TODAY SHAWN BUCKLEY is speaking to Jon Hansen who is the host of PI Window on  Business.

 Jon has called the show “Criminalizing the Sale of Natural Health Products?” Jon writes “Against this backdrop we are once again pleased to welcome our health care industry thought leader Jeff Knott and the NHPPA’s Buckley, to discuss natural health products from both a patient’s rights and treatment effectiveness standpoint.”

Jeff Knott will be answering from a mainstream medicine perspective and Shawn, from the natural health paradigm. Should be interesting. Tune in and post your thoughts on the interview on NHPPA’s Facebook page.

CLICK HERE to view Jon’s blog, “Criminalizing the Sale of Natural Health Products?”

THIS LINK takes you directly to the page where you’ll be able to catch Shawn’s interview today at 5:00 PM Pacific/8:00 PM Eastern

Kevin Miller, an award winning writer, producer, and director (Generation RX and We Become Silent: The Last Days of Health Freedom) comments on his new documentary film: 
 
“Quietly, over a period of many years, unconstitutional legislation encompassed in Bills C-51, C-6, and the current Bill C-36 have placed not only basic civil liberties and freedoms at risk, but Canada’s national sovereignty as well. The film shares how entangling alliances with groups like the World Trade Organization, the World Health Organization, Codex Alimentarius, the United States and even multinational corporate interests have become so powerful that they literally threaten to make elected officials in Parliament irrelevant.

A QUESTION OF SOVEREIGNTY discusses why this dramatic shift in the balance of power puts the nation and its people at a vital crossroad early in the 21st century — and why some of the past giants of Canadian politics may hold the answers to Canada’s future.”
 

A QUESTION OF SOVEREIGNTY – a 23 minute documentary film by Kevin P. Miller

Both Shawn Buckley and Ian Stewart, president and vice president of the NHPPA, were interviewed for A Question of Sovereignty. The NHPPA supports Kevin and honours his dedicated service to use his outstanding vision and work to effect change in Canada, and protect its future.
 
Your donations are the NHPPA’s lifeblood. Please give so that we can maintain measures to ensure Canadians’ rights and freedoms through projects like our Constitutional Challenge and to fund select educational initiatives.

Download June 18 Draft Discussion Paper on Bill C-36

Background

On June 9, 2010, Bill C-36 was introduced for first reading in the House of Commons. A copy of the Bill can be found at:

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4606148&Language=e&Mode=1&File=32 – 1.

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:
  • ban or restrict any consumer product under threat of million dollar fines and two year jail sentences under the Hazardous Products Act;
  • 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;
  • obtain a search warrant and seize non-compliant products, and
  • 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.

Download Open Letter to Minister Aglukkaq from the NHPPA June 17 2010 Re: Bill C-36 – the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act

Shawn Buckley’s Nov. 25 appearance before the Senate Committee where he was a witness in opposition to Bill C-6 (now Bill C-36) – Part 1 of 10

Click Here to view all video clips of the Senate Committee Session.

Visit the NHPPA YouTube page. Click Here

Since the launch of the Charter of Health Freedom on September 10 2008, the NHPPA has been receiving petitions from across Canada. Consumers, retailers, and manufactures of natural health products are supporting the Charter of Health Freedom.

3 million signatures is the NHPPA’s goal. And we’re confident that this number is achievable because of concerned citizens like you.

As of Friday, July 23 2010, the NHPPA has 51 131 petition signatures.

Here’s how you can make a difference – download the Charter of Health Freedom petition from the Charter of Health Freedom website,  www.charterofhealthfreedom.org. You can also download a printable version either letter size or legal size of the petition by clicking here letter size or legal size. Then get your family, friends, colleagues, classmates and customers to sign the petition.

The NHPPA is collecting the petitions so send them to this address: #2-953 Laval Crescent, Kamloops, B.C. V2C 5P4.

Health Canada recently published the Natural Health Products (Unprocessed Product Licence Applications) Regulations in the Canada Gazette Part 1. Shawn Buckley has written a discussion paper outlining the concerns that the proposed regulations will have on the natural health industry and consumers of natural health products.

Click here to download the discussion paper in printable PDF format.

On Monday, May 3 2010 Shawn Buckley was interviewed by the host of Health First Radio, Dave Fuller.

Shawn and Dave discussed the current status of NHP regulations, Health Canada’s view on Canadian manufacturers, and why consumers can go over the border to buy NHPs but not buy them in their own communities.

CLICK HERE and on the right hand column choose Dr. Alan Logan/ Shawn Buckley Constitutional lawyer.

Please note that the quality of this recording is not as clean as others.

On Monday, May 3 2010 Reginald Angus Argue interviewed Shawn Buckley on Monday Brown Bagger.

Shawn and Reginald talked about the layered erosion of Canadians’ rights and freedoms. 

CLICK HERE and scroll through to START at 6 minutes and 08 seconds.

On Wendnesday, April 28 2010  Daniel Katz interviewed Shawn Buckley on DanTown. 

Shawn and Daniel discussed the current issues stemming from the Natural Health Product Regulations.

