If hearing about the North American Security Perimeter lately, has not been enough for you. Now we get this news.

The Predator aircraft's have seen combat over Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq, and Yemen. Add Canada and the U.S. to that list now. All in the guise of combating the drug trade. Let me restate that. The unmanned military aircraft will now be patrolling the the Canadian - U.S. border, to fight the war against drugs! That is said to move in large amounts, frequently across the border. Just a little bit of overkill don't ya think?

In reality this seems to stem from what has been said about the North American Security Perimeter.

"The New Border Vision is being billed as a 21st century border management system that will include new common consumer product regulations, a pre-clearance agreement for goods crossing the border to expedite waiting times and the use of advanced technology to utilize biometric data for travelers at airports and land crossings, according to people familiar with the plan."
Source

Utilization of new technologies, and new common consumer product regulations (cough cough* Bill C-36 the consumer product safety act).

Using the drone planes that are equipped with high tech camera's that can see threw walls of houses/buildings and vehicles, would definitely cut down border wait times. Because the border agents would know which cars to stop and which ones not too, before they even reach the border. But what does that say for our rights?

According to this article, "Officials with U.S. Customs and Border Protection say the aircraft can transmit live, streaming video and radar images from above the huge swaths of rugged — and remote — terrain"
Source

At first this is where they will be used. But as many of us already know, that is only the start. The push towards the North American Union is getting faster, with everyday that passes! We all have to unite and stand against this coming police state, and protect our sovereignty right now! Or all will be lost.

In Canada we are witnessing the total raping of our health freedoms. We now have the consumer product safety act (Bill C-36) as a law. Which does not effect Natural Health Products itself, but it opens the door to allow the Canadian government to adopt foreign laws and foreign trading block's regulations on basically all products (including NHP's), without parliamentary scrutiny.

Health Canada is using unrealistic licensing standards on NHP's. For example, parsley in capsule form was not given it’s NPN because the manufacturer could not provide safety studies. Parsley is a herb that has been used for thousands of years. Think about it! When was the last time your heard of someone dieing from parsley (fresh or in a capsule)? Over 20,000 NHP's since 2004 have been not been licensed, because of absurdity like this!

But at the same time Health Canada is loosening the regulations on pharmaceuticals.

Here is a clip from a recent article I read from the Ottawa Citizen.

"What kind of "modernizations" should we expect to emerge from Health Canada's artfully stage-managed "technical consultations"? First and perhaps most important could be a shift of the burden of proof. The "precautionary principle" would be scrapped if drug companies had their way. So, instead of the drug industry having to prove that its products are (comparatively) safe before they can be licensed, new products would be presumed to be safe unless critics can prove that they are more harmful than beneficial."
Source

That's right you do not get to choose what you put into your body Canadians! NHP manufactures must prove that herbs that have been in use for hundreds if not thousands of years are safe. But big pharma companies do not have to prove the safety of their synthetic products. Oh no a critic must prove that they are not safe, AFTER they have been given out to who knows how many Canadian people.

This is only the tip of a very large iceberg in Canada. But it is not only happening here.

In America Bill S510 (HR 2751) has passed. All of the provisions, restrictions and requirements of this law, would apply to small farmers and small food producers (think farmer’s market, fruit, veggies, jam, pie, nuts, eggs, and yes herbs). Simply cutting off the herb production of the country.

Many of you have probably heard about the European Union Banning many Chinese and Indian Herbs. The AHN has been standing up against this mandate. Here is what they have to say about it:

"The date—ironically April Fool’s Day 2011—represents one day after the end of the transition phase of the EU Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive (THMPD). The THMPD exists as a sub-Directive of the Human Medicinal Products Directive, and was originally intended to be a fast-track licensing system for a wide variety of traditional herbal products, including those of non-European origin. These include the super-traditions of Ayurveda, associated with the Indian subcontinent and that of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). Both are of more than 4,000 years standing. The directive was originally implemented in 2004, but the lengthy 7-year transition period has lulled many into thinking that the April 2011 date marks the implementation of a new directive. This is not the case."

"What are the facts about THMPD?

* 31st March 2011 marks the end of the 7-year transition phase of the THMPD
* The directive requires that the same type of pharmaceutical standards applied to conventional, synthetic drugs are applied to complex, polyherbal products
* A range of eligibility and technical problems, along with prohibitive costs, have, so far, prevented any products from either the Chinese or Indian traditions from successfully being registered under the scheme"

Source

This shows that in Canada, America, and in the European Union the attack on NHP's is kicking into gear. Not by flat out banning them. Because it is well known that, an action like that would not be tolerated by the people. So the tactic seems to be the slow and methodical elimination of these products, through licensing regulations.

Testing and proving the safety of NHP's apparently can cost upwards of US $100,000.
For small to medium sized manufacturers this is devastating! But to the large companies it is tolerable. Unfortunately the large companies seem to be the ones complying with big pharma. By using genetically modified ingredients, and other synthetics produced in the pharmaceutical industry.

The small guys in our communities are being "licensed" out of business, because they refuse to comply. They refuse to keel over in the presence of big pharma.

They have looked out for us, and our health for a long time now. It is time that we return the favor! We now need to not comply right along with them! DO NOT buy from the major NHP companies. Instead look for the smaller, and more local products.

It is estimated that over 10,000 Canadians die every year from pharmaceuticals. Do you think the number of deaths caused by NHP's comes anywhere even close to that?

We are the gears of this machine, and we decide when it stops!

The Canadian Health Food Association (CHFA), Canada’s largest national trade association dedicated to the natural health industry.

The association represents manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers, distributors, growers and importers of natural and organic products, including foods, vitamin and mineral supplements, herbal products, homeopathics, sports nutrition products, fibres and health and beauty aids.

With a membership of over 1,000+ business owners and operators, CHFA represents an industry that contributes $3.5 billion to the Canadian economy.

The CHFA is the official voice of the natural health industry from the grassroots to the Hill. We work to make certain the industry is heard when legislation is being drafted. We also provide our members with great networking opportunities, like our annual trade shows.
http://www.chfa.ca/

The CHFA also plays a key role in Nutri-Net Canada.
A collaborative initiative among industry and trade associations, institutions and provincial government organizations, aims to promote the development of a knowledge-based, value-added industry dedicated to improving the nutrition, health and well-being of Canadians.
Led by the Canadian Health Food Association (CHFA), Nutri-Net Canada will oversee and coordinate a series of studies and conferences in 2007/2008 as an input to the development of national functional food/natural health product (FFNHP) sector strategy. The strategy will define the scope of the industry, outline short and long term goals and how to achieve them, increase the participation of the traditional food industry, and increase the participation of the health community.
www.nutrinetcanada-nnc.ca

All of which sounds great! Until you do a little digging. The Canadian government has been vigorously attacking the NHP market place. Between proposing (and passing) draconian laws and licensing procedures. Right down to Health Canada and the RCMP conducting armed raids on the homes of naturopathic doctors. Like in the case of Dr. Eldon Dahl, whose home was raided over things like folic acid, in 2009. So one would assume that a group like the CHFA would not be in Health Canada's good books.

But that is not the case. The Canadian government is funding the CHFA and the Nutri-Net Canada program. In 2007 a press release was released from the government titled: CANADA’S NEW GOVERNMENT INVESTS $721,000 IN NATURAL HEALTH PRODUCTS
Source

And from estimates this funding has now reached over 2 million dollars.

The CHFA and the Nutri-Net program are being used to to encourage and facilitate regulatory compliance of Bill C-51 (which eventually became Bill C-36 and became the law known as the consumer product safety act).

They are also trying to "slow Bleed" the NHP industry with the new licensing programs that Health Canada aims to implement in 2011. The original start date was set to be March 1 2011. A number of PAC members felt that the end of the Compliance and Enforcement promotion period should be June 1, 2011, for manufacturers, importers, packagers and labellers (vs. the previous March 1, 2011 date)and December 1, 2011 for retailers and distributors (vs. the previous September 1, 2011 date).

The CHFA does not support these dates. The CHFA suggestes that August 1, 2011 for manufacturers, importers, packagers and labellers and February 1, 2012 for retailers and distributors would be more appropriate. Rather than opposing these actions from the Canadian government, they only want to spread it out. But why?

Would that extended time frame give the CHFA and the large players in the NHP industry the appropriate amount of time to wipe out the small and medium players who cannot afford the onerous cost of compliance ? Perhaps the smaller companies will not compromise their ethics and/ or add synthetic and GMO inferior fillers to standardize their products to get their NPNs?. If Natural health products really are so dangerous and need such stringent specifications, and outrageous standards of evidence, can someone please show me the dead bodies?

