COMMENTS ON BILL C-36 FROM SENATORS, LAWYERS, STAKEHOLDERS AND SCHOLARS.
We are supposed to be the chamber of sober second thought and, indeed, that was
not the case during the committee hearings. It was very frustrating that three
of the four panels we heard, as the honourable senator said, were made up of
government officials, who were, of course, talking in favour of the bill because
that is their job. On one panel, which made up 25 per cent of the panellists
whom we heard from, the witnesses were from outside of government. That does not
seem like a good fit to me.
Senator Cordy Bill C-36 Third Reading 2010
“We are the chamber of sober second thought. It is important that we have the
time to review submissions and to talk to people. Certainly there are many
people who have an interest in this and have wanted to appear. Obviously, we
will not hear from them. I think we need time to study this evidence and digest
it.”
Senator Callbeck Bill C-36 Third Reading 2010
“To spend an extra day or two in a democratic process is never a waste of time,
in my view. Then we will all be assured that we have achieved the best we can do
here in the Senate for the people of Canada.”
“We have worked hard to ensure that should Bill C-36 pass, it can only do so
when given proper consideration, and only after every informed voice on the
matter has been heard. This has not been the case.”
Senator Day Bill C-36 Third Reading 2010
Senator Cordy has expressed a concern about a [foreign] entity doing this for
mischief reasons, for example, having a small recall in a particular area to get
a competitive product off the market. That is a concern, and the real concern is
that the term is not defined and thereby leaves it wide open for inspectors and
government people to take actions and say that it was based on a foreign entity
activity.
Senator Day Bill C-36 Third Reading 2010
The government is going down what could be a very slippery slope here, as
Senator Day has explained to us, by moving things that were previously
considered offences in criminal law into a new regime called "violations." Those
would be violations under regulations, the guilt of which is determined by a
process, which, if one reads this bill carefully, allows for no possibility that
a person, having been issued a notice of violation, can ever be found not to
have committed the violation, regardless of what representations at any level
the person so charged makes.
Senator Banks Bill C-36 Third Reading 2010
"This legislation does not need to break a tradition that we have had in this
country, which is to protect the civil liberties of people while we are
enforcing the law. When Senator Baker read out the opinion of the Supreme Court
of Canada that talked about why we have these protections in our law, it was
essentially to show that we not end up in a police state. There will be court
challenges on this legislation."
Senator McCoy Referring to Bill C-6 (former Bill C-36) [2009]
“We are told that the measures and guidelines that are currently in place are
out of date and in need of repair. This is a common theme that we have heard
from the minister and from the department for some time with respect to the
proposed consumer product safety legislation and the need for that legislation
to replace Part I of the Hazardous Products Act. There is, however, as I
indicated at second reading, no indication of an immediate need for this
particular legislation.”
Senator Day Bill C-36 Third Reading 2010
Armies of newly hired inspectors would be deployed throughout the country with
instructions—and the legal authority—to poke their noses into every business
place containing consumer products, to seize products… and to order the business
to stop manufacturing or selling its products. No proof of danger or harm would
be required.…Health Canada acts as if it is the only thing standing between
citizens and imminent death. The truth is that the greatest forces keeping
individuals safe from dangerous products are our common-law right to sue for
tort, and business’ self-interest in maintaining their reputation for quality.”
Karen Selick LL.B, Litigation Director, Canadian Constitution Foundation
"As Bill C-6 now stands, consumer safety inspectors enter our homes and seize
our property, such as computers and documents, without any judicial supervision.
The inspector has to show nothing more than a desire to check compliance or
non-compliance with the act. This is not how our law has developed. We would
essentially have no freedom and no privacy if that was the state of our law. We
would be living in a police state."
Senator Furey Referring to Bill C-6 (former Bill C-36) [2009]
"Some of the intrusive powers contained in this act will end up in court, and
the court will strike them down because they will be ultra vires. This act does
not say that you have been convicted of anything or found to have committed a
violation. It says a person named in a notice of violation has no defence by
reason of due diligence or by reason of having believed that they were acting
with the colour of right. It is undoing 400 years of common law."
Senator Banks Referring to Bill C-6 (former Bill C-36) [2009]
"No one has the right to infringe on human rights. As legislators; our primary
responsibility is to ensure that this legislation corresponds to the rule of law
and that people are protected to the full extent of our intellectual, physical
and human capacities."
Senator Dallaire Referring to Bill C-6 (former Bill C-36) [2009]
“I cannot understand that the obvious is being ignored, namely that this bill
attacks the rule of law, could not survive a constitutional challenge, is
abusive in terms of human rights, and - worst of all - has NOTHING to do with
protecting Canadians…Under the fuzzy guise of protecting Canada's children it
bamboozles the nation into cooperation.”
Helke Ferrie author, publisher
“The real change brought about by Bill C-36 is not that it protects consumers,
as the current law already grants the State significant powers to protect
safety. Rather the real change is the abolition of procedural safeguards
citizens currently enjoy. When the average person hears that Health Canada does
not have any power to recall a dangerous product, they are misled into thinking
that Health Canada does not have the power to protect us from dangerous
products. This is false.”
Shawn Buckley LL.B, Constitutional Lawyer, NHPPA President
“When the Minister of Health and mainstream media parrot the propaganda for this
Bill, that Health Canada does not currently have the power to order recalls,
what they really mean is that Health Canada does not currently have the power to
issue secret orders to take control over private property without independent
court supervision.”