CLICK HERE and scroll through to START at 27 minutes and 30 seconds.

Shawn Buckley’s at the Total Health Expo Toronto, March 2010 – Part 1 of 6

Click Here to view all video clips of the Total Health Expo Presentation.

By Shawn  Buckley

March 2010

As I write this, many in the natural health product industry are upset with the recent news that pharmacists may stop selling unlicensed natural health products.  This has come about because the National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities adopted a policy that directs pharmacists to stop selling unlicensed products.  The upset caused by this policy is understandable.  Imagine the impact to the NHP industry if a large number of pharmacists follow the new policy.

If you think that is upsetting, consider this:  what would happen if Health Canada inspectors targeted a handful of large health food store chains, seized all the unlicensed products they were selling, and charged the owners with criminal charges. 

How many stores would they have to raid, and how many owners and managers would they have to charge criminally before the majority of stores would step into line and stop selling unlicensed products?  I think the number “will” be surprisingly small.  Once store owners realize the time has come for enforcement of the NHP Regulations, they will not be able to afford a large part of their stock being seized.  Nor will the small stores be able to afford the cost of defending themselves against criminal charges.  When faced with bankruptcy and jail, I think the majority will be scared into submission.

Some may think this is a hypothetical worst case scenario that cannot happen.  I think it is inevitable.  It is no secret that over the past couple of years Health Canada has hired more inspectors.  It is also no secret that there was an enforcement initiative planned for this year on the assumption that the NHP licensing back-log would be eliminated.  The industry celebrated when this enforcement initiative was “delayed” until the back-log is cleared.  It should be crystal clear to everyone that once the licensing back-log is gone, Health Canada will be taking enforcement action to remove unlicensed products.  The transition period will be over and more products will disappear.  Health Canada has no choice, they are mandated to enforce the Regulations.

Similarly, it should not be a surprise to anyone paying attention that the NHP Regulations as they are currently drafted can only lead to the loss of the majority of NHPs that we have traditionally had the freedom to use.  Under our current regulatory regime, all natural health products are deemed by law to be dangerous and illegal.  The starting point is that all must be removed from the market.  The only exceptions are those products that can overcome a number of barriers created by the Regulations.  The barriers will change  over time, but anyone thinking that changing them will solve the problem is missing what is happening. 

The over-regulation of the NHP industry is not an accident.  It is not a mistake.  It is not due to any misunderstanding of the meaning of the NHP Regulations.  The death of the NHP industry as we knew it is the inevitable result of the Regulations as they are currently written.  Doing nothing, or trying to achieve minor concessions can only lead to the result we are witnessing unfold.

If we continue to go down this path, we are going to lose 75% of the products we have enjoyed access to.  Half of the license applications fail.  There are a large number of products for which no attempt to license will be made.  Health food stores have lost access to thousands of foreign products.  The character of products available to us will also change.  We will have access to single ingredient products.  Many of the innovative multi-ingredient products we rely on for our health will disappear.  Innovation into new multi-ingredient products will be stifled.  Eventually we will face cost recovery.  Many quality firms and practitioners will not survive. 

The transition of the natural health community from what it was, to Health Canada’s truncated version is more than a over-regulation problem.  It presents us with an ethical problem.  The NHP Regulations, and their enforcement, are in theory for our “safety”.  At the same time, Health Canada has never done a risk analysis to determine the risk of removing natural health products from people who rely on them.  There has been no risk analysis to determine what the risk of forcing us into the pharmaceutical model is when NHPs we rely on are no longer available.  There has not been a comparative risk analysis done by Health Canada to see if NHPs pose enough of a risk to justify the strict regulations that have been imposed.  The truth is the government is pretending NHPs are dangerous and need strict regulations.  The government is also pretending that there is no health risk to removing natural health products. 

If natural health products are delivering the health benefits that Canadians taking them say they do, then we are participating in a dangerous game.  We are also acting unethically by allowing our brothers and sisters to be put at risk.  Finally, we are letting down the next generation.  Will our children have access to the safe and effective natural health products that our generation has enjoyed?  Not unless we do something.

The question is:  have we had enough yet or do we need to lose more NHPs before we are willing to act?  The only reason Health Canada has been so effective in taking NHPs away is the complacency in the natural health community.  There has been no concerted effort to stop the regulations.  Many do not know what to do.  Many do not believe Health Canada can be stopped.  I disagree.  The passion that we witnessed from Canadians who opposed Bill C-51 convinced me that we do not have to compromise.  There is no reason why we cannot have reasonable and balanced regulations which protect our access to products we rely upon.  There is no reason why as adult Canadians we cannot choose how we are going to support our health. 

When faced with an unpleasant future, there is a tendency to disbelieve that the unpleasant future will arrive.  This leads to inaction until there is an absolute crisis.  It could be that Health Canada raids on health food stores will be the wake up call the natural health community needs.  Unfortunately, at that point it will probably be too late.  Health Canada is unlikely to enforce the NHP Regulation licensing requirement until the licensing back-log is cleared.  That is not likely to happen in 2010.  With producers and practitioners disappearing yearly, will we have enough voices in 2011 to bring about change?