C-6 = Legislative Disaster
Third Reading of Bill C-6 is scheduled for next week's Senate Hearing. Please keep the letters going we need to delay the passing of C-6. The more we delay the better our chances of killing this bill. See example letters below
"Of course we all want our country to be safe from hazardous products. But let's not get suckered into believing that Health Canada's radical departure from our constitutional form of government is the only way to do it. There are simpler ways to accomplish Health Canada's professed objectives without trampling on our individual rights. We want consumers to be safe - without making business owners unsafe.
C-6 is the most protested piece of legislation in our entire 142-year history. Over 100,000 letters/faxes/emails received by senators and MPs attest to this fact. Listen to the people. We don't want legislation that violates our rights, especially when there are viable options which respect those rights.
Health Canada isn't telling the whole story. Yes, hazardous products do find their way into Canada. Yes, we need ways of minimizing these hazards. What Health Canada neglects to mention is that the Hazardous Products Act is working just fine. Voluntary recalls are up this year over last. What business person in his right mind isn't going to recall a dangerous product when asked to? Killing or injuring your customers isn't good for business.
Health Canada claims that they need mandatory recalls in order to do their job of protecting the public. If so, there is an incredibly simple solution: update the Hazardous Products Act to include mandatory recalls." DR
To send your letter please read the following and use a few introductory notes to the attachment (titled in red) below.
Chris Gupta
-----------------------------
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 17:03:36 -0400
From: David Rowland <doc@lincsat.com>
Subject: Vote your Conscience on C-6
To: 'Carolyn Stewart' <stewac@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'Daniel Lang' <langd@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'Dennis Patterson' <patted@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'Donald Plett' <plettd@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'Doug Finley' <finled@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'Fabian Manning' <mannif@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'Jacques Demers' <tessil@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'John Wallace' <wallaj@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'Judith Seideman' <seidmj@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'Kelvin Ogilvie' <ogilvk@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'Leo Housakos' <housal@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'Linda Frum' <fruml@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'Michael Duffy' <mikeduffy@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'Michel Rivard' <rivarm@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'Nancy Greene Raine' <rainen@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'Nicole Eaton' <eatonn@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'Pamela Wallin' <wallinp@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'Patrick Brazeau' <brazep@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'Percy Mockler' <mocklp@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'Richard Neufeld' <neufer@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'Stephen Greene' <greens@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis' <fortis@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'Yonah Martin' <martin@sen.parl.gc.ca>
Cc: lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca, HarpeS@parl.gc.ca,
"'Day, Joseph A.'" <DAYJA@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
mccoye@sen.parl.gc.ca,
Dear Recently Appointed Senators:
You are able to vote independently on Bill C-6. Please do. It will be much better for Canadians if you vote your conscience rather than follow the party lines which may have inadvertently led us to the brink of a legislative disaster.
Bill C-6 was rushed through Parliament without realizing that it is fatally flawed, from a constitutional point of view. If C-6 is passed into law (with or without Senator Day's proposed amendments) it is unenforceable in any court of law, no one will have to pay any attention to it, and injunctions will be issued against it. And, of course, the parliamentary procedures that allowed it to happen will be called into question.
Attached and below is background information concerning the legislative disaster that we face, together with a constructive solution.
If you have any questions or concerns on this matter, please feel free to email me back, or call me at: (506) 277-1128.
Yours most sincerely,
- David W. Rowland, B.Comm., M.B.A., Ph.D.
----------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 18:07:07 -0400
From: David Rowland <doc@lincsat.com>
Subject: Strategic Withdrawal
To: lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca, HarpeS@parl.gc.ca
Cc: 'Charlie Watt' <wattc@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'Clauge Carignan' <carigc@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'David Angus' <anguswd@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'Elaine McCoy' <mccoye@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'George Baker' <bakerg@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'Jean-Claude Rivest' <jcrivest@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'Joan Fraser' <frasej@sen.parl.gc.ca>, '
John Wallace' <wallaj@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'Joseph Day' <DAYJA@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'Larry Campbell' <campbel@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'Lorna Milne' <milnel@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'Pierre Nolin' <nolinp@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'Serge Joyal' <joyals@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
'Tommy Banks' <gautht@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
To: Hon. Marjory LeBreton
Leader of the Government in the Senate
Dear Ms. LeBreton:
Attached and below is a letter explaining the legislative disaster we face if Bill C-6 is passed into law. It also offers a constructive solution to the problem.
Shawn Buckley (constitutional lawyer), the only person allowed to testify against C-6, revealed that C-6 is fatally flawed, from a constitutional perspective.
If it is passed into law, it will be unenforceable in any court of law, no one will have to abide by it, injunctions will be issued against it - and the legislative process which allowed it to happen will be called into question.
Mr. Buckley's profound testimony is a matter of public record that has not been challenged. Therefore, from a legal perspective, it must stand on its own.
Before any vote on C-6 can proceed, all of the 8+ constitutional infringements brought to light by Mr. Buckley need to be overcome.
The amendments proposed by Senator Day have the effect of reducing the impact of some of these constitutional violations, but do NOT eliminate the most fundamental of them.
The rights recognized by our constitutional documents are inviolable. They cannot be voted away.
Further, there are simple ways to accomplish Health Canada's professed objectives that respect these rights.
Those who sit on the Social Affairs/Science/Technology Committee are not qualified to assess the constitutional impact of Bill C-6.
There are now only three acceptable options for this unprecedented bill:
- Send C-6 to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, for proper scrutiny.
- Withdraw C-6 in favour of the solution proposed in my attached letter.
- The senate must defeat C-6 (with or without amendments).
Any fourth choice would result in parliament's having passed an unlawful Act, with all of the accountability that accompanies such a radical departure from our 142-year legislative history as a country.
Yours most sincerely,
- David W. Rowland, B.Comm., M.B.A., Ph.D.
-----------------------------
Attachment:
Senators: Act now to prevent this disaster.
Canada has four supreme laws that protect the rights of individuals: the Constitution Act, 1867, the Canadian Bill of Rights, and the Constitution Act, 1982 (which includes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.) Interweaving together, these inviolable agreements make up our "Constitution". They do what every constitution is supposed to do: limit the powers of government to protecting our inalienable rights, rather than violating them. In other words, our Constitution ensures that we, the people, own the government (rather than vice-versa).
A Supreme Court decision in 1950 ruled that the Constitution belongs to the people and not the government. Every parliamentarian, upon taking office, needs to swear an oath to uphold our Constitution. Apparently, that doesn't happen. If it did, Bill C-6 would never have seen the light of day.
Canada also needs a Scrutiny of Bills Committee to make sure that each bill conforms to the Constitution before it is permitted to proceed any further. A Scrutiny of Bills Committee would clearly have prevented C-6 from getting off the ground.
Constitutional Violations
Thanks to the testimony of Shawn Buckley, constitutional lawyer, it is now a matter of public record [25-11-09] that Bill C-6 violates our Constitution in at least eight different ways. Mr. Buckley's testimony was made before the Social Affairs/Science/Technology Committee, none of whose members have any background or training in law. Somehow, C-6 went before the wrong committee. It should have been presented to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
Senator Joseph Day (a lawyer) brought another voice of reason to the Social Affairs Committee [2-12-09]. Senator Day proposed a number of amendments that would put in place some checks and balances to limit Health Canada's ability to abuse the sweeping powers granted to it under C-6. In writing about this event afterward, Senator Elaine McCoy (also a lawyer) stated: "At the heart of the amendments was a sincere attempt to balance the power of the state against the rights of citizens, whether they be innocent consumers or innocent entrepreneurs ... several of the senators appeared not to have the benefit of intimate familiarity with legal principles of natural justice and other traditional aspects of the common law ... What is at stake here is how far the state (read civil servants) should be empowered to impose their will upon citizens."
Most of Senator's Day's 14 amendments were agreed to by the Committee; however, the senate has the power to reject any or all of these amendments. The senate can pass C-6 into law at any time, without making any changes to it.
Party Loyalties
Senators are able to vote independently, regardless of party lines. Whether they will, or not, remains to be seen. Thus far in the C-6 proceedings, relatively few senators have broken ranks with their parties.
Senator Hugh Segal (Conservative) has gone on record as saying [with respect to Senator Day], "He always has been on the side of protecting the innocent. Tories are not quite as taken up with that proposition as the Liberals."
Health Canada Misleads
If the senate amends C-6, then the bill goes back to the House of Commons, which may or may not accept those amendments. None of this back-and-forth is necessary. Health Canada has led us down an inappropriate legislative route.
Senator Day's astute and timely amendments are trying to make the best of a bad situation. However, it is rather like trying to patch leaks in a rowboat that is floundering in only six inches of water. We don't have to be in that boat. We can get out and walk ashore at any time.
Health Canada has been misleading Parliament. During the presentation of Senator Day's amendments, three Conservative senators were seen passing notes back and forth to Health Canada officials. These same three senators (plus one other) adamantly opposed every single one of Senator Day's 14 amendments, including those that merely clarified wording. This fourth dissenting senator (also a Conservative) was on the steering committee that pre-selected 16 witnesses to speak in favour of C-6 and only one against. [The same thing happened in the House: no witnesses against C-6 were allowed to testify before the Standing Committee on Health.]
Health Canada has been leading a parade (read "charade") under the banner of "safety". As the blinders come off, more of us are dropping out of that parade. Bill C-6 is entirely unnecessary; it does not serve any legitimate purpose.
False Fear
Of course we all want our country to be safe from hazardous products. But let's not get suckered into believing that Health Canada's radical departure from our constitutional form of government is the only way to do it. There are simpler ways to accomplish Health Canada's professed objectives without trampling on our individual rights. We want consumers to be safe - without making business owners unsafe.