Here is a great quote from www.biomedcentral.com

"On the other hand, some representatives from large companies
are disappointed with the time frames provided by
the NHPD but for different reasons than representatives
from SMEs. Large firm employees are frustrated that the
implementation stage is moving slowly:
the faster the weaker players get out of the business, the
better, from a commercial side or predatory side ... there's
only going to be 3 or 4 big players that are going to survive.
We intend on being one of them. So I'm saying if
you're going to cause that, then do it faster. Quit slow
bleeding us."

This is not surprising after you look at the other companies involved with the Nutri-Net program. A large percentage of the directors and board members of the organizations come from either Bio-Tech companies, or Pharmaceutical Companies.

That's right! Funded by the government and in a large part being run by Bio-tech and pharmaceutical companies.

Voice of the NHP Industry or voice of the government within the NHP industry? You decide.

We should all support initiatives like the Charter Of Health Freedom
With that passed as a law this whole mess of bureaucracy and red tape over your health freedoms will be alleviated!

Len Gratto and Stacy Gowanlock of Mission, British Columbia have both been slapped with $5,200 inspection fees after having having their homes inspected by government officials.

This is not only happening in Mission B.C., This inspection process is also happening in Surrey , Richmond, Coquitlam, Langley, Langley City, Abbotsford, Pitt Meadows, Chilliwack and Port Coquitlam. Between 2005 and 2009 these cities conducted 3,528 inspections.

Under the safety inspection programs, inspectors armed with B.C. Hydro statistics on abnormal energy consumption can enter private homes without warrant. Sounds kinda familiar doesn't it? (Bill C-36).

"The safety inspections came about as a result of concerns over grow-ops that pose electrical hazards from faulty wiring and the overloading of residential electrical circuits." Globe and Mail

Once again a bypass around section 8 of the Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms (Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.).

Oh but don't worry, it is all just to keep you safe! A fire could happen if there is faulty wiring. That is all the government is concerned about.

In the case of Len Gratto, the officials hit the jackpot! He was guilty of growing cucumbers in his basement. And with Stacy Gowanlock, they just missed it! Only finding some dirt residue and some piping leading to the chimney. What criminals these Canadians are! How dare they grow their own food! The audacity of some people eh.

The fight against marijuana has hit an all new low with this. Government officials being given the power to enter and inspect the homes of Canadians without a warrant, with police waiting at the front door. All because it may not be cucumbers, it could be the evil marijuana.

And then even if the officials do not find anything illegal, they slap you with a huge fee for making them search your home.

After the G20, and Bill C-36 trampling all over our rights as Canadians, this is just another way our government wanted to show that they love us, and only want to keep us safe! Forget about your rights and freedoms Canadians, just trust the government!

They will keep you safe, and keep all of those bad people who like to grow their own food in check! We need our police state!

On Saturday January the 8th 2011, the Canadian Awareness Network, Grasshopper Media, and We Are Change Brantford converged on Gore Park in downtown Hamilton.

Armed with fliers, DVD's, a megaphone, and the charterofhealthfreedom.org petition (available for download HERE)

We started out with the megaphone with speeches by Terry Wilson and Frank Gotz, and quickly got a great response. People began to come over and get information. We gave out countless DVD's, fliers, and spoke with many concerned Canadians who had never heard of the consumer product safety act, or Bill C-36.

Coupled with a rally by We Are Change Calgary, and a great clip on CHCH news by eart4all.net on Friday, we are getting the word out there!

CHCH news cip.


And this is just the beginning! With the NHPPA getting ready to start a campaign against this illegal law, we have no intentions of giving up. We are going to fight this thing right until the end! Once the Canadian people become aware of what this so called law is, the quicker we can have it repealed. It is a daunting task, but the future of our nation depends on it!

Video clips from the Hamilton Rally:
Part 1


Part 2


Keep watching for more street actions, and if you want to get involved please contact us at canadianawareness@live.ca

We the people of this great nation, are the only ones who can fix it! It is time to stop watching from the sidelines and take action.

Bill C-36 passed on December 13 2010. This bill allows foreign governments and private foreign corporations to dictate what Canadