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

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.

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

Status of the Bill

– 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.

THE RECENT HISTORY OF BILL C-6

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.

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.