Bill C-6 Rears Its Ugly Head Once Again


Editor:

I would like to thank Jeremy Arney for this update on Bill C-6.

Bill C-6 Rears Its Ugly Head Once Again

Because the Senate has now become a “yes sir” extension of the prime minister’s contempt for Canadians, I wrote this letter to all MPs in the hopes that some of them will wake up to the damage that will result from Bill C-6 being re-introduced and passed into law.
Dear Member of Parliament,

Re:  The re-introduction of Bill C-6 (under a new number probably), Canada Consumer Product Safety Act

We have been assured that this Bill, amended by the Senate prior to prorogation of parliament, will be coming back in its original wording.

There were reasons for the Senate to amend this bill which I believe should have been picked up on by you the members of the House of Commons. Maybe they were not picked up on because for some reason MPs trusted that the government actually meant to protect Canadian consumers and were misled by the title.  Everyone wants consumer products to be safe.

It can be safely assumed that the recent problems with Toyota and General Motors automobiles will be used as reference points for the need for this legislation, however I have not yet heard one word from either Health Canada or even the Minister of Transport concerning these problems, which leads me to think they are not really concerned with the safety of the automobiles which are consumer products. This I believe further supports my contention that this Bill is not about consumer product safety, but more about outside control of our parliament.

I trust that this time round there has been sufficient noise and reasons given for you all in the opposition parties to take another look at the problems with this Bill. Government MPs will of course vote for it because they must.  The senate has now been stacked with yes men and women so it is no longer the watch dog on behalf of the Canadian people and it is now up to you as MPs and elected employees of the Canadian people, to be extra wary of all bills from this government, particularly this one.

I list a few of my concerns:

From Bill C-6

Definitions:

2  Governments means:

(e) a government of a foreign state or of a subdivision of a foreign state; or

(f) an international organization of states.

This clearly means that for example the USA, the European Union, China, WHO or even WTO would fall under this definition.

36 (2) a regulation made under this act may incorporate by reference documents produced by a person or body other than the Minister including by:

(c) a government, (see above)

And

36 (4) A regulation made under this Act may incorporate by reference documents that the Minister produces jointly with another government for the purpose of harmonizing the regulation of other laws.

Will either chamber have the right to object to or question this harmonization even though it may not be of benefit to the Canadian people?

This Act is supposed to be for our Canadian consumer protection not to harmonize our laws with those of the USA or EU.

It is worth noting that now in 38 states in America firearms are being carried openly again, so if we harmonize with that country we are going back to the late 19th century.  Is that what we really want?

It can also be construed to mean that other laws in Canada can be made to attack our sovereignty without further examination by the Canadian parliament simply by adopting regulations created within this Bill if it becomes an ACT as presently written.

36.1 (1) Before a regulation is made under subsection 36 (1) (a)- {exporting only or importing for export}, (b)- {exempting a class of person from this Act},  or (c) – {amending schedule 1 or 2}, the Minister shall lay the proposed regulation before each house of parliament.

This means that (e) to (p) do not fall under this presentation of regulation to parliament and can therefore be implemented without parliamentary approval.

However:

36.2 (1) A regulation may be made without being laid before either House of Parliament if the Minister is of the opinion that:

(b) a regulation must be made immediately in order to protect the health of any person.

Summary: We will be controlled by foreign governments and bodies of other foreign governments and the Minister can bypass parliamentary approval. Thus, for example, mandatory inoculations of untested vaccinations, or compulsory use of genetically modified foods or Codex Alementarious could be instituted in Canada without any presentation to or approval by parliament.

Preamble paragraph 6

Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that a lack of full scientific certainly is not to be used as a reason for postponing measures that prevent adverse effects on human health if those effects could be serious or irreversible.

Here it is clear that the Minister can decide what can be controlled simply on suspicion that it might cause harm without any scientific proof that it will.   The H1N1 vaccine is a perfect example of how lack of testing and scientific proof of safety or effectiveness or possible side effects were not enough to stop the recent mass vaccination against a non threatening form of flu.

Schedules 1 (acceptable items) and 2 (unacceptable items) are lists of what is considered as safe and what is not considered as safe.  If these are the only items that the Minister of Health is concerned with then this Act is either a waste of time or totally misnamed.  If The Minister of Health and Health Canada are concerned with more products then what are they?

Schedule 1 contains items which everyone will acknowledge are extremely dangerous to consumers: explosives, firearms, ammunition, crossbows and fertilizers to name a few.

Can it be said that uranium enriched ammunition is safe?   This list is totally acceptable to Health Canada for the purpose of this Act

Schedule 2 contains products including baby chairs on wheels and long tipped lawn darts. The wheeled chairs themselves are not dangerous, rather the lack of protection from dangers by guardians (ie: blockading stairs) causes the danger. If inattention by the user or guardian of the user is to be a criteria then cars, bicycles and skate boards, ice skates or roller blades, ski mobiles, microwave ovens or hot coffee should be banned too.

The Law of Trespass:

20 (4)  An inspector who is carrying out their functions or any person who is accompanying them may enter on or pass through or over private property, without being liable for so doing.

Do you really want a Health inspector and peace officers barging through your backyard, without your permission, to attack your neighbour’s home?

21(2) A justice of the peace can issue an e-warrant applied for over the phone by an inspector if:

21(2)(c) entry to the dwelling house was refused or there are reasonable grounds to believe that it will be refused or to believe that consent to entry cannot be obtained from the occupant.

21(3) In executing a warrant issued under subsection (2), the inspector may not use force unless they are accompanied by a peace officer and the use of force is authorized in the warrant.

This has already happened without this Bill being passed.

Please see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBCHlTxUqNM as a Canadian Naturopath,  Dr Eldon Dahl from Calgary, was raided without warning and he and his family were terrorized in their home by RCMP officers and Health Canada inspectors for eleven hours on January 15th 2009.  Is this the Canada you want?

A peace officer is described in the Canadian Law Dictionary as:

a person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process.  Under the Criminal Code the term includes, mayors, wardens, reeves, sheriffs, deputy sheriffs, sheriffs officers, justice of the peace, prison officials, police officers, customs officials, fisheries officers, pilots in command of aircraft and members of the armed forces under certain conditions.

Thus one of the above must be in attendance for the health inspector to use force.

(In Langford, BC all bylaw officers are now peace officers so a bylaw officer can now use force in Langford to carry out his by law duties. This is where such proposed laws lead, right in to the municipal civil law realm).

Such warrants may be issued by a Justice of the Peace and neither a court of law or a judge are involved.

Are suspected offences under this proposed Bill to be criminal or civil?.

In this same section as the free trespassing is:

20 (1)…an inspector may, for the purpose of verifying compliance or preventing non-compliance with this Act or the regulations, at any reasonable time enter a place, including a conveyance, in which they have reasonable grounds to believe that a consumer product is manufactured, imported, packaged, stored, advertised, sold, labelled, tested or transported, or a document relating to the administration of this Act or regulations is located.

This means that if I had (I do not) a copy of Bill C-6 and a set of long tipped lawn darts stored in my storage locker an inspector can come pretty much whenever he/she wants and I am in violation of this Act.

20 (2)(a) to ( i) are full of contradictions {(e) to  move it or, for any time that may be necessary, not move it or restrict its movement}: [(i) order the owner or person in charge of the place or a person who manufactures, imports, packages, stores, advertises, sells, labels, tests or transports a consumer product at the place to establish their identity to the inspector’s satisfaction or to stop or start the activity]

and are Orwellian enough to merit 3 or 4 readings to try and make sense of them.

Health Canada, the Minister of Health and the Prime Minister are insisting that this Act must be passed in order for Health Canada to have the powers of recall.

“Death by Prescription” a book by MP Terence Young is very descriptive of how Health Canada fails to even issuing warnings about dangerous drugs let alone instigate recalls or removal from prescriptive use.

14(1)(d) a recall or measure that is initiated for human health or safety reason by

(i) a foreign entity

It is not clear if that foreign entity would have the right to cause a Canadian manufacturer or distributor to recall within Canada because they (that foreign entity) say so, even if that product to which they object is not available to that foreign entity; or if they just feel that Health Canada may be asleep at the wheel again and they are trying to protect the Canadian consumer from something they know to be dangerous. Dect 6 cordless phones come to mind as they are way to dangerous for EU but totally acceptable here in Canada.

Sections 15 & 16 relate to the disclosure of personal information or confidential business information to a person or government without the consent of or even notifying the individual or business.

Section 31 (2) (a)stopping the manufacturing, importation, packaging, storing, advertising, selling, labelling, testing or transportation of the consumer product or causing any of these activities to be stopped:

also includes putting a business out of business.

Please read the following to get an even further view of how damaging these sections are.

This next piece changes the way we understand and practice the law here in Canada.

From the Criminal Code of Canada as of February 2010

Presumption of innocence

6. (1) Where an enactment creates an offence and authorizes a punishment to be imposed in respect of that offence,

(a)         a person shall be deemed not to be guilty of the offence until he is convicted or discharged under section 730 of the offence;

From Bill C-6:

38.(1) A person who contravenes a provision of this Act, other than section 8,10,11 and 19, a provision of the regulations or an order made under this Act is guilty of an offence and is liable….

So the presumption of innocent until proven guilty seems to be reversed here and:

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 violation: or

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

56 (2) “Every rule and principle of the common law that renders any circumstance a justification or excuse in relation to a charge for an offence under this Act applies in respect of a violation to the extent that it is not inconsistent with this Act.”

In other words again a person is presumed guilty until that person proves themselves innocent.  Even if they truly believe that they are within the regulations (most of which have not even been made by the government yet because they are going to adopt those of foreign countries) they are judged by the Minister of Health to be GUILTY.

One last thing here, from Definitions again:

“person” means an individual or an organization as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code.  I have searched but can find no such definition in the Criminal Code of Canada section 2. and “organization” is referred to as an association of persons….

I am an ordinary man who has bothered to read this Bill C-6 and as a result I am very concerned for the future of Canada as a sovereign nation with the right to control our own destiny.

I urge you as Canadians, elected by Canadians to serve Canada, to look very seriously at the new Bill C-6 an Act for Consumer Product Safety when it comes back before you. If you have any thoughts that it is for the benefit of Harper’s goals rather than for Canada and Canadians, ask your constituents if they really want their Canada to be this way.

I know I do not.

This time we will not have the Senate to watch out for the sovereignty of Canada.

I just want to be teaching my grandchildren about humanity, the earth, how to live a compassionate life, and how to develop their truth and their understanding of this planet and all the wondrous things on it. I do not want to have to teach them to mistrust their governments and elected servants.

Respectfully,

Jeremy Arney

8381 West Saanich Rd

Saanichton BC

V8M 1S5

778-426-0454

If you don’t like what you see or hear do something about it instead of complaining.

Advertisements

One thought on “Bill C-6 Rears Its Ugly Head Once Again

  1. Yup. Great excuse to regulate the family hobby farm too. This is not that far off. they will try to regulate your own personal veggie garden, chickens, woodstove and well water, etc.

    It’s all about “inter-dependence”. Eventually, if they get their way, we will not be allowed to do anything to help be self-sufficient.

    Mark my words.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s