20. (1) Subject to subsection 21(1), an inspector may, for the purpose of verifying compliance or preventing non-compliance with this Act or the regulations, at any reasonable time enter a place, including a conveyance, in which they have reasonable grounds to believe that a consumer product is manufactured, imported, packaged, stored, advertised, sold, labelled, tested or transported, or a document relating to the administration of this Act or the regulations is located.
(2) The inspector may, for the purpose referred to in subsection (1),
(a) examine or test anything - and take samples free of charge of an article to which this Act or the regulations apply - that is found in the place;
(b) open a receptacle or package that is found in the place;
(d) seize and detain for any time that may be necessary
(i) an article to which this Act or the regulations apply that is found in the place, or
(ii) the conveyance;
In regards to seizure of personal information without consent: ttp://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Parl=40&Ses=2&Mode=1&Pub=Bill&Doc=C-6_3&File=41#4
DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION BY THE MINISTER
15. The Minister may disclose personal information to a person or a government that carries out functions relating to the protection of human health or safety without the consent of the individual to whom the personal information relates if the disclosure is necessary to identify or address a serious danger to human health or safety.
(2) A justice of the peace may, on ex parte application, issue a warrant authorizing, subject to the conditions specified in the warrant, the person who is named in it to enter a dwelling-house if the justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath that
(a) the dwelling-house is a place described in subsection 20(1);
(b) entry to the dwelling-house is necessary for the purposes referred to in subsection 20(1); and
(3) In executing a warrant issued under subsection (2), the inspector may not use force unless they are accompanied by a peace officer and the use of force is authorized in the warrant.
(2), a warrant may be issued by telephone or other means of telecommunication on application submitted by telephone or other means of telecommunication and section 487.1 of the Criminal Code applies for that purpose with any necessary modifications
Interpretation: this leads me to believe these all apply to a consumer product as defined below if a disease falls under "consumer product" then all gloves are off so the whole bill in regards to vaccination depends on the courts interpretation of "consumer product" and hopefully the law is not amended to redefine "consumer product".
"article to which this Act or the regulations apply"
"article to which this Act or the regulations apply" means
(a) a consumer product;
(b) anything used in the manufacturing, importation, packaging, storing, advertising, selling, labelling, testing or transportation of a consumer product; or
"consumer product" means a product, including its components, parts or accessories, that may reasonably be expected to be obtained by an individual to be used for non-commercial purposes, including for domestic, recreational and sports purposes, and includes its packaging.
There is nothing I could find conclusive but a wider definition or bad interpretation or amendment of the bill would subject citizens to all of the "health risk" legislation. I'd like to see someone cite a particular line to back their case on the forced vaccination and the likes that they claim in their articles.
Part II: C-6 / C-36 Comparison and Synopsis
-- My comments / notes are in [brackets].
-- The edits are highlighted with a *
C-6 vs C-36
Added [glad they clarified]:
“storing” does not include the storing of a consumer product by an individual for their personal use.
Updated [Inspectors are no longer above all law, they can still bring in "anyone to accompany them" though]:
(4) An inspector who is carrying out their functions and any person accompanying them may enter on or pass through or over private property.
(4) An inspector who is carrying out their functions or any person accompanying them may enter on or pass through or over private property, and they are not liable for doing so.
Updated [An order can only be issued by the Minister now for stopping the manufacturing, importation, packaging, storing, advertising, selling, labelling, testing or transportation of the consumer product or causing any of those activities to be stopped; and any measure that the Minister considers necessary to remedy a non-compliance with this Act or the regulations, including any measure that relates to the product that the Minister considers necessary in order for the product to meet the requirements of the regulations or to address or prevent a danger to human health or safety that the product poses instead of having the order issued by an inspector]:
31. (1) An inspector* may order a person who manufactures, imports, advertises or sells a consumer product to take any measure referred to in subsection (2) if
32. (1) The Minister* may order a person who manufactures, imports, advertises or sells a consumer product to take any measure referred to in subsection (2) if
(8) The review officer may extend the review period by no more than 30 days if they are of the opinion that more time is required to complete the review. They may extend the review period more than once.
Advice available to public [the appointed person / people on the review board must disclose what was advised to the minister, doesn't say anything about anything other than advice though such as a hint or order]
(2) The committee shall make available to the public the advice it provided to the Minister.
Added [more info on BPA: (**)]:
15. Polycarbonate baby bottles that contain 4,4'-isopropylidenediphenol (bisphenol A).
(**) 13 Page report from StatsCan on Bisphenol A. It presents the numbers taken from urine samples and analysis of BPA concentrations by age and gender. Take this official study as you will. We were forced to pay for it, so we may as well read it.
Quote: BPA is recognized as an endocrine disruptor,although its estrogenic potency is under debate. Reproductive toxicity, including effects on fertility and development, has been identified as a key health effect of exposure to high concentrations. Some studies suggest that repeated maternal exposure could elevate BPA exposure in utero or in the newborn.
Updated [The minister may arbitrarily appoint a review of their own orders distancing her or himself from recourse the electorate. It is essentially appointing a Tsar or committee and they don't even have to be from our country.]:
33. The Minister may designate any individ-ual or class of individuals that are qualified as review officers for the purpose of reviewing inspectors’ orders under section 34.
Updated to [a "qualified individ-ual or class of individuals" is deemed by The Minister, there are no implications other than being qualified. Meaning they could be anyone from anywhere at anytime. This is subject to abuse(**)]:
(**) Appointing the review officer can distance The Minister from the case. It can be a foreign agency it can be the company's competitor, can be anyone really. Once it is in the review process the reviewer is granted the powers to renew the hold on the product, documents or anything else pertaining to the product. They can add or remove orders for more property or other items or perpetually by renewing their own order(s) to hold items, halt shipping, stop advertising or prolong the review as long as they tell the owner every 30 days. 30 day extensions are granted unilateral by the reviewer(s) themselves. It used to be "reasonable" which was vague but at least somewhat finite and could be held under discretion.
Sending a review board in can also be used to let a company off the hook if the reviewer decides on lifting any of the ministers orders. They can also amend an order however they please, that amendment is then reviewed by the reviewer(s), although a different individual is required to do the review of the new. There is zero accountability for the reviewers only limited oversight and a wide berth of power. At least that's how I read it but I'm no lawyer. If my interpretation is off on anything, let me know.
34. The Minister may designate any individ- ual or class of individuals that are qualified as review officers for the purpose of reviewing orders under section 35.
Updated [I'm assuming that "individual" is selected by the Minister, or if the "individual(s)" appointed for the case pertains to that case alone or if the pool of reviewers or class of viewers, once marked as "qualified" are even fit to be qualified for future reviews or can be called upon by another reviewer to review a case if challenged. If not we have a loophole that we could drive a truck through. Also, there is no clear provision for revoking reviewer status or in questioning the selection of one.]:
34. (1) Subject to any other provision of this section, an order that is made under section 30 or 31 shall be reviewed on the written request of the person who was ordered to recall a consumer product or to take another measure — but only on grounds that involve questions of fact alone or questions of mixed law and fact — by a review officer other than the inspector* who made the order.
35. (1) Subject to any other provision of this section, an order that is made under section 31 or 32 shall be reviewed on the written request of the person who was ordered to recall a consumer product or to take another measure — but only on grounds that involve questions of fact alone or questions of mixed law and fact — by a review officer other than the individual* who made the order.
Added [This could be abused in certain cases as the Minister can bypass parliment AND the legal system and issue what amounts to levy a legal fine and an attack on a businesses functional components, ancillerys and reputation unilaterally]:
Recall or measures taken by Minister
33. If a person does not comply with an order made under section 31 or 32 within the time specified, the Minister may, on his or her own initiative and at that person’s expense, carry out the recall or measure required.
31. (1) If the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that a consumer product is a danger to human health or safety, he or she may order a person who manufactures, imports or sells the product for commercial purposes to recall it.
REVIEW OF ORDERS FOR RECALLS AND TAKING MEASURES
Updated [This edit opens the door for the perpetual renewal of the investigation period, it is no longer subject to a reasonable judgement and is self initiated and accountable only by opinion of the reviewer that has renewed the period.]:
(7) A review officer shall complete the review within a reasonable time.
(8) The review officer may extend the review period by no more than 30 days if they are of the opinion that more time is required to complete the review. They may extend the review period more than once.
(9) If the review period is extended, the person who made the request shall, without delay, be notified in writing of the reasons for extending it.
[Overall the entire process circumvents Parliament in adding to and opens control and regulation of all Canadian business in a selective nature by forces outside the Canadian legal system. Anything else I have to say has been said before.]
Health rep Shawn Buckley calls Bill C-36 a "Trojan horse"
Right now, Buckley said, “the state cannot take control over your property and gain ownership of it and destroy it and all of these fun things without involving the courts.” However, he noted that Section 21 2 (d) of Bill C-36 allows inspectors to “detain for any time that may be necessary” property found on-site, with no warrant needed and the courts not having to be informed. http://www.straight.com/article-334721/vancouver/health-rep-calls-bill-c36-trojan-horse
C-6 vs C-36 Differences Summary by Conservative Party (Torys LLP)
The powers of inspectors no longer include the right to order recalls. Only the Minister of Health may initiate a product recall but can do so by proxy in appointing a committee or a tsar.
Time limits are imposed on the Minister of Health. Under the CCPSA, a person who is ordered to recall a consumer product or take another measure may make a written request for review of that order. Upon request, review of an order must be completed "no later than 30 days after the day on which the request is provided to the Minister." Previously, no time frame was explicitly defined; rather, a review officer was required to complete the review "within a reasonable time."
Currently The CCPSA does not apply to natural health products, food, drugs, cosmetics or medical devices.
C-36 - “controlled product” or “hazardous product” means any product, material or substance specified by the regulations made pursuant to paragraph 15(1)(a) to be included in any of the classes listed in Schedule II;
15. (1) Subject to section 19, the Governor in Council may make regulations
(a) specifying, for each class listed in Schedule II, products, materials and substances to be included in that class;
Class A - Compressed Gas
Class B - Flammable and Combustible Material
Class C - Oxidizing Material
Class D - Poisonous and Infectious Material
Class E - Corrosive Material
Class F - Dangerously Reactive Material http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/H-3/page-4.html
Bill C-36 is almost identical to Bill C-52 which had been introduced into the 39th Parliament on April 8, 2008, and to Bill C-6 which had been introduced into the 40th Parliament on January 29, 2009.
Summary of Points Discussed In This Paper
· The rule of law is the fundamental underpinning of a free society. Sacrificing the rule of law always leads to tyranny and loss of freedom.
· The Bill represents an unprecedented change in the powers of the state vis-à-vis the citizen. The rule of law and private property rights are all but extinguished in the area of consumer products.
· Although not applicable to natural health products, the Bill still poses a threat. The Bill gives Health Canada inspectors the very powers that concerned citizens in Bill C-51.
· Bill C-36 is being promoted as necessary to protect our families. However, under the existing law the State can already:
o ban or restrict any consumer product under threat of million dollar fines and two year jail sentences under the Hazardous Products Act;
o make immediate orders banning or restricting any consumer product if there is a significant risk to health or safety. In addition to fines and imprisonment for non-compliance, the State can apply to the Court for an injunction which brings police enforcement of the order;
o obtain a search warrant and seize non-compliant products, and
o prosecute for criminal negligence or homicide under the Criminal Code. In some cases this can result in penalties of life imprisonment.
· The real change brought about by Bill C-36 is not that it protects consumers, as the cur-rent law already grants the State significant powers to protect safety. Rather the real change is the abolition of procedural safeguards citizens currently enjoy.
· Bill C-36 abolishes the law of trespass thus allowing the State access onto private property without any legal recourse.
· Bill C-36 for the first time in Canadian history allows warrants to be issued to search private homes without evidence of criminal wrong doing.
· Bill C-36 allows the State to seize property without a Court order, without reporting the seizure to a Court, and for an indefinite period.
· Bill C-36 allows the State to assume control over the movement of private property without a Court order and without a safety concern.
· The search and seizure powers in Bill C-36 are probably unconstitutional for violating the right found in section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
· Persons can be fined and have property forfeited to the State for administrative violations. Persons so charged have no right to have a Court determine their guilt or innocence. Guilt is determined by the Minister. There is no defence of due diligence or of honest but mistaken belief. There does not have to be a safety risk to be charged with an administrative offence. The Minister who determines your guilt or innocence can keep seized property if he/she finds you guilty.
· Directors, officers and managers are personally liable for violations by their company. Despite the possibility of multi-million dollar fines and long prison sentences, there is no right to cross-examine key witnesses.
· Directors, officers and managers can be saddled with debt years after they have left the company.
· Orders for recall or which take control of private property are exempted from the procedural safeguards of (1) review and (2) publication found in the Statutory Instruments Act.
· All businesses manufacturing, selling or distributing consumer products are saddled with additional red tape and expense regardless of whether or not there is a safety concern.
· Retailers and distributors of consumer products become liable for product labelling and instructions.
· There may be a significant conflict of interest. Health Canada may benefit financially from fines and the seizure of private property.
· Some consumer products such as sporting goods may have to be removed from the market for violating the safety provisions of the Bill.
· The Provinces are allowing the Federal Government to regulate in the Provincial area of property and civil rights. This represents a significant transfer of power from the Provinces to the Federal Government.
· The federal cabinet can incorporate documents from foreign governments or organizations as law by referring to them in regulations. This will remove Parliamentary scrutiny on issues that could fundamentally change the ground rules for the consumer product industry.
· Trade agreements and foreign laws can be adopted without Parliamentary scrutiny.
Natural health products are not regulated on this bill. At least in initial instance of C-36. I saw a film called A Question of Sovereignty by and deem it to be misleading and presents a straw man to beat down and discredit anyone who obviously hasn't read the bill since half the movie implies that the bill will make natural foods, vitamins, minerals and supplements illegal.
This is the text contained in the both the C-6 and C-36 bills.
Natural health products
(3) For greater certainty, this Act does not apply to natural health products as defined in subsection 1(1) of the Natural Health Products Regulations made under the Food and Drugs Act.
Constitutional lawyer, Shawn Buckley is featured in the film by there is a lot of the press released where he falsely associates C-6 and C-36 with seizure of health products even through it is clearly stated that they are exempted in the bills.
Shawn Buckley is propped up as the public face of the opposition on this bill. He also highlights a line on the that has been removed in the redrafted C-36. Easy arguments to knock down in the commons. They also addressed the film's argument against going into private property and yards without liability by redacting the line from the C-36.
They took out the personal storage and persona use for seizure of any consumer product by changing the definition of storage knocking down the other primary argument.
It is completely correct in it's assertion that the law can be circumvented by foreign officials and institutions. It is also clear in the idea on the bypass of parliment with the inclusion of the Statutory Instrument's Act.
A Question of Sovereignty Writer, Director and Producer Kevin P. Miller (Money as Debt, GenerationRX) had mentioned this recently in his blog but in the film this point wasn't addressed. He also warns us about Codex Alimertarius as well but this can be instantiated on a local level. There are much bigger fish to fry already on the table though such as all of the trade agreements with international and foreign organizations such as WHO, WTO and agreements like NAFTA and GATT. There are really too many to get into in the context of this article but are major factors involved over the regulation of products including health products.
(k) respecting the performance of an inspector’s, analyst’s or review officer’s functions and the circumstances in which an inspector or a review officer may exercise their powers;
..they can revoke add or change pretty much any of this bill after it is passed and circumvent Parliament and the Courts. The Governor in Council may not even have to be a Canadian citizen, only stipulating that the appointee reside in Canada. GiCs must abide by guidelines in Conflict of Interest, Ethics and disengage from Political Activities.
If signed C-36 opens the door big enough to drive a tank through. GiCs to change law in Canada and almost completely totally bypass Parliament and the judiciary. It allows rights and gives unprecedented powers of appointment of officials, foreign and domestic without limits on remuneration. It allows confiscation of property and information. It sets up strict documentation and monitoring procedures on everything to be tendered for commercial use in Canada. It kills business and allows caveats for selective enforcement. On the surface this can tweak a thing here or there but in actuality it can affect other legislation as well since there can be a caveat to repeal or replace other laws that are already instituted like it already does with the Hazardous Products Act. It doesn't just set a precedent in Canadian law, it opens it up to nearly unlimited manipulation. I'll explore this more and make some citations that led me to each conclusion in a follow-up to this post. But the time to act upon this is now by spreading public awareness about this stealthy bill. It's time for Canadians to draw a line and impose consequences towards Canada Inc. not only by strike but by withdrawing our shares in the corporation citing unfair management as just cause.
Natural Health Products are current regulated by the Natural Health Products (2004) Regulations made under the Food and Drugs Act. NHPs need to go through a lot of red tape before being approved and are under even more stringent guidelines of efficacy than pharmaceuticals so the vast majority are denied approval.
C-36 amended the private property paragraph and and removed the no liability section. Kevin P. Miller didn't put this in the addendum at the end of the video. This is bill that is full of holes and gives far too much power to the Minister, Inspectors (unelected), Reviewers (unelected) and the Governor in Council (unelected). There are over 2,000 Governor in Council appointments representing all sorts of interests.
RE: C-6 / C-36 Canadian Consumer Product and Safety Act : Analysis of A Steath Coup - icosaface - 09-20-201008:38 PM
RE: C-6 / C-36 Canadian Consumer Product and Safety Act : Analysis of A Stealth Coup - FastTadpole - 11-20-201009:39 PM
Zeb Landon, Financial Post
Thursday, Nov. 18, 2010
The Consumer Product Safety Act (Bill C-36) is a new law disgracefully passed with hardly a word in the House of Commons, and now it is before Canada's Senate. The government seems to have made a deal with the NDP, Liberals and Bloc to keep this issue dumbed down and out of the spotlight.
No controversy in Parliament means passing this law gets no attention in the media. Will the Senate be silent, too? How many Canadians know that Health Canada will now be allowed to trespass on business premises and seize product without a judge's warrant? And that being charged under the new law means you are guilty until proven innocent? Why is the government removing accountability from Health Canada bureaucrats?
With no court or judge keeping an eye on Health Canada, it is only a matter of time before it raids an innocent business that will not be able to defend itself, since Health Canada is prosecutor, judge and jury. Goodbye to a life's work building up a business, and the lost investment. Too bad also for the employees to be laid off.
Many Canadians are also alarmed by a part of this bill that enables the governments of Canada's trading partners to impose basically foreign regulations onto Canadian businesses. Under the new law, Health Canada will be mandated to adopt any regulatory changes that trading partners may be pressing for, without debate or vote from our parliament.
While one could agree there are instances where Canadians' health and safety need protection by a law, why not simply update the Hazardous Products Act? In contrast, the new law removes our normal protection of individuals and businesses through a court of law, undermining our constitutional rights and pushing us centuries backwards.
All Senators. Health Canada’s policy makers responsible for creating and forwarding Bill C-36. The Minister of Health. Prime Minister.
Each Senator name below (members of the Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology) is linked to their Parliamentary website. Here you can see exactly who will be responsible for recommending to Senate that Bill C-36 become law.
Quote:** NO WITNESSES ARE SCHEDULED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE **
November 24th Health Canada is scheduled to champion their own work.
November 25th no one has been invited, as of this posting, to speak for the tens of thousands of Canadians who have been working tirelessly to communicate with government to draw attention to the dangers of the legislation.
RE: C-6 / C-36 Canadian Consumer Product and Safety Act : Analysis of A Stealth Coup -- Only 48 Hours of Discussion Rema - icosaface - 11-25-201003:43 AM
Thanks for thr list of email addys FT, I sent them a note asking that they cease and desist with Bill C - 36.
RE: C-6 / C-36 Canadian Consumer Product and Safety Act : Analysis of A Stealth Coup -- Only 48 Hours of Discussion Rema - Deathaniel - 11-25-201007:35 PM
Shitty ... wll @ least we can have gardens still... Not sure where the people lost there "will of the warrior" though i do understand them now wanting toxic shit to be sold to us or made here, I mean i won't even buy toys if they r from china...
but the lack luster requirements for warrants is a bit disturbing.
RE: C-6 / C-36 Canadian Consumer Product and Safety Act : Analysis of A Stealth Coup -- Only 48 Hours of Discussion Rema - h3rm35 - 11-25-201008:10 PM
sounds like some fucked up legislation... the parallels between the powers granted to the GiC and the new head of the "FDA" under HR 875 (the bastard, orphaned older brother of S 510) are uncanny, particularly the post-passage lack of influence from the legislature. Sounds like they had the same law firm draw up both bills. Many of the power-grabbing legalese twists seem to come out of the same play-book.
Good luck, Canucks.
RE: C-6 / C-36 Canadian Consumer Product and Safety Act : Analysis of A Stealth Coup -- Only 48 Hours of Discussion Rema - FastTadpole - 11-30-201007:27 AM
Well we have one Senator on our side at least .. but I'm am far from resting and/or assured.
Quote:RE: Bill C-36 an act respecting consumer product safety in committee already!
FROM: Delaney, Mike / Office of Senator Day
On behalf of Senator Day, let me assure you that he shares your concerns regarding Bill C-36, and the process under which it was studied.
On Wednesday November 24th, Senator Day attempted to pass two motions at the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, which was tasked with the study of this bill. The first was to have Shawn Buckley appear as a witness; the second was to extend the committee hearings so as to further reflect on recent testimony, which the committee heard last week on Bill C-36. Both of these motions were voted down by the Conservative members on the committee.
Rest assured that Senator Day will do all he can to ensure that Bill C-36 is not passed in this seemingly haphazard manner. He strongly believes that the committee should give proper consideration to the bill, which entails hearings from all Canadians who wish to express their views on this bill. Your continued support in this endeavour would be greatly appreciated.
Administrative Assistant, Office of Senator Joseph A. Day
Room 801, Victoria Building
Ottawa, ON, K1A 0A4
(613) 992 – 0833 office
(613) 992 – 1175 fax
Source: Personal Email
RE: C-6 / C-36 Canadian Consumer Product and Safety Act : Analysis of A Stealth Coup -- Only 48 Hours of Discussion Rema - icosaface - 11-30-201003:37 PM
Two senators, (Elaine McCoy and Joseph Day), wrote me to say that they had voted to let Tuck and others speak but the conservative majority had over ruled them.
RE: C-6 / C-36 Canadian Consumer Product and Safety Act : Analysis of A Stealth Coup -- Only 48 Hours of Discussion Rema - FastTadpole - 12-01-201005:57 AM
Quote:Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Bill C-36, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products.
(4:30 pm-5:30 pm)
The Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, P.C., M.P, Minister of Health
(4:15 pm-6:15 pm)
Paul Glover, Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch
Athana Mentzelopoulos, Director General, Consumer Product Safety Directorate
Diane Labelle, General Counsel, Legal Services
Robert Ianiro, Director, Consumer Product Safety Bureau
Quote:Wednesday, November 25, 2010
Bill C-36, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products.
Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Jennifer Stoddart, Privacy Commissioner
Patricia Kosseim, General Counsel, Policy and Parliamentary Affairs Branch
Melanie Millar-Chapman, Manager, Strategic Research
As an individual
Cyndee Todgham Cherniak*, Counsel, Lang Michener LLP
Safe Kids Canada
Pamela Fuselli, Executive Director
Anu Bose, Ottawa Office Head
Michael Janigan, Legal Counsel
Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters
Carol Osmond, Vice President Policy
Cyndee Todgham Cherniak at 416-307-04168
Website: http://www.thehstblog.com/ (yeah the HST she presided over that theft too)
Cyndee Todgham Cherniak, Counsel at Lang Michener LLP, is a sales-tax and trade lawyer and adjunct law professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Cleveland. She can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
Here's the entire Second Reading of the bill:
Quote:Canada Consumer Product Safety Bill
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Martin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Braley, for the second reading of Bill C-36, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products.
Hon. Joseph A. Day: Honourable senators, it has taken a long time for Bill C-36 to reach second reading.
Several bills to update the legislation governing consumer product safety have been introduced. Unfortunately, however, they all died on the Order Paper when Parliament was repeatedly prorogued.
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology carried out a serious study of one of those bills and some amendments were adopted at committee. Honourable senators, I would like to point out that, despite the inflammatory remarks that the minister herself unfortunately made regarding those amendments, I believe that the situation has finally improved somewhat.
As I will explain in greater detail, the government proposed a few amendments that have been incorporated into the bill that is currently before us. Honourable senators, there can be no doubt that the bill has been improved considerably thanks to the Senate's contributions.
Honourable senators, in joining the debate with respect to Bill C-36, I would like first to congratulate Senator Martin on her sponsorship of this particular bill, a sister of Bill C-6 which Senator Martin, as one of her very first obligations in this chamber, sponsored. I can recall having gone to committee where a good number of the senators on the committee that studied Bill C-6, the precursor of this bill, were also performing a function that they had not previously had occasion to do.
Honourable senators, it is important to set the stage for what we are talking about here in Bill C-36. I will go through some of the history in a moment, but in broad terms we are talking about a piece of legislation to protect the public against defective consumer products — toys, for example, bicycles, other consumer products that, if not manufactured properly or even if manufactured properly but that happen to have a defect, could cause very serious harm or death to consumers.
That legislation federally is based on the criminal law jurisdiction of the federal government, but the criminal law jurisdiction that we are familiar with and we take comfort in as having one of the best systems in the world with respect to criminal law process and procedure is felt to be too cumbersome to deal with this type of consumer product protection. Therefore, the government is asking for an alternative administrative type process. In order to define that administrative process, it is necessary to outline in detail all of the steps that will happen and will be followed — who will do the inspections, what will happen if there is a suspected problem, what type of fine or penalty process is in place, and how will these things be rectified. All of that is outlined in this legislation because it is not in existence now. We are moving from criminal law jurisdiction and criminal procedure, which is in existence, to an administrative procedure.
Honourable senators, when we look at what the government is asking in terms of giving more powers to the government, our role is to balance that against individual rights and freedoms. That, in essence, is what this legislation is about. Is the government going too far in the power that it is asking for to protect the public? Is it going too far such that it is unnecessarily taking away individual rights and freedoms?
Honourable senators, that should be the theme of our review of this legislation. That was the theme of our review previously in the last legislation, and we looked at warrants, private and public information, and confidential corporate information being made available to the public. We are saying that the very backbone of what employs men and women are our small- and medium-sized businesses, and the backbone of their businesses is that confidential private information. Therefore, we cannot just give the power to someone called "an inspector" to release that information without some checks, and that is what we looked at in the last legislation.
Honourable senators, some of the concerns that we had — and I will not go through them all at second reading — were accepted by the government, but it took a long tedious time and role to get there because the role that we have to play here in the Senate, with all due respect, was not the role that was followed and not the role that we saw reflected in the way the amendments were presented and the amendments were defeated. The minister spoke out strongly in inflammatory language, quite frankly, about the Senate playing any role to try to make this legislation better.
However, because of the way things have happened, we have another chance. If things had not happened in this particular manner, we would not have this chance to make it even better.
Perhaps I should go over a little bit of the history of this bill so I am not alluding to something that, even though most of us are aware of, is important to put on the record.
Senator Martin spoke at length about a number of provisions of the bill, and she alluded to its long history, in particular the close familiarity a number of us have with the provisions. That is correct. I think it is important, honourable senators, that we all have this history in context, so I will take a few minutes to set out for the record a little bit of what happened and how we arrived where we are today with respect to this legislation, Bill C-36.
The principle of the bill, to update and strengthen consumer product safety for Canadians, is not a matter of controversy. There is no argument anywhere in this chamber with respect to the basic principle of this bill. I think all of us wholeheartedly support the principle.
Federal officials have been working to develop a new legislative framework for consumer product safety for over a decade, under both Liberal and Conservative governments. I underscore strongly that this framework is not and never has been a partisan issue. It should not be a partisan issue. To the contrary, this bill is an example of Parliament, and the Senate in particular, working as it should, albeit with a few bumps along the road, which I will refer to.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government has tried to pass this bill in one form or another several times. The first time it was Bill C-52, tabled in the other place on April 8, 2008. It had companion legislation, Bill C-51, which dealt with food products. All the consultation that went on before dealt with both those subjects — safety for consumer products and food products — and two pieces of legislation were introduced.
The legislation with respect to food products, as honourable senators might guess, fell under the Food and Drugs Act. Amendments to the bill were controversial and, as far as I am aware, that particular piece of the consultation and the legislation has not been re-introduced. Honourable senators will recall that I asked Senator Martin about the status of this companion legislation, and she could not provide any enlightenment as to when, or whether, that bill will be re-introduced.
The reason it is important for us to know about that companion legislation is because they were together at one time and because the scheme of an administrative way of handling the challenges that come up are similar in both pieces of legislation. We will want to know if we are dealing with a one-off type of problem here or if it is likely to be duplicated. That is the reason for pursuing that particular point.
Bill C-52, honourable senators, the precursor of this legislation before us today, was referred to committee in the other place and then died on the Order Paper in September of 2008 when Prime Minister Harper prorogued Parliament to call an election. Honourable senators will remember that election was called notwithstanding Mr. Harper's fixed election date that was passed in this chamber. The stated reason for that election, as I recall, was that Parliament was dysfunctional, an interesting argument since Parliament had not sat for several months due to summer recess.
I digress, honourable senators. Some honourable senators may be interested in that piece of history, but I want to concentrate on Bill C-52.
Bill C-52, the precursor of this legislation, died on the Order Paper as a result of that.
The government did not reintroduce the bill on this subject in the first session of the new Parliament. Honourable senators will recall that session was short and ended when the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament to avoid a non-confidence motion. The bill died twice in three months, honourable senators.
On January 29, 2009, the government finally re-introduced the bill as Bill C-6. However, evidently it was not of high priority for the government, as the government let the bill sit on the Order Paper in the other place for four months before bringing it forward for second reading. Nevertheless, eventually it did move through all the stages in the other place and came here before this chamber on June 16, 2009, shortly before we adjourned for the summer.
In the fall of 2009, Bill C-6 was debated, passed second reading and was referred for study to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. Under the able chairmanship of Senator Eggleton and vice-chair, Senator Keon, the committee worked long and hard listening to witnesses and scrutinizing the drafting of the particular provisions of the bill.
In the end, we on our side proposed 16 amendments. Most, but not all, were passed at committee, honourable senators.
These amendments were carefully thought-out, honest attempts to improve the legislation. They ranged from technical amendments to cleaning up inappropriate language — like the minister should come to the Senate, which we knew was not possible — and to others that were substantive ones to try to ensure certain fundamental civil liberties would be upheld.
I regret to tell honourable senators that the votes on the amendments divided along partisan lines in large part. This is the point I am trying to make; we can do our job here if we look at proposed amendments and then, rather than determining they must be bad because they are being proposed by the other side, instead determine they are interesting but perhaps can be improved upon by doing certain things. That, honourable senators, would have been a helpful process.
I proposed 16 amendments at that time on behalf of my colleagues. I do not have a magic wand on the best wording. I can highlight the problems as I see them, and then we can deal with them.
To my surprise and disappointment, the Conservative committee members voted almost unwaveringly against each and every one of the amendments. Even the technical ones passed, at best, on division. I say "almost unwaveringly" because some honourable senators from the other side at least did not vote on a particular matter; abstaining allowed the matter to pass.
Honourable senators, throughout this time, the government has been actively engaging publicly in the media and quietly behind the scenes, pushing us to pass the bill without amendment immediately. I regret to tell you that sometimes emotions are permitted to overtake, and indeed oust, reasonable discourse.
The Minister of Health told Canadians that under our amendment — and she said it twice, once in an interview and once with Evan Solomon — the Minister of Health said that with respect to the amendments I proposed, a child would have to die before the government could act. She stoked fear among Canadian parents saying Canadian mothers and parents should be worried if the legislation was not passed in time to protect children before the Christmas holiday, and that was last year. She conveniently did not mention how many months the government had delayed the bill, including the repeated prorogations.
Honourable senators, let me state absolutely and without equivocation that there is no amendment that I would propose to this chamber for legislation to apply to the people of Canada that would require a child to die before the government acts. I am a parent and, as a legislator who takes my responsibility to Canadian families extremely seriously, I would never support any such amendment.
Not surprisingly in the circumstances, the committee's report and people in this chamber were influenced by those statements. When those 16 amendments were reported back here, they were defeated at report stage in this chamber. However, some time was allowed to pass and, at third reading, honourable senators had a chance to reflect on some of these matters. Senators Furey and Banks put forward amendments at third reading which were, in fact, passed.
The amended bill passed third reading here on December 15, 2009, ten days before Christmas last year. The other place had adjourned for the Christmas holiday, but of course it was well within the power of the government to recall the House of Commons to consider our amendments. There were only two of them.
