by the Minister . . . is admissible in evidence without proof of the signature or official character of the person appearing to have signed the document and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary is proof that the Minister became aware of the acts or omissions on that day.

Senators, I may be being naive, but there are some Canadians who think that some of these things are pushing the envelope in terms of where the fulcrum lies as regards the interests of individuals and their enterprises by comparison with the public interest. No one could possibly argue with measures that are taken to protect the public interest and the health and safety of Canadians. That is the object of this bill. My questions have to do with the means by which that is gone about. I suggest that at the very least we must at some point consider an amendment to this bill that provides, at the very least, that an entry by an inspector into a private office, during the course of which she or he may obtain information and take it away, should be subject to a warrant.

The Hon. the Speaker: Are honourable senators ready for the question?

Hon. Senators: Question.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

(Motion agreed to and bill the read second time.)

Referred to Committee

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?

(On motion of Senator Martin, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.)

- – – – – – -

See the Bill C-6 faxing & emailing page.

The following from Wayne Prante at www.falseflagflu.com:

_____________________________________

The Canadian Senate

Here is a link to Canadian Senate’s proceedings from Hansard from Sept. 16th, 2009: click here

This has the entire text of the day’s activities on the 16th, but it will take you to the relevant section.

A few notable quotes [from Senators] with respect to Bill C-6:

Condensed pdf containing only the Bill C-6 Debate (right click and save as …)

WE, my fellow Canadians, caused this earnest, open debate to take place in the Senate!

They acknowledged receiving over 600 e-mails and we only had a few days to warn people and put a plan of action together, and our website was also knocked off of the NET for almost an entire day (by forces unknown).

Stop Bill C-6
Keep the pressure on!

THANK YOU to EVERYONE who has written letters, e-mails, sent FAXes and made phone calls so far.

We ARE having an effect, but remember these two old sayings: “It ain’t over til it’s over” and “if you snooze, you lose!”

The Senate is now adjourned until Sept. 29th.

To anyone who has not done so, please take the time to write the Senators this week. Click on the STOP sign for details and some examples of letters, as well the addresses etc.

It ain’t perfect, but we have done a lot of the work for you to make it as easy as possible to take action and get your voice heard.

We have won a battle, let’s not lose the fight !

Wayne Prante for
Canadians for Health Freedom,
including Rukshana, Dee, Don, Bea, Croft, Joel, Candace, Ruth, Lori and many others who contributed to this effort.

PS Please also thank Senators Day, McCoy and Grafstein for standing up for us.

Today is your’s and it provides you a chance to begin to make a difference. The future is not your’s, but you determine it for future generations with what you decide to do, or not do, today.

Bill C-6 does indeed threaten to thrust dictatorial power over Canadian citizens and providers or natural health products. What’s more, the punishments according to this bill are completely devoid of due process. Punishments which are obscene in scope, ranging up into the millions of dollars for a simple offense such as providing a vitamin or remedy that is not on the “approved” list.

Ms. Elaine McCoy (Alberta), has joined several other Canadian Senators in recognizing this piece of legislative insanity.  Bill C-6 has currently passed the House of Commons and is being reviewed by the Social Affairs Committee in the Senate.  (The Senate reconvenes on September 29, 2009.)

From Ms. McCoy’s blog – (http://www.albertasenator.ca/hullabaloos/?article&424)

1. Bill C-6

Update (24 Dec 2009): For a comprehensive update please see the post titled “10 Things You Need To Know About Bill C-6 (And Where We Go From Here)“.  Your action is needed now!

Bill C-6 is a piece of Canadian federal legislation that threatens to impose literal dictatorial powers upon the people of Canada, in the broad area of health.  If passed, it would open the way for “big-corporate” style health policy, such as the WHO’s Codex Alimentarius, which ultimately aims to force factory-farmed GMO-food on everyone – if not to mass-medicate – and remove access to anything natural or healthy.  Here in Canada, string-pullers first tried to pass this as Bill C-52, and it was defeated because us Canadians spoke up.  Now, it’s back. And we need to get vocal to stop it.

As Senator Elaine McCoy said on her blog: