A few words from a Proud Traitor of Canada and it’s People
Gerald Keddy MP – Member’s Statement – December 14, 2010
Update Dec 15 2010
Merry Christmas Canada!
Update from Jeremy Posted on November 1
Thanks Jeremy Arney, of BC, for keeping us informed about the treasonous “Canada Consumer Product Safety Act” now called Bill C-36.
This is Bill C-6 – reintroduced as Bill C-36.
This is important, please read the full text. Don’t forget to leave your comments and thoughts.
An Open Letter to the Canadian Minister of Health,
Once again Minister you are causing me sleepless nights with your re-introduction of this falsely named “Canada Consumer Product Safety Act” – Bill C-36. The Hazardous Products and Criminal Code Acts are concerned with safety of the consumer. This Bill C-36 is promoting the loss of Canadian sovereignty and will lead to loss of the rights and freedoms of the Canadian People and remove the fundamentals of the rule of law in this country. The Minister of Justice refuses to see this which in my mind amounts to treason.
For three years now Harper has been trying to get this Bill though, and it is still largely a skeleton Bill, with the “regulations” being mentioned on 23 of 37 pages (sometime 6 times on a page). However I am unable to find any trace of regulations on your web site and so I am wondering if you have any, or are you just relying on importing them from “foreign governments” and “bodies of foreign states”.
The claim you and your Alliance/Reform coalition government make is that you need extra powers for recall of dangerous products, yet I can only see a page and a bit of that in this skeleton of the bill so it must be in the regulations. Those powers already exist in the HPA and Criminal Code but they are not being exercised by Health Canada or even the Minister of Justice.
Where are these new tools and regulations please?
You keep asking for support for this Bill but considering how many times you have bought it back it is even more incumbent on you and your government that you bring in the complete package, not just a shell.
2 FROM THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH WEB SITE CONCERNING BILL C-36
The Government has listened to the concerns of consumers and parents alike, who want to be confident that the products they buy will be safe for them and their children.
There is a difference between parents and consumers?
Everyone who is a consumer wants safe products and is entitled to them. It is up to the manufacturers to provide that safety and for the government to oversee that safety without impinging on the rights of ordinary Canadians. This will not happen, no matter what powers or tools you put in place, if Health Canada is not an agency of the people, free from political and corporate interference.
Bill C-36 would give the Government the authority to issue mandatory recalls for dangerous consumer products, and provide new tools to quickly and effectively protect the health and safety of Canadians.
After three years of hearing about these tools don’t you think we should know what they will be? How will they differ from those that are already in place through HPA and The Criminal Code?
2 (a) Still from your website followed by defintions from Bill C-36 & Blacks Law.
Bill C-36 would raise the level of consumer protection in Canada, by bringing our product safety regime in line with our major trading partners. Canadians should expect no less.
>From Section 37 of Bill C-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
from section 2 definitions:
(e) a government of a foreign state or of a sub divisions of foreign states
(f) an international organisation of states.
>From Black’s Law Dictionary:
(3), loosely, is required to; shall; must. In dozens of cases, courts have held “may” to be synonymous with shall or must, usually in an effort to effectuate legislative intent.
When you put these items from 2(a) above together, how can you deny that it is the intent to import regulations as you do not appear to have made any of your own yet? Mr Harper is on a course to have us harmonised with the USA as soon as possible and this section combined with these definitions, incorporated into any other bill or all other bills, will do that very quickly, and our sovereingty and self determination will be gone. For the sake of a sovereign Canada we must remove the ability of foreign governments to dictate our Canadian regulations.
3 FROM THE MINSTRY OF HEALTH WEBSITE RE: MYTHS AND FACTS
I also quote from your Ministry website:
(Bold is my emphasis)
The new proposed Canada Consumer Product Safety Act would place a huge administrative burden on business.
Before moving forward with this proposed Act, Health Canada sought the opinions and recommendations of stakeholders, including industry representatives and consumer groups. While a few of the proposed requirements (e.g. mandatory reporting, requirement to produce test results upon request, etc.) may necessitate some additional accountability for industry, it is important to note that most industry players are already doing the vast majority of these activities.
Why? Because of the Hazardous Products ACT Section 5.1 (1) and the Criminal Code?
To further minimize the impact, Health Canada will continue to work closely with industry to streamline any new requirements and to ensure that any additional responsibilities are proportionate to risk. The purpose of the proposed new Act is to heighten industry’s responsibility to ensure that they are not marketing consumer products that could pose an unreasonable danger to human health or safety. Overall, this means the improved health and safety of Canadians and increased consumer confidence.
I seem to be missing something here as the whole aim of this Bill is to put the regulation and enforcement of this proposed Act into the hands of Health Canada’s inspectors, giving them the tools to make recalls amongst other things, yet here you are clearly saying the opposite. You want even more control to be exerted by industry. This is just another form of a Reaganistic trickle down theory which allows Health Canada to escape responsibilty, whilst increasing thuggery.
With this proposed new Act, Canadians can be guaranteed that every product on the market is safe.
While this proposed legislation would significantly improve the product safety regime in Canada, everyone has a role to play. Product safety is in everyone’s best interest, including Canadians, industry and governments.
Under the proposed legislation, suppliers would continue to be responsible for ensuring that products they manufacture, import, sell or advertise in Canada are safe. The Government would work with industry to enhance consumer product safety and would introduce new tools to take corrective action when problems arise.
It’s also important to note that Canadians have a role to play. Consumers should report any incidents related to unsafe products to both Health Canada and the company. This reporting can further help the Government proactively address problems with unreasonably dangerous products and inform consumers about potential risks…
….the Canadian government would work with industry …..and would introduce new tools…. Surely that should read WILL not would, and what will those tools be? Yet again the emphasis here seems to be mainly on industry and a little on consumers to do the work for Health Canada. Somehow I thought Health Canada was supposed to work for Canadians not the other way around.
I would also point out again that the H1N1 vacinne was neither proven safe or even effective prior to you insisting it should be given to as many Canadians as possible inspite of warnings from GlaxoSmithCline. So where does the fault for the use of this toxic vaccine lie? Are you as Health Minister aware of just how many side effects or even deaths have resulted from and are still occuring as a result of this vaccination program of yours?
McDonald’s “Shrek Forever After” Collectable Drinking Glasses
Full Product Description
This recall involves the “Shrek Forever After” 16-ounce collectable drinking glasses distributed by McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada. The glasses come in four designs depicting the following characters: Shrek, Fiona, Puss n’ Boots, and Donkey.
The designs on the glasses contain cadmium. Long term exposure to cadmium can cause adverse health effects. This glassware was tested and determined to be in full compliance with Canadian requirements for heavy metals including cadmium.
Neither McDonald’s Canada nor Health Canada has received reports of illnesses related to the use of these products.
“This glassware was tested and determined to be in full compliance with Canadian requirements….” Forgive me Minister, but my mind boggles that on one hand you clear these glassses for use as safe, and then because the US issued a recall on these glasses you did as well.. I do not find this too encouraging, however it does fall into Harper’s plan to rely on the USA and EU to make all our regulations and recalls for us. Again if Health Canada was truly independent and concerned with the safety of Canadians we would be well protected anyway
4 BILL C-36
Before I go to Bill C-36 itself, I should tell you I have just heard about your raid on Marigold Compounding and Natural Pharmacy of Courteny, BC
On June 14, four inspectors from Health Canada, accompanied by two RCMP officers, and inspectors from the College of Pharmacists of BC raided the pharmacy and seized products without NPN’s (Natural Product Number) and ordered the closure of the store.
What is the Natural Health Products Directorate (NHPD)? The NHPR (Natural Health Products Regulations) came into full effect in January 2010. It is federal legislation through which Health Canada would legislate the sale of natural health products as it does “drugs” through the Food and Drug Act and the Food and Drugs Regulation. With the classification as drugs, the intent is to have all natural products develop a body of evidence based on science. The fact that natural ingredients can not be patented poses a dilemma for manufacturers. Natural ingredients can be isolated and purified and even chemically altered, but does this change the properties? Are they still natural? (bold is my emphasis)
I am sure the inspectors from big pharma have no idea what natural health products are as they only know how to do drugs. No wonder you were happy to insert Section 4 (3)into Bill C-36, as it is meaningless. This is all covered under the NHPD using the same sort of tactics as those used in Edmonton against Dr. Eldon Dahl in his home. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBCHlTxUqNM
In Marogold’s case it was not “a thing” removed , it was $146,290 of products and the store remains closed by the College of Pharmacists, acting I assume on behalf of big Pharma, certainly not Health Canada or the wellfare of locals or customers of Marigold. Instead of treasuring a revolutionary idea concerned with nothing but the health and well being of their customers who choose natural products for their health, you have allowed them to be raided, closed and you have siezed their stock. So much for health and safety and employment. It’s all in the administrative regulations isn’t it?
Now to Bill C-36:
Carrying over from Bill C-6 in the last session which was put before parliament under the guise of “safety”, always a hard thing for any MP to vote against, whilst underneath was the controlling fist of:
Removal of the Rule of Law;
The removal of the Laws of Trespass;
The right for the Canadian Parliament to determine its own regulations without interference from foreign states or corporations;
The removal of the right to be deemed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law;
The removal of the right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure of property;
The removal of the right to have a court hear a defense or even to have an appearance before a court;
The removal of the right to have the courts act as a protection against false accusation;
The removal of the right to retain control of a ligitimate company without it being forced into bankruptcy on the suspicion, false or real, of wrongdoing.
I have read and re-read this entire Bill C-36 and have made so many notations and questions that it would take a book as long as the Bill C-9 (2010) to list them all.
Regulations are mentioned on almost every page but I can find absolutely no indication of what the regulations are to be. You are again expecting parliament to accept you and this Bill at face value, and trust that you will have regulations to put in place eventually. Minister, your trust factor is non existant after the H1N1 fiasco last year, and your ranting in the Commons at the Senate for doing their job of looking out for Canadian’s interests and rights with the previous Bill C-6, prior to the proroguing of parliament for the second time in a year. Maybe you knew that was coming.
I do know that if I was on the committee of either House I would be wanting to question Health Canada and you on almost every section, paragraph by paragraph as it is so full of potential double meanings, very few of which have to do with safety. Oh no, I forgot for a moment I could only get you or some other Minister, such as Justice, because Health Canada officials are now barred from appearing before House of Commons committees aren’t they?
5 SOME OF MY OBSERVATIONS OF BILL C-36
Section 2 Definitions you have added a new one: “storing”. Which suggests that if I want to store long tipped lawn darts for my personal use you do not have a problem with that even if they are on Schedule 2.
The Purpose of the ACT (2) quite clearly does not include your travesty with the H1N1 vaccine, so my question is what else does it not include?. Gardasil maybe? Safety from attack by Health Canada Inspectors seems to be missing to.
7 No manufacturer or importer shall manufacture, import, advertise or sell a consumer product that
(a) is a danger to human health or safety.
There is no quantification here so a simple thing like a paper cut that festers would fall into this catergory. Therefore the sale of paper could be subject to this section, and after one reported paper cut event, then paper could be recalled in Canada . Or maybe the plastic wraps that are so prevalent in today’s market place that require scissors or an axe to open. Maybe the unkown regulations have something to say about this.
13(1) (b) prescribed documents. What does prescribed mean? It means “by regulation”..what regulation?
14 (1)(d) a recall or measure that is initiated for human health or safety by
(i) a foreign entity
Here we go again, USA and EU, to mention but two that will control our recalls. I assume that Health Canada will add these foreign entities to their list of bosses and serve them well.
Sections 15, 16 and 17 are very dangerous to any business which offends either you or one of your inspectors or your pharma friends because you and or your inspectors can reveal their confidential information without their consent, and ruin their business without any apparent laibility.
In 17 (3) you then define business day as a “day other than Saturday or a holiday.” What happened to Sunday? Is it now a regular work day? Do government employees know that? Why then is parliament not open on Sundays?
19 (2) The minister may designate an individual as an inspector…what is an individual?
The definition of “person” in Section 2 refers to the Criminal Code definition also in section 2, but the defnition for person does not exist in section 2 of the Criminal code but organization does where person should be:
(a) a public body, body corporate, society, company, firm, partnership, trade union or municipality, or
(b) an association of persons that
(i) is created for a common purpose,
(ii) has an operational structure, and
(iii) holds itself out to the public as an association of persons;
So are we to believe that instead of “person” we are to read “organization” throughout this Bill? Or maybe as in (b) an association of organizations. It does make some sections a fraction more sensible.
