Bill C-6 Discussion

[SaggyBalls]

Anybody care to share/discuss this topic? It's pretty heavy. It's sad that we have to watch our backs around our own Government - whether or not they would actually take full advantage of us through this bill, the potential is there.

Read on!

Gone are the days where we can just ignore what our government is doing and think that our freedoms are going to be protectedâ€

- Shawn Buckley, Constitutional Lawyer

TRESPASSING

Bill C-6 will abolish the law of trespassing. Any Health Canada inspector, or an agent of the State (i.e. Police), can freely and inconsequently walk onto your property during a “reasonable†hour and peer through your window or walk into your backyard and there is nothing legally you can do about this.

“Are we in such danger from consumer products that we must abolish the law of trespassing?â€

WARRANTS

We currently have a balance in how federal, provincial or municipal employees go about getting warrants to enter your residence; Bill C-6 threatens that balance. These workers need to have substantial evidence that they will find something criminal in this residence before they get a warrant.

Bill C-6 says that a justice may issue a warrant if Health Canada is likely to find something regulated by the act. The act regulates every consumer product and it is highly likely that every single home in Canada is outfitted with at least one consumer product.

“Are consumer products so risky that we have to move away from our current search warrant provisions?â€

RULE OF LAW

The Rule of Law: Also called supremacy of law, means that the law is above everyone and it applies to everyone. Whether governor or governed, rulers or ruled, no one is above the law, no one is exempted from the law, and no one can grant exemption to the application of the law.

If the government wanted to seize your property they would have to go through the justice system (the courts) to make sure this was a lawful seizure. Bill C-6, on the other hand, ensures Health Canada inspectors are above the Rule of Law. They may seize your property without going to court for a warrant.

The current law says that if Health Canada gets a warrant and seizes your property or if the police “find commiting†and are allowed to seize without warrant, the law states that they have to immediately report to a court what you seized and you must get a court order to keep it.

Under Bill C-6 not only can they seize your property without a court order, they can hold onto it and they don’t have to report it to a court. They (Health Canada) may also send you the bills for having to store your property. In some cases they can destroy your property without a court order.

ADMINISTRATIVE AND CRIMINAL OFFENCES

Under Bill C-6, you can be charged criminally for your “wrong doings†and those criminal charges can have multimillion dollar price tag on them or you can be charged administratively and the fines are much lower. The catch? If you are charged with an administrative offence, you are presumed guilty until proven innocent and to be innocent you must appeal the guilty charge immediately after detainment.

Administrative standards in court are judged by the balance of probabilities whereas criminal offences are conviction only beyond a reasonable doubt. This means if you are charged administratively the courts just say are you more likely to have been guilty or something or not, with no real evidence needed for this decision.

HONEST BUT MISTAKEN BELIEF AND DUE DILIGENCE

When charged with a regulatory defence honest but mistaken belief and due diligence is your two main defences.

Honest and Mistaken Belief: You send a product to the lab to be tested and the tests come back with no bumps but then your product is found to be harmful and dangerous to consumers. Since you sent your product to a lab, made sure it was “safe†and was unaware even after lab tests that it wasn’t, you can defend yourself with honest but mistaken belief.

Under C-6, your defence of honest and mistaken belief will not hold

Due Diligence: You followed the standard procedures of a reasonable businessman by sending your product to the lab to ensure its safety and trusted the results. That’s your defence of due diligence

Under C-6, your defence of due diligence will not hold

How can you defend yourself?

Conflict of Interest 101: “If your property has been seized by the minister, and you are found guilty by the minister of an administrative offence the Minister gets to keep your property.â€

The propagandist media and government say this Bill is for your safety. Now you must ask yourselves these questions...

-->Does abolishing the trespassing act make you feel safe?

-->Do you feel safe that the state can get a warrant to enter your house without evidence of criminal wrong doing?

--> Does it make you feel safe that the government can seize your property without a warrant?

--> Does it make you feel safe that the government can hold onto your property without reporting it to a court?

-->Does it make you feel safe that the government can keep or destroy your property without a court order?

“We should actually be outraged. Because we are being told this is for our safety when this is one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation I’ve ever seen.â€

- Shawn Buckley, Constitutional Lawyer

_________________________________________

Written by Andrew Donovan

Taken from gov't of Canada docs and Shawn Buckley speeches

[SaggyBalls]

it explicitly allows a Health Canada Inspector and ANYONE with them to trespass on private property (bill c-6 subsection 20(4))

The health canada inspector still needs a warrant to enter a private home. But here is the big change: right now, they need evidence of criminal wrongdoing to get a warrant. Under bill c-6, no evidence is necessary. no criminal wrongdoing is necessary.

see bill c-6 subsection 21(2)(a): Health Canada Inspectors can get warrants to enter our homes if "(a) the inspector has reasonable grounds to believe a consumer product is stored in the home". This is pretty darn broad and general, since all of our homes are filled with products.

for a more detailed explanation, see http://nhppa.org/?page_id=70#6 and scroll down to "the private home problem".

-A. Margaret Orlowski

[SaggyBalls]

Early yesterday morning [Nov 5] Shawn Buckley received an official request to appear infront of the Senate's Social Affairs Committee as a witness Wednesday November 25 from 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM. Shawn accepted.

Looks like this bill may be amended to keep it from bringing a truly awful reality about.

Fantastic!

[ollie]

What kind of things would Health Canada be looking for?

[SaggyBalls]

'Consumer products' Anything that could be 'unsafe'. Products could be reviewed and passed into the bill without going to committee or using otherwise expected due process.

Essentially - anything they want.

Even an empty vacant home has light sockets - which are 'consumer products'.

Is such a vague and far-reaching set of terms as 'consumer products' so dangerous that we negate the law of trespass, property seizure, and the necessity of court ordered search warrant?

Bill C-6 was introduced by the Government of Canada on January 29, 2009. The proposed Canada Consumer Product Safety Act would replace Part I of the Hazardous Products Act and introduce a new regulatory regime. The purpose is to modernize and strengthen product safety laws by overhauling existing rules to further protect the health and safety of Canadians. It will continue to introduce necessary, concrete measures to make consumer products safer for Canadians and their children by prohibiting the manufacture and importation of unsafe products. Additionally, it will give the government the power to order recalls of unsafe products.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/legislation/acts-lois/bill_c6-loi-eng.php

Is the threat of melamine and lead paint so great that we leave ourselves open to the eradication of our freedom and privacy?

In the ultra rare case of illegal imports of controlled/banned consumer products that would be shipped around Canada then this could be useful, but what would that kind of situation really look like? Chances are, Health Canada wouldn't be the fastest ones to act on the issue to nip it in the bud.

Sadly for our avid conspiracty theorists, there is nothing dark or sinister about C-6. It is just a re-introduction of last session's Bill C-52, also named the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. The purpose of Bill C-6 and its predecessor is to protect the health and safety of Canadians by prohibiting "the manufacture, importation, advertisement or sale of consumer products that pose an unreasonable danger to human health or safety." More specifically, as summarized by FAQ #3:

"The key provisions proposed include:

A General Prohibition against the manufacture, importation, advertisement or sale of consumer products that pose an unreasonable danger to human health or safety

Expanding the scope of legislation to cover the manufacture of consumer products

Mandatory Reporting of Incidents: requires industry to report when they have knowledge of a serious incident, or death, to provide an early warning to the government

Ministerial Orders for Test/Study Results: requires manufacturers or importers to provide information on products when so ordered

Packaging and Labelling: prohibitions on packaging, labelling or advertising that is false, misleading or deceptive, as it relates to health or safety

Document Retention by Industry: facilitates product tracing throughout the supply chain, in particular in situations where a consumer product has been recalled

Inspectors' Orders for Corrective Measures, including Recall: allows for rapid response to address an emerging problem, particularly in situations where industry fails to take appropriate steps

Increased Fines and Penalties: provides stronger deterrents

Administrative Monetary Penalties: allows for incremental penalties to deal with non-compliance; an effective tool in the enforcement continuum that includes criminal prosecutions"

- http://www.ottawaskeptics.org/topics/psychics-and-esp/191-is-bill-c-6-the-new-bill-c-51

However...

Allowing Trade Agreements to become law without Parliamentary Oversight

Section 2 includes following definition of “governmentâ€:

“‘government’ means any of the following or their institutions:

(a) the federal government;

( a corporation named in Schedule III of the Financial Administration Act,

© a provincial government or a public body established under an Act of the legislature of a province,

(d) an aboriginal government as defined in subsection 13(3) of the Access to Information Act,

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

(f) an international organization of states.

(emphasis added).

Defining “government†to include foreign states or international organizations of states such as the United Nations, is important because subsection 36(2) adds the following to the regulation making power of the federal government:

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

(a) an organization established for the purpose of writing standards, including an organization accredited by the Standards Council of Canada;

( an industrial or trade organization; or

© a government.

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 with other laws.

These additions allow the federal government to make documents prepared by foreign governments or bodies law in Canada by simply passing a regulation incorporating the document.

Just so that everyone understands what this means I will explain the difference between Acts and Regulations. Acts are documents introduced into either the House of Commons or the Senate. They must pass three readings in both before they can become law. This process ensures that Canadians and their representatives become aware of proposed changes, have them debated in Parliament, and have time to contest them.

Regulations on the other hand are simply published in the Canada Gazette twice and then can be signed into law. Parliament does not vote on regulations.

This change to allow the federal cabinet to incorporate documents from foreign governments or organizations as law by referring to them in regulations will remove Parliamentary scrutiny on issues that could fundamentally change the ground rules for the consumer product industry.

So for example, the federal cabinet could pass a regulation making Bill C-6 apply to foods and Natural Health Products (by amending Schedule 1) and at the same time adopt the CODEX treaty. Bill C-6 allows this to occur without Parliamentary approval.

These sections are almost identical to corresponding sections in the former Bill C-51. As discussed above, clauses are not inserted into Bills by accident. Because these clauses were not added by accident, the questions are raised:

what purpose is served by removing Parliamentary scrutiny to the adoption of documents from foreign governments and institutions into Canadian Law, and

does the federal cabinet already have specific foreign documents or agreements in mind?

- http://nhppa.org/?page_id=70#29

[phishtaper]

My understanding is that the Consumer Product Safety Act (Bill C6) would provide Health Canada Inspectors the ability to conduct random spot checks of goods manufacturers and importers. Currently, Health Canada possesses the ability to conduct such spot checks on food manufacturers and importers, so this new legislation would simply extend that ability to inspect manufacturers and importers of traditionally non-consumable goods (like toys, radios, etc.). I do not think this legislation gives anyone the right to enter a private dwelling unless something intended for sale is being manufactured there.

My understanding also is that the criticism of the legislation and charges that it will undermine privacy rights and lead to a big brother state are being advanced largely by the very same individuals who are also advancing doomsday and conspiracy agendas surrounding the H1N1 vaccine.

Relying on manufacturers themselves to conduct and report health inspections has been shown to be problematic. The new Bill is said to be a much-needed piece of legislation which will give health officials power to inspect the production and importation of goods intended for the consumer market and ensure that appropriate health standards are met. But of course, what one person calls required safety inspections, another person may call invasion of privacy.

Personally, I appreciate the fact that Health Canada will be inspecting the health standards of consumer goods. It's long overdue.

[ollie]

[color:purple]Gotta love the state of internet debate where questioning anything the government does makes you a conspiracy theorist.

[SaggyBalls]

My understanding is that the Consumer Product Safety Act (Bill C6) would provide Health Canada Inspectors the ability to conduct random spot checks of goods manufacturers and importers. Currently, Health Canada possesses the ability to conduct such spot checks on food manufacturers and importers, so this new legislation would simply extend that ability to inspect manufacturers and importers of traditionally non-consumable goods (like toys, radios, etc.). I do not think this legislation gives anyone the right to enter a private dwelling unless something intended for sale is being manufactured there.

...

Personally, I appreciate the fact that Health Canada will be inspecting the health standards of consumer goods. It's long overdue.

While I appreciate the health standards of consumer goods being held high, the legislation is vague enough to not be confined to manufacturers and removes enough due process to significantly infringe on otherwise upheld freedoms and rights.

-right to privacy/private property rights

-changes passing without parliamentary approval (not just consumer goods, but entire governmental processes and nationwide standards)

This bill is being passed off as being 'much needed' while the current system isn't really broken - it just needs to be used more effectively.

If there were a way for this bill to be passed and have these red flags not fly then I'd be all for it.

[nibbler]

Have you got a twenty-seven B stroke six?

[SaggyBalls]

Thanks for that, nibbler.

[nibbler]

One of the greatest films ever made....

[SaggyBalls]

http://cnhc.ca/campaign5point1.html

Ottawa Rally for Senate Hearings, Wednesday at 3:30 - 140 Wellington.

The issue here is to support the rule of law. Sure the fringe element can splinter skeptics and newcomers, but the real potential for the rule of law to be overturned by the rule of the corporatocracy or other special interests is very high.

I hope I can make it.

[nibbler]

Politics Question: Does anyone know if the prorogued parliament means Bill C-6 is dead?

[SaggyBalls]

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/LEGISINFO/index.asp?Language=E&query=5655&Session=22&List=stat

In Force:

72. The provisions of this Act come into force on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.

Looks like we got fucked again, nibbler.

[SaggyBalls]

i think that if there were ever a reason to revolt against a broken system failing us it's over this.

[nibbler]

I'm confused- looks like the senate voted on the second reading Dec 9th and defeated it 44 - 42 votes...

[SaggyBalls]

really? If you're right then I'm so very very glad to look like a huge tool.

If you're not then it doesn't really matter in the long run.

[SaggyBalls]

Prorogue: bill to be reintroduced

[SaggyBalls]

The bill cleared the House of Commons with unanimous support in June but the Senate voted on December 15th to accept amendments to the Bill. The latest amendments would allow companies to have a stronger defense in fighting penalties for violating the rules and make it more difficult to get a warrant to search offices outside manufacturing facilities. The bill will now return to the House of Commons early next year (February likely) where MPs could vote to reject the amendments.

more news

[Hux]

Looks like prorogation killed this bill at about the last minute possible...

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/LEGISINFO/index.asp?Language=E&Chamber=N&StartList=A&EndList=Z&Session=22&Type=0&Scope=I&query=5655&List=stat

[SaggyBalls]

you are my current favourite messenger, Huxxy.

[nibbler]

Let me get this straight- The proposed bill was going for a 3rd senate reading, where it quite likely would have been aquashed, however the prorogued parliament makes the bill die until the next session, where it is reintroduced, and by the time it reaches the senate, he-who-does-not-believe-in-appointing-the-senate will have appointed new conservative senators who will help the bill pass.

Sneaky...

Edited January 6, 2010 by Guest

[Hux]

Let me get this straight- The proposed bill was going for a 3rd senate reading, where it quite likely would have been aquashed, however the prorogued parliament makes the bill die until the next session, where it is reintroduced, and by the time it reaches the senate, he-who-does-not-believe-in-appointing-the-senate will have appointed new conservative senators who will help the bill pass.

Sneaky...

Pretty much...the Senate actually amended the bill ("gutted" according to Harper) then passed it at 3rd and final reading. Because it was amended it would have gone back to the House for approval. Prorogation prevented that from happening.

So...it will likely be re-tabled in it's original form, in March, likely pass the House in similar fashion, but because of the new Conservative Senators, not be amended this time around by the Senate...

This all took about 11 months or so...half in the Senate, so that will be sped up considerably with the imminent Conservative *plurality* in the Senate, so unless there is an election or another prorogation in the next 6 months or so after March, the not-watered down version of this will likely pass in 2010.

Good thing you voted NDP eh?

[phishtaper]

Good thing you voted NDP eh?

nah, i voted green. but a liberal won anyway. it aint all just chocolate and vanilla.

[nibbler]

Hux,

I appreciate the bafflegab translation.

The Council of Canadians introduced me to the concept of "deep integration" in the 1990s. I decided then and there I would vote-support any mainstream party opposed to the SPP. Now that they have taken up the cause, the NDP get my vote.

With Chretien out of the picture, unfortunately I believe there is no Red and White opposition to the SPP.

"Politics is the entertainment branch of industry"