Shawn Buckley LL.B, Constitutional Lawyer, NHPPA President
“To understand the significance of Bill C-36 it is necessary to understand the
rule of law. The rule of law requires the courts to supervise any state
interference with our person or our property…Throughout history significant
blood has been shed to establish the rule of law under which the state cannot
act as both the police and the courts… Under the rule of law if the state wants
to seize your property, they can only do so with court supervision. Courts only
permit interference with our person or our property according to valid laws and
established legal principles.”
Shawn Buckley LL.B, Constitutional Lawyer, NHPPA President
The only difference between the recall order sought by Health Canada in Bill
C-36, and the existing powers is that recall orders will not be subject to
independent review, and will be secret (exempted from review and publication
under the Statutory Instrument Act). The reason why previous Parliaments have
never granted Health Canada a recall power, is that until now, Parliament has
been unwilling to allow private property to be controlled without independent
supervision and in secrecy.
Shawn Buckley LL.B, Constitutional Lawyer, NHPPA President
"Canada's Consumer Product Safety Act has been
designed to protect consumers...but from what? Just look at how our government
has failed to show that they can "protect" us. For decades now, they have been
ignoring the precautionary principle and have approved the use of many products
that carry potential health risks (margarine, fluoride, pesticides, herbicides,
GMO's, MSG, aspartame, cigarettes, alcohol, certain prescription and OTC
medications, BPA, phthalates, acrylamide, nanotechnology etc.). Will this bill
ban these substances from our shelves? We're being told that Bill C-36 is
designed to protect consumers. But in reality, it will only protect the large
multinational corporations. If consumers know what's good for them, they need to
ban together to stop Bill C-36."
Pam Killeen, author, consumer health advocate
“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. It is difficult to
imagine any situation in which Canadians should be willing to permit the rule of
law to be undermined. Unfortunately, in the area of consumer products, Canadians
are being asked to sacrifice the rule of law.”
Shawn Buckley LL.B, Constitutional Lawyer, NHPPA President
“In fact, Canada already had legislation governing product safety, ever since
1969: the Hazardous Products Act. Although Health Canada bureaucrats admit “this
product safety regime has served us well”, they characterized it as outdated and
out of synch with the modern legislative regimes of Europe and the United
States. Notably absent was any evidence that European and American babies are
safer than Canadian babies as a consequence of that so-called modern
legislation. What has instead become obvious to even casual observers in recent
years is that the European Union and the United States have both become
gargantuan bureaucracies whose citizens are ever more continually stripped of
their liberties and subjected to state control of the minutest aspects of their
daily lives.”
Karen Selick LL.B, Litigation Director, Canadian Constitution Foundation
“From what I’ve seen practicing in this area of law over the years, there wasn’t
really a problem crying out for this kind of somewhat draconian legislative
fix.”
Read More
Globe and Mail
“The elements of the rule of law can be described as follows:
1. in a decent society it is unthinkable that government, or any officer of
government, possesses arbitrary power over the person or the interests of the
individual;
2. all members of society, private persons and government officials alike must
be equally responsible before the law; and
3. effective judicial remedies are more important than abstract constitutional
declarations in securing the rights of the individual against encroachment by
the state.”
The Canadian Bar Association
“Its title may sound harmless, but the Canadian Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA)
is an iron fist in a velvet glove. It is a bureaucrat’s dream come true, which
would allow Health Canada and its inspectors access to private property without
a warrant; would impose onerous reporting requirements on businesses; and would
permit the divulgation of confidential information to foreign governments.”
Read More…
National Post Editorial board
“It’s the third attempt by the Conservatives to pass consumer protection
legislation, reflecting a doggedness that implies Canadians have for the past
century been awash in unsafe products, with children and the aged perishing from
dangerous toothbrushes, poisonous toys and killer hair dryers. More people die
from poisoned government-provided water than from the hundreds of thousands of
consumer products delivered to consumers daily.”
Read More…
Terence Corcoran, Financial Post
"Parliament is
authorized to pass any new legislation to protect the public interest, provided
it does so with due public discussion and input. Bill C-36 is intended to ensure
public health safety of consumer products. It is complained to be was rushed
through parliament without serious discussion. The authority to enforce C-36
will be vested in Health Canada. This new authority will be in addition to those
already bestowed on this department under the Food and Drugs Act since 1967.
According to several Health Canada scientists, no government has been willing to
address their long standing complaints involving various products of
questionable safety under the Food and Drugs Act. Also, no effort was made to
hear them out by either house of Parliament for the last twenty years. A formal
complaint by these scientists against Health Canada has been sitting unresolved
before the Public Service Integrity Commission since 2003. The complaint
involves illegal approval of five classes of products being utilized in
food-producing animals, including hormones, antibiotics, slaughterhouse wastes,
genetically modified organisms and pesticides. The first three of these products
are banned in E.U. countries, fourth remains un-approved and numerous pesticides
are being eliminated there. Thus, the question that Canadians ask is on what
basis would Canadian government protect public health safety under Bill C-36
while it neglects to do so under the present Food and Drugs Act?"
Shiv Chopra, Author
CORRUPT TO THE CORE: Memoirs of a Health Canada Whistleblower
Message From Senator Day on Bill C-36 to
Canadian Citizens
DECEMBER 10 2010
Canadian Citizens,
If you are receiving this letter it is because you have expressed to me your
concerns about Bill C-36 through one of the several hundred e-mails I have
received over the last month.
As you know, on December 1st the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs,
Science and Technology passed C-36. I strongly opposed the passage without
hearing from adequate witnesses, so I requested a recorded vote.
Read More...
NHPPA Article in Common Ground “Cutting through Bill C-36 propaganda” Oct 1/10