Smoke versus Vapor

The Tobacco Industry vs the Electronic Cigarette


Parl VU ... Keep up to date with the Canadian Senate
Canadian Senate

Today in Parliament
November 9, 2009
Chamber Business
The Senate has adjourned until Tuesday, November 17, 2009 at 2:00 p.m...
House of Commons
The House of Commons is adjourned until Monday, November 16, 2009.


Parliament of Canada

Officers and Officials of Parliament

Traditionally, at the federal level in Canada, the term “Officers of Parliament” refers to those independent, accountability agencies created to assist Parliament in holding ministers and the bureaucracy accountable and to protect various kinds of rights of individual Canadians, or to carry out certain functions independent of the executive. The holders of these offices are responsible to Parliament rather than to the federal government or an individual minister, and their appointments (and removal from office) usually involve Parliament in some capacity.

“Officers of Parliament” has further been used to refer to the offices of the Senate and the House of Commons that are occupied by politicians. These officers have a role to play in the operations of the chamber – the Speaker and other Chair occupants, the House Leaders, the party Whips, the caucus Chairs, and certain other offices.

The term is also sometimes used to describe the senior staff of the Senate, House of Commons, and the Library of Parliament. These are the officers appointed to serve Parliament, independent of the executive, and who facilitate the functioning of the legislative branch.


Find your member of Parliament by Postal Code

Search for your local Parliament


This is an excellent article with respect to Bill C-6 ... please take the time to read it, since it affects each and every Canadian citizen.

CG : Archive : October 2009

Truehope’s landmark victory for natural health

Can the public now beat Bill C-6’s bid to search and seize products?

by Shawn Buckley

... "prior to the last election, there was a citizens’ revolt against Bill C-51, which would have expanded Health Canada’s seizure and detention powers. There was also concern about Bill C-52, known as the Consumer Products Safety Act, which would have expanded Health Canada’s seizure and detention powers in the area of consumer products.

Interestingly, after the election, Bill C-52 was quietly re-introduced as Bill C-6 and has already been passed in the House of Commons. It is now in the Senate. Most Canadians are not even aware of Bill C-6 and the dangers it presents to some of our fundamental rights and freedoms. For example, Bill C-6 exempts Health Canada inspectors from the law of trespass. These inspectors can come onto your private property and remain there. You cannot make them leave. This is curious because if you instruct members of the regular police force to leave your property, they must do so, unless they have a warrant or there are special circumstances. The regular police force cannot search your property without a warrant.

With this legislation, however, Health Canada will be able to inspect any business, garage or shed on your property, without a warrant. The only place it will not be able to search without a warrant is your home. Whereas the regular police force has to convince a justice it is likely to find evidence of a crime in your home to be able to obtain a legal warrant, Health Canada inspectors need only show the likelihood of a consumer product being found in your home. In effect, under the new law, it is possible for the state to intrude into our homes without evidence of wrongdoing because everyone’s home contains consumer products.

Bill C-6 also allows Health Canada to seize, destroy and/or keep private property without court supervision. This is a move away from the rule of law and it presents a significant danger to our way of life. ... "  Continued


40th Parliament - 2nd Session
(Jan. 26, 2009-)

Status of the Bill

Bill C-6 An Act respecting the safety of consumer products

House of Commons Senate
1st Reading January 29, 2009 1st Reading June 16, 2009

Debate(s) at 2nd Reading

April 29, 2009;
April 30, 2009

Debate(s) at 2nd Reading

June 23, 2009;
September 16, 2009;
October 7, 2009
2nd Reading April 30, 2009 2nd Reading October 7, 2009
Committee Health Committee Social Affairs, Science and Technology

Committee Meeting(s)

May 5, 2009 (18);
May 7, 2009 (19);
May 28, 2009 (22);
June 2, 2009 (23);
June 4, 2009 (24)

Committee Meeting(s)

October 21, 2009;
October 28, 2009;
October 29, 2009;
November 4, 2009;
November 18, 2009;
November 25, 2009;
November 26, 2009;
December 2, 2009
Committee Report June 8, 2009 Committee Report  December 3, 2009

Report Presentation and Debate(s)

June 8, 2009;
June 10, 2009

Report Presentation and Debate(s)

 December 3, 2009;
December 8, 2009;
December 9, 2009

Debate(s) at 3rd Reading

June 10, 2009;
June 12, 2009

Debate(s) at 3rd Reading

 December 10, 2009;
December 15, 2009
3rd Reading June 12, 2009 3rd Reading  December 15, 2009

Royal Assent:  
Statutes of Canada:

Message sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that House that the Senate has passed this bill, with certain amendments, to which it desires its concurrence: 15 December 2009.

* Message sent to the House of Commons December 15, 2009

Royal Assent:  
Statutes of Canada:


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.


Senator McCoy used the word “totalitarian” to describe Bill C-6. Vitality published a detailed summary of the Bill in its April and September issues: 


– C-6 abolishes protection from trespass, a court-ordered warrant, and the need for court-supervised search and seizure;

– it bypasses existing laws on privacy and confidentiality and explicitly exempts the Minister of Health and government inspectors from any kind of third-party oversight and accountability;

– the need to publish regulations governing the activities of the inspectors is abolished, too;

– accused individuals have their access to the courts seriously limited, even the assumption of innocence is gone;

– astronomical fines are to be handed out for crimes committed on the Minister’s assumption of guilt which requires no supporting evidence for independent examination;

– even the corporate shield would disappear, because corporate directors would be legally liable for the actions of their employees – which actions would be deemed criminal solely on the opinion of the Minister, not by the courts;

– this bill allows foreign governments and institutions, like CODEX and the World Trade Organization, to have the same powers over Canadians in all these matters outlined above, as if they were part of our own government.





On April 30, 2009, all four parties supported Bill C-6 without protest. True, MP Paul Szabo (Liberal, Mississauga North) and MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis (NDP, Winnipeg North) wanted assurances that C-6, to amend the Hazardous Products Act, would not affect regulation of natural health products. Judy Wasylycia-Leis reminded parliamentarians: “The furor that erupted after the introduction of Bill C-51 [to amend food and drugs regulation] and C-52 [the former version of C-6] last year was a result of the fact that the government failed to consider the need to clearly differentiate natural health products from current drug legislation.” 

Indeed, the pernicious fact is that C-51, C-52, and C-6 share regulatory provisions that were and are constitutionally insupportable and make a mockery of current medical and environmental science.

The Conservatives promised that C-6 has nothing to do with natural health products, pointing to Clause 4 (1). What they didn’t say, and what the Opposition failed to recognize, is that if C-6 were to become law, any sort of consequential amendment to food and drugs legislation could be made, and that this could happen by a mere Order in Council, without any parliamentary debate. Nobody would know. This extraordinary power is written into Bill C-6, which also is explicitly exempted from the mandatory requirements of the Statutory Instruments Act, against which all Bills must be checked to ensure that they are in harmony with the Constitution. The authors of C-6 must know why they did that. Tested for its constitutionality, C-6 would not survive.

Parliamentarians went into summer recess assured that C-6 aims to protect Canadians from terrible poisons hidden in dangerous imports arriving from various foreign countries. Nobody even thought of asking why this Bill was exempt from being checked against the Constitution. Not one MP wondered why C-6 has these extraordinary powers that would make a judge’s jaw drop. C-6 was sent off to the Senate.  Having been approved by all parties, Harper & Co thought it unlikely to raise Senatorial hackles. The fact that this toxic products Bill is itself toxic to the rule of law, human rights, and our Constitution never surfaced at all in parliamentary debate. Parliament had been successfully bamboozled, misled, or was complicit.


Canadian Senate Debate re:

Canada Consumer Product Safety Bill

Bill C-6 had been previously introduced in the House of Commons as Bill C-52. It did not make it to the committee stage because Parliament was dissolved. Bill C-52 was later introduced with its companion bill, Bill C-51.

Thus, there were two bills: Bill C-51 and Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act. Together, those legislative measures were aimed at implementing the Food and Consumer Safety Action Plan, and Budget 2008 even earmarked $113 million for those measures.

Second Reading—Debate Continued

On the Order:

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

Hon. Joseph A. Day ...

Full Session




Recent Forum Posts

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

Featured Products

Recent Blog Entries


Newest Members

Oops! This site has expired.

If you are the site owner, please renew your premium subscription or contact support.