C-6 is the most protested piece of legislation in our entire 142-year history. Over 100,000 letters/faxes/emails received by senators and MPs attest to this fact. Listen to the people. We don't want legislation that violates our rights, especially when there are viable options which respect those rights.
Health Canada isn't telling the whole story. Yes, hazardous products do find their way into Canada. Yes, we need ways of minimizing these hazards. What Health Canada neglects to mention is that the Hazardous Products Act is working just fine. Voluntary recalls are up this year over last. What business person in his right mind isn't going to recall a dangerous product when asked to? Killing or injuring your customers isn't good for business.
Health Canada claims that they need mandatory recalls in order to do their job of protecting the public. If so, there is an incredibly simple solution: update the Hazardous Products Act to include mandatory recalls.
The Impasse
Our constitutional rights and freedoms cannot be voted away. Yet that is exactly what Health Canada is asking the senate to do. Senator Day's amendments (if accepted) would have the effect of toning down the unreasonableness of searches and seizures facilitated by C-6; however, these changes are unable to correct the deeper unconstitutionalities of this unprecedented bill.
Bill C-6 combines both criminal and administrative penalties into a single piece of legislation. This is expressly forbidden by the Constitution Act, 1867 which divides powers between federal and provincial governments. The federal government has jurisdiction over crime, but not over products, as such. Health Canada is trying to criminalize mere noncompliance with regulations in order to acquire powers that aren't legitimately theirs. Under the guise of keeping Canada safe from criminals, Health Canada wishes to penalize business owners far in excess of anything that a court would allow - such as fines of up to $5 million per day - and prohibiting the defences of due diligence and honest but mistaken belief.
Once you are charged with an offence under the proposed Act, you are presumed guilty no matter what. The Health Ministry becomes both police and judge. You have no recourse. Your private property may be seized, never to be returned. You and your business can be ruined financially over matters that have nothing do with safety.
If crime is of real concern here, Senator Elaine McCoy has wisely suggested (on record) that a new criminal code be created around consumer products. That would be the constitutional way to approach the problem - if, indeed, there is any actual problem.
C-6 is unconstitutional at its very core, because of the false premises on which it is based. There is no number of surface amendments that can make it constitutional. Here is the impasse: C-6 is unlawful. It is unenforceable in any court of law. If passed, no one has to pay any attention to it; and injunctions will be issued against it. Clearly another solution is required if we are to avoid this legislative disaster.
The Solution
Once you have identified the problem, the solution becomes apparent. The real problem in this case is that Health Canada has created false fear in order to offer itself as the remedy for that fear. To get ourselves back on the proper legislative track, this is what must be done:
- Withdraw or defeat Bill C-6.
- If mandatory recalls are required, then amend the Hazardous Products Act accordingly
- If warranted, create a new criminal code around consumer products.
The above three steps will provide the optimal product safety levels required by consumers and also give Health Canada all of the legitimate powers it needs to do its proper job.
There is one other step needed to prevent future constitutional infringements:
Establish a Scrutiny of Bills Committee.
Step #1 needs to happen right now, before it is too late. The others can come in due course.
Yours most sincerely,
David W. Rowland
David W. Rowland, B.Comm., M.B.A., Ph.D.
Phone: (506) 277-1128
posted by Chris Gupta on Sunday December 6 2009
URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2009/12/06/c6_legislative_disaster.htm
Related ArticlesDrinking Water Fluoridation is Genotoxic & Teratogenic
This paper by Prof. Joe Cummins is a very important 5 minute delegation made to London Ontario Canada "Civic Works Committee" public participation meeting on January 25, 2012 on fluoride*. While a bit technical it is short and easy to grasp. A must read as it goes to the heart of the matter regarding the well established toxicity of fluoride which is well in all scientific circles even before water... [read more]
February 06, 2012 - Chris GuptaDemocracy At Work? - PPM On Fluoride
Here is a commentary on the recent (Jan, 25th, 2011) Public Participation Meeting (PPM) on Fluoride in the City of London, Ontario. The meeting started with a strong pro fluoride stance form the City engineer. His lack of knowledge on chemistry of the toxic wastes used to fluoridate water could embarrass even a high school student never mind his own profession. He blatantly violated his "duty to public welfare" as... [read more]
January 29, 2012 - Chris Gupta"Evidence Be Damned...Patient Outcome Is Irrelevant" - From Helke
Further to The Future of Complementary/Integrative Medicine & Patient Choice, here is an important must read and act note from Helke Ferrie, a superb Medical Science Writer and Publisher. Now that the true colours of the well known shortcomings of allopathic medicine are being discovered en mass, the screws are being tightened by the pharmaceutical masters on their medical puppets. It seems that they are prepared to stop at nothing.... [read more]
September 16, 2011 - Chris Gupta