21 (1) “reasonable grounds to believe” Judging by the intricacy of the wording in this bill I assume that this is defined in the regulations as it is certainly not in this Bill. So again I ask where are the regulations upon which we can see what this means?
21 (2) (e) suggests that a courier van might be delayed indefinetely for simply accepting to deliver some “thing” to which an inspector might object, thus we now have another innocent business put into jeopardy on the suspicion of an inspector. There does not appear to have to be a health risk prior to this “seizure” just a suspicion of wrongdoing. It would also appear that a consumer product already purchased is subject to these seizures without compensation too. Are you telling Canadians that? Buyer beware of Health Canada Inspectors ! Oh, by the way, in the criminal code these seizures have to be reported to the courts and have a warrant issued to perform. In Bill C-36 the inspector is the law, and our safety is not a consideration.
I am glad to see that in Section 21 (4) about trespassing the words “and they are not liable for doing so” are removed, although the use of the the word “may” (see above meaning from Black’s Law ) again suggests that it is under your order they “shall” or “must” enter on, pass through or over private property and I am sure you will accept no laiblity or responsibilty for their actions either. The removal of those words, glad as I am to see them go, are simply cosmetic, in my view, as the intent of the section is still quite clear. “Tresspass away inspectors”.
22 (3) states that if force is to be used an inspector must be accompanied by a peace officer. By definition in the Crimal Code that means the inspector could be accompnied by a prison cook.
Criminal Code definitions:
“peace officer” includes
(a) a mayor, warden, reeve, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff’s officer and justice of the peace,
(b) a member of the Correctional Service of Canada who is designated as a peace officer pursuant to Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, jailer, guard and any other officer or permanent employee of a prison other than a penitentiary as defined in Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,
a prison cook is a permanent employee, who could moonlight legally as a Health Canada enforcer.
Analysis: 29 The Minister “may” (must, shall) designate any individual or class of individuals as analysts for the administration and enforcement of this Act and the regulations.
What is a “class of individuals” when we don’t even know what an individual is? And again here we go with enforcement of regulations when we have no idea what they will be.
6 RECALLS AND REGULATIONS
31, 32, and 33 all of a page and a bit out of 37 pages is to do with RECALLS
Here we have the stated purpose of the Act right? Health Canada is to have the tools to do the recalls, and yet in this whole section it is the Minister who does everything. Where is Health Canada in all this and where are these expensive inspectors and analysts? Even more important where are the regulations upon which the Minister will act. In case of confusion, it was the inspectors who would do this work in Bill C-6, but in Bill C-36 it is you, Minister
35 (7) & (8) A review must be completed in 30 days from the Minister receiving the review request, but that 30 days can be extended more than once – how many times more than one? Does that really mean indefinetly?
This is about creating regulations not the content of the regulations themselves.
Regulations made by Governor in Council (which really means the Cabinet and not parliament does it not?)
37 (1) (a) is absolutely beautiful, in that it allows for the export of asbestos, uranium or any other dangerous “thing” mined or made in Canada, to any overseas consumer. Meanwhile that “thing” is not acceptable in Canada because it is “unsafe”.
OOOps, asbestos and uranium are not on schedule 2; kite strings, baby soothers, wheeled walkers and sneezing powder are though. How much uranium enriched explosives or ammunition do we export or use ourselves in foreign countries?
(b) exempting with or without conditions a class of persons from the application of this act or the regulations…..
and c) ammending the schedules 1 and 2.
I think that means that there are undefined “persons” (?) that are exempt from this ACT, and that the Governor in Council – see Cabinet – can add or subtract items to or from schedules 1 and 2 at will, without parliament being involved. 37 (2) was discussed in 2(a) above but is worth repeating. Regulations may be incorporated by refence documents produced by (c) a government, which is (e) a government of a foreign state, or (f) an international organisatiom of states. Again I refer to the use of the word may and its real meaning – must or shall. 38 (1) specifies that only regulations made under these subsections (37 (1) (a),(b) and (c) must be submitted to each house of parliament, and I believe that there is an arrangemnt to lay these regulations in front of the Clerk in case the house is not sitting 40 (6), and they will be deemed to have been laid before the house. Subsections 37 (1) (d) to (p) it would appear, do not have to be laid before parliament under any circumstances. 38 (4)(b) and (6) show how the Minister and Cabinet can get the regulations into being, avoiding not only committees but also any discussion in either house.
39 (1) says the Minister can make regulations without parliament’s approval and (2) if this is done a statement must be laid before each House with the reasons – no time limit specified of course so it could be years, or laid before the clerk when the house is not sitting.
Interim Orders about regulations:
40 (1) Allows the Minister to make interim orders that if they are approved by the Govenor in Council (Cabinet again).
(2) (a) are endless, and
(3) not subject to Privy Council approval .
(4) I defy anyone not a lawyer to understand.
7. OFFENCES, VIOLATIONS AND COURT APPEARANCES DISALLOWED
Guilty until proven innocent, and the Minister is Judge and Jury.
The section on offenses is loaded with those “persons or individuals” again and is in keeping with this government’s desire to punish all offenders with severe fines or inprisonment, however:
41 (4) considers the courts reaction to the commission of the offense and the vulnerability of individuals who use the consumer product. If this is only about regulations, which is not specified, then you, Minister, might be OK. If not then Minister I think you should be subject to a “court reaction” to your actions last year with the untested, unproven H1N1 vaccination program pushed hard at Canadians using fear tactics to achieve maximum coverage.
The next few sections are a nightmare concerning signatures, persons, individuals, regulations, admissabilty and of course penalties, which only a lawyer can get pleasure out of untangling. It is also painfully obvious that this is more about administrative penalties than safety or health
In amongst all this is
59.(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
41 (2) Due dilligence IS a defence in a prosecution for an offense
So in a notice of violation there is no due diligence defense yet in committing an offense there is? Does it really matter anyway because this is all decided by you as Minister, not by a court of law?
42 A person (coalition) is not liable for an offence but the servants of that coalition are, even if the coalition is not prosecuted….
62 A person (coalition) is liable for a violation, committed by a servant wether or not the servant is charged or proceeded against.
Seems to me that one cancels out the other, thus no one gets charged, so what is the point again here? Or maybe with this government everyone gets charged. How long will anyone be liable as I did not notice in section 57 any time limit on possible charges? That is to say the Minister has 6 months to carry out administratuve violation charges from when he/she is aware of the “violations” which could be years later. Yet another question here, what do adminstrative charges have to do with the safety and health of Canadians. Administrative charges is in this case a punitive setup to extract money for not conforming to unknown regulations. These charges can be collected through the federal court and yet there is no opportunity for the accused to have any review of either the amount of the fine set by the Minister, nor the opportunity to plead innocent or even appear in front of that court. Thus the rule of law in Canada is being by passed.
67 (1) (2) (3) establish a new committee separate from Health Canada, well that’s good news for sure as Health Canada is compromised, but where is the money for this committee coming from? Any advice the Minister recives from this committee has to be made public, which I assume means put into the Gazzette, but kept away from the main media.
70 Why do the Minister’s documents only have to have the appearance of being real to be proof that the Minister became aware of something?
9 CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
My overall impression of this Bill is that over the years a lot of money has been spent to produce a potential piece of legislation that is a complicated skeleton with the unfulfilled and not to be trusted promises of regulations, which will only surface after the bill is passed into an Act. I believe it is designed not for the protection of consumers at all but rather to remove the sovereignty of Canada, and to merge Canada with the USA. The use of the word “safety” is simply to encourage MPs to vote for it, as to vote against such a word could be hard to explain to an uninformed population. If the MPs all advised their constituents of their reason for voting against this bill, I believe the overwhelming vote from the Canadian People would be “no thank you” to this Bill.
Minister, I believe it is time for you to show us the regulations before we even entertain further thought of this Bill C-36.
Better yet Minister, serve the people of Canada, who are your employers, not corporate and foreign interests by withdrawing this whole sham called Bill C-36. HPA and the Criminal Code have served us well, and if there really is a need to update them, then do that. Give the control of public safety to another ministry as Health Canada is and has been controlled by political and corporate interests and is thus indifferent to the real safety and health of the Canadian People. Terence Young sits not far from you in the House, I suggest you talk to him about Health Canada and his daughter.
Hard copy to the Minister by Canadian Post Office Mail.