The government chose not to do so. In fact, on December 30, the Prime Minister proceeded to prorogue Parliament once again. This time, the pundits and others suggested the reason was to avoid uncomfortable questions with respect to Afghan detainees.
The bottom line, from the point of view of this discussion today, honourable senators, is that the bill died another death. The Minister of Health's repeated protestations of concern for imminent threats to the health and safety of Canadians and Canadian children apparently were not shared by others in her cabinet.
Following that unfortunate episode, the bill, now numbered C-36, was reintroduced on June 9, 2010, but the government did not bring it forward for second reading until October 7, 2010, almost ten months after the other bill died and fully seven months after Parliament returned from prorogation. Evidently, the bill was not as pressing a concern for the government as Canadians were led to believe in the previous statements by the minister.
I also must express my personal dismay that the government chose to wait so long, especially given, as we now know, that months earlier — possibly even before the Prime Minister chose to prorogue Parliament — Health Canada had discovered dangerously high levels of cadmium in children's jewellery. When the minister finally acted, just a few weeks ago, she said that her powers were limited because the bill was not in force. However, honourable senators, why did she not at least take the step of developing a voluntary recall of products that were clearly causing a problem or potentially causing a problem for our youth? Given that Health Canada knew of the serious danger to Canadian children, why did the government wait so many months to bring in Bill C-36?
Those are a few of the bumps and a few of the disappointments that I referred to. Honourable senators, we did a lot of work on Bill C-6, the previous legislation to this.
Notwithstanding the many protestations last December that amendments gutted the previous bill, Bill C-36, as it was tabled by the government in the other place, actually adopted a good number of the major points we had made during the debate on its predecessor, Bill C-6.
An Hon. Senator: So we were right.
An Hon. Senator: Thank you.
Senator Day: I will take the "thank you," senator. I am sorry that we had to have a prorogation in order to achieve the results that we have achieved, but the most important amendment of all that is reflected in this legislation is one that was rejected by this chamber and that is that the minister, the one who is accountable to Parliament, is the one who will order recalls. That was our most important amendment that we asked for last year, which was said to be gutting the legislation.
The legislation said that an inspector, who is one of the people working within the Ministry of Health and whom the minister appoints — we do not know with what qualifications, because none are outlined — is the one who could order recalls and who could put thousands and thousands of people out of work. We said the minister should do this, and that is in the legislation.
Honourable senators, a number of us were very concerned that Bill C-6 would authorize inspectors to do a number of things, such as entering private property and not be responsible for any damage that they did. We said that wording is not acceptable. If they act reasonably and under authority, then that is fine, but they would never get authority to be reckless and cause damage negligently or recklessly. There would never be that kind of authority under any criminal law legislation, so why is the government asking for it under this administrative law? That was rejected by this chamber, but the minister has seen fit to pick up that amendment and it is now no longer in this legislation. Honourable senators will be pleased to know that.
Senator Furey pointed out at third reading of Bill C-6 that inspectors could enter private homes simply by saying that they wanted to verify that some activity might be going on in there, in this home, where a consumer product is stored. Senator Furey said he wanted to see the amendment read "stored for sale," because everyone has teddy bears or kid's toys stored in the basement. It was far too broad wording. The government has accepted that particular suggestion of making an amendment saying that the word "stored" does not include "stored for personal use." That is a logical amendment that solves a potential problem and we are very pleased that the government saw fit to respond to that concern.
I am pleased to tell honourable senators that the government also put forward amendments in committee in the other place specifically to address some of the technical problems. This was after they introduced Bill C-36 in the other place. They actually proposed technical amendments that are reflective of what we raised here a year and a half ago. However, in the end, honourable senators, the amendments have been adopted.
That, more than anything else, is the important point.
The technical amendments are so difficult to go through. They are difficult to go through here and they are difficult to go through in committee. However, they relate to items, such as I mentioned earlier, of the minister having to "establish" — which makes the minister both the inspector and the judge — as opposed to the normal legal wording, where the minister must be "satisfied." That kind of wording has now been adopted, based on our proposals.
There are many others like that that have been picked up, and that will make it easier for us at committee. However, many others have not been picked up, honourable senators, and we will have to deal with those in committee. We will have to determine which ones are important: private information being made public; what are the checks and balances there; private, confidential corporate information that will be made public; due diligence defences — okay if you are going the criminal route, not okay if you are going the other route; and voluntary recall.
I wanted to see some explanation of voluntary recall. If senators look at the recall of any product, virtually every one is a voluntary recall. That means the government inspectors or the minister's department and the company importing, manufacturing or selling the product have gotten together and issued a voluntary recall on this product, as opposed to bringing down the big hammer. That, unfortunately, was not accepted along the way.
Honourable senators, on balance I believe that the bill has been improved upon substantially and Senator Martin will be pleased to know that we on this side believe there have been substantial improvements to this bill. This is a review of the bill in principle so the bill can go to committee and be studied so we can study those other points that are still outstanding, and I know there are some. Now, of course, once again we will be asked to bring in various people who will be impacted by this legislation.
I want to hear from the Privacy Commissioner on the changes that have been introduced to meet one of our concerns. One change is that this bill is subject to the Privacy Act and they felt that wording would satisfy the concerns we have with respect to private personal information being made available to foreign government officials, with no obligation on their part to not divulge that information to anyone else. What possible ramifications can there be to that provision?
Personally, I plan to support second reading of this bill, honourable senators, based on principle and then to do my job, once again: listen to witnesses; study the provisions; and work to ensure that this legislation, like all that comes before us, is the best that it can be for all Canadians.
Hon. Tommy Banks: Honourable senators, I concur with everything Senator Day has said. I too plan on voting for this bill at second reading to send it to committee because second reading —
Senator St. Germain: You should not make a mistake this time; get it right.
Senator Banks: We are telling you up front. This is notice because I agree with Senator Day. We support this bill on principle. No one could argue with the principle of this bill. The questions that still obtain to it have been referred to by Senator Day, some of which have been fixed, and we are grateful. This is how it is supposed to work. We are the quality control department of Parliament. We take out the dents and scratches, and it is gratifying to know that sometimes the government, now, pays attention to that.
Honourable senators, that does not mean to say, however, that the bill before us has been fixed perfectly. While we are grateful for those changes that have been made, because I am not a member of the committee to which the bill will be sent, I want to call the committee's attention to a couple of things to which Senator Day has referred.
I will only call the attention of honourable senators to only one thing. I want to call this particularly to the attention of those senators who would style themselves as being Conservative, because Conservatives, as a general rule, are taken to be interested in matters of personal rights of Canadians. Some things that had to do with that issue that were introduced, as Senator Day has said by amendments in the last iteration of this bill, have been taken care of. There is one fundamental one that has not.
I have had the pleasure and privilege of having a letter from the minister, addressed to me, in respect of one of my concerns, and the pleasure and privilege of having met with officials of her department yesterday, about some of my concerns. Some of them have been allayed but one has not, and it has to do with personal rights. I refer to clause 15 of the bill.
Clause 15 of the bill is the part that deals with the disclosure by the minister, by the government, of confidential information about Canadians and about Canadian corporations to foreign governments. We are assured by the officials that the governments to whom this information will most likely be made known and disclosed are our close friends: the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia perhaps, and some members of the European Union perhaps.
However, when working here as senators, we must deal not with what policy is, and not with what this government, this minister or these officials might do with respect to the application of this act because we are making a law here or not. The governments, the ministers and the officials who will apply this law will not be here. This government will not be here. It will be a different government. It may be the same stripe but it will be a different government. One hopes not. It will be a different minister and different officials, and different circumstances will obtain than we can now contemplate. We are making a law that will survive all those things so we have to pay attention to what the law says.
While we have assurances sometimes from officials that, "Oh well, we wouldn't do that," we have to look at what the law says. The law says the places to which the government can disclose private, confidential information about Canadians and Canadian corporations are described in clause 2 of the bill as:
. . . a government of a foreign state or of a subdivision of a foreign state; or
(f) an international organization of states.
Well, when we are disclosing confidential information about Canadians and about their corporations to those people that I have just described, we want to take certain precautions. With respect to the disclosure of confidential business information by the government to those places, a protection is built in. It is in clause 16 of the act, which says that when the minister discloses confidential business information the minister may do so:
. . . if the person to whom or government to which the information may be disclosed agrees in writing to maintain the confidentiality of the information and to use it only for the purpose of carrying out those functions.
That is good; we need to be able to do that. The minister needs to be able to do that to protect the interests of Canadians.
However, clause 15 talks about the disclosure of personal, private information. It contains no such circumscription, no such guarantee no such obtaining an undertaking in writing that the information will only be used for those purposes. The answer is: "Well, that is taken care of by the Privacy Act."
Is it? Let us look at the Privacy Act. The act says its purpose is to protect the privacy of individuals and to provide individuals with right of access to information that the government may hold on them. Subsection 8(1) of the Privacy Act then says that:
Personal information under the control of a government institution shall not, without the consent of the individual to whom it relates, be disclosed by the institution except in accordance with this section.
Subsection 8(2) states:
Subject to any other Act of Parliament, personal information . . . may be disclosed . . .
Subsection 8(2)(b) states:
for any purpose in accordance with any Act of Parliament or any regulation made thereunder that authorizes its disclosure;
Therefore, the Privacy Act does not constrain the capacity of the government to provide private and personal information to other governments or institutions of other governments. In fact, it permits it.
The suggestion that we are protected by the Privacy Act is a great big circle: We look at the Privacy Act; the Privacy Act says the government can do this if an act of Parliament says so; this act of Parliament says so. There is no protection of private information.
Honourable senators, I will be pursuing that matter, among others, when this issue goes before committee for study and, if necessary, at third reading. I thank honourable senators for their kind attention and I hope others will join with us in voting that this bill be sent to committee for further consideration.
Hon. Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis (The Hon. the Acting Speaker): Are honourable senators ready for the question?
Hon. Senators: Question.
The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
(Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.)
Referred to Committee
The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?
(On motion of Senator Martin, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.)
RE: C-6 / C-36 Canadian Consumer Product and Safety Act : Analysis of A Stealth Coup -- 2nd Senate Reading Passed! - h3rm35 - 12-01-201007:37 AM
I know very little about the machinations of Canadian government, but in the US when something is referred to committee, it usually means that you won't be hearing about that bill for a while, and being referred to committee is often the last step before a bill dies in its current incarnation. Is that the case here? What kind of time-line are we looking at? Is it any use for a US citizen to get involved?
RE: C-6 / C-36 Canadian Consumer Product and Safety Act : Analysis of A Stealth Coup -- 2nd Senate Reading Passed! - FastTadpole - 12-01-201010:35 AM
It means 3rd and final Reading and hammering out some amendments, notably those in terms of privacy. The timeline will likely be swift I feel an election brewing and this is the last act to hammer in so they are hastening the passage. It was 16 days between first and second reading so third should fall ~10th of Dec by my estimate maybe sooner.
Quote:Is it any use for a US citizen to get involved?
Just post, tweet and link where you can. I did the same for the US kill farming act. The US sets law for Canada so it seems.
I have heard rumblings of a new deceptive constitution for the US that is already drafted and cleverly worded. It's supposed to be a lot like the UN Charter of Rights which is based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Watch for it.
RE: C-6 / C-36 Canadian Consumer Product and Safety Act : Analysis of A Stealth Coup -- 2nd Senate Reading Passed! - FastTadpole - 12-09-201004:38 AM
Senate has long standing custom to debate the principle of all bills and to ensure they all go to committee (i.e., pass second reading) so we can hear from Canadians on the subject matter.
However, that is a custom, not a rule.
e.g. C-311 (Kyoto Implementation) was killed on 1st reading.
If that is true (hear from Canadians) this is the best opportunity to stop C-36.
Here's an excerpt from a blog of one of the 2 senators (The other being Day) I have heard from to date.
Quote:Senate: The New Silent Zone?
By Senator Elaine McCoy
Nov 29 2010 10:13AM (before 2nd reading).
Hundreds of Canadians are clamouring to be heard, but the committee's Conservative majority voted against holding its hearings open for more testimony, and point blank refused to allow Shawn Buckley (who still has serious concerns about several sections of the Bill) to speak.
This disdain for dissent makes a travesty of our parliamentary process. Conservative senators are displaying all the hallmarks of intolerance enforced by a single-minded majority. Worse, they are denying Canadians the right to speak, although the Senate was designed to achieve exactly the opposite outcome. The result is, as the National Post has declared, bad law.
Here's a bit on what the Senate is discussing in terms of the information sharing issue that has been focal in the debate:
Quote:Another provision of the bill that has been cause for question is the ability to share information. As part
of the overall provisions for active prevention, this legislation allows for information‐sharing under certain
prescribed conditions. These provisions are found in clauses 15, 16 and 17. I would like to underline that the
provisions in these three sections deal with different kinds of information under different circumstances and
with different pre‐existing legal requirements. For each circumstance, this legislation sets a test the
government must meet in order to allow for certain information to be shared.
The provisions in clauses 15, 16 and 17 do not create the ability to share information. In the case of
personal information, that ability exists by virtue of the Privacy Act and, in the case of confidential business
information, by virtue of common law. The provisions in clauses 15, 16 and 17 constrain the scope of
possible information sharing by setting tests related to the mandate of the bill.
Here's a copy of my email sent off to all Senators which invoked a single response to date. I kept it short and specific to procure the most response possible. I'm hoping for more feedback from the recipients.
Quote:Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 11:50 PM
I would like to contribute some thoughts on C-36 that were not addressed to my satisfaction as of yet. Please clarify and/or explain the reasoning behind the Act in regards to the concerns of my family and I to the best of your ability or refer me to someone who can.
To all Senators that have a final opportunity on the behalf of Canadians to amend the Bill or vote against its passage through 3rd Reading. Heed the words of Tommy Banks as he stated during caucus in reference to Bill C-36.
"... when working here as senators, we must deal not with what policy is, and not with what this government, this minister or these officials might do with respect to the application of this act because we are making a law here or not. The governments, the ministers and the officials who will apply this law will not be here. This government will not be here. It will be a different government. It may be the same stripe but it will be a different government. One hopes not. It will be a different minister and different officials, and different circumstances will obtain than we can now contemplate. We are making a law that will survive all those things so we have to pay attention to what the law says.
While we have assurances sometimes from officials that, "Oh well, we wouldn't do that," we have to look at what the law says."
The recall procedures are not outlined and I presume the means of recall are to be chosen by the sole power of the Minister of Health, Health Canada and the Governor in Council.
Any interim changes to the bill including adding or removing groups or specific consumer products to a schedule or adding exceptions to people (including corporations) to be exempt from the Act.
The jurisdiction of prosecution of confidential material or information used by foreign agencies, corporations and governments may not fall under Canadian law and thus are exempt to the terms of distribution and use of that information. As brought up by Senator Day and Senator Banks - thank you for that.
Health products are excluded but can they be added by amendment or interim order? What of the other exceptions?
Reviewers can keep possession of property under their discretion as long as notice has been served and it is "reasonable" to conduct testing and other provisions of investigation. Is reasonable defined or can this be perpetual confiscation of private property?
Every consumer product needs to file documentation regarding the product and keep them on hand for six years, including documentation of who it is sold to and who received it from. This implies that proof of identification by the person receiving the goods is required or some sort of tracking system is to be implemented either at the cost of the business or the government to accommodate this monitoring of nearly every transaction by a Canadian.
It repeals large sections of the Hazardous Products Act that allow those products to be reclassified or under no safety protocols and may endanger the products' user, which is against the spirit of the Act.
PREAMBLE: No scientific proof is required:
Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that a lack of full scientific certainty is not to be used as a reason for postponing measures that prevent adverse effects on human health if those effects could be serious or irreversible;
Another bill is slipped in to the agreement to create another regulatory system to protect the environment from consumer products. It commits to this and effectively binds Parliament to an oath.
PREAMBLE: Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes that, given the impact activities with respect to consumer products may have on the environment,there is a need to create a regulatory system regarding consumer products that is complementary to the regulatory system regarding the environment;
Sets up Canada to fall under cooperative law with other governments and international organizations by law. Define "cooperation" please.
PREAMBLE: Whereas the Parliament of Canada wishes to foster cooperation within the Government of Canada, between the governments in this country and with foreign governments and international organizations, in particular by sharing information, in order to effectively address those dangers;
Are Garage Sales, Gifts and Barter items also subject to the Act as they are bound to the definition of "sell"?
INTERPERTATION: “sell” includes offer for sale, expose for sale or have in possession for sale — or distribute to one or more persons, whether or not the distribution is made for consideration — and includes lease, offer for lease, expose for lease or have in possession for lease.
RE: C-6 / C-36 Canadian Consumer Product and Safety Act : Analysis of A Stealth Coup -- 2nd Senate Reading Passed! - FastTadpole - 12-13-201004:16 AM
Here is another updated, corrected and formatted listing email, fax and phone listing with names to paste in your favourite email client.
I've sent out three emails to all Senators in the past 2 months to all 105 senators.
2 Responses (1 of them from an assistant the other a form letter - both non committal). When emailing send them off in small batches or, better yet individually and not too close together. Definitely hit the committee (listed above).
I suggest calling and snail mailing them as well. They have a disclaimer that says that implies there is strong spam filtering for the most effective grassroots citizen lobby possible.
Search for them and their assistants on Facebook and Twitter too! If someone can compile or dig up a list they would be lauded with "likes" and "pokes" of the highest grade and greatest calibre!
Here's a quick copy paste that will work in most email clients.
Day, Joseph <email@example.com>; Banks, Tommy <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Cordy, Jane <email@example.com>; Callbeck, Catherine <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Campbell, Larry <email@example.com>; Carstairs, Sharon <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Chaput, Maria <email@example.com>; Cools, Anne <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Cowan, James <email@example.com>; Dallaire, Roméo <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Dawson, Dennis <email@example.com>; de Bané, Pierre <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Downe, Percy <email@example.com>; Dyck, Lillian <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Eggleton, Art <email@example.com>; Fairbairn, Joyce <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Fox, Francis <email@example.com>; Fraser, Joan <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Furey, George <email@example.com>; Harb, Mac <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Hervieux-Payette, Celine <email@example.com>; Hubley, Elizabeth <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Jaffer, Mobina <email@example.com>; Joyal, Serge <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Kenney, Colin <email@example.com>; Lapointe, Jean <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Lavigne, Raymond <email@example.com>; Loisier-Cool, Rose-Marie <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Lovelace-Nicholas, Sandra <email@example.com>; Mahovlich, Frank <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Massicotte, Paul <email@example.com>; McCoy, Elaine <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Mercer, Terry <email@example.com>; Merchant, Pana <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Mitchell, Grant <email@example.com>; Moore, Wilfrid <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Munson, Jim <email@example.com>; Murray, Lowell <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Pépin, Lucie <email@example.com>; Peterson, Robert <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Poulin-Charette, Marie-P <email@example.com>; Poy, Vivienne <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Ringuette, Pierrette <email@example.com>; Rivest, Jean-Claude <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Rompkey, William <email@example.com>; Smith, David <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Stollery, Peter <email@example.com>; Tardiff, Claudette <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Watt, Charlie <email@example.com>; Zimmer, Rod <firstname.lastname@example.org>
May as well throw these ones in here too -- for posterity, if nothing else:
Harper. Stephen <email@example.com>; Ignatieff, Michael <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Layton, Jack <email@example.com>; Duceppe, Gilles <firstname.lastname@example.org>; May Elizabeth <email@example.com>; Aglukkaq, Leona <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Nicholson, Rob <email@example.com>; Savoie, Denise <Savoie.D@parl.gc.ca>; Martin, Keith <Martin.K@parl.gc.ca>; Crowder, Jean <CrowdJ@parl.gc.ca>; firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>; CBC <firstname.lastname@example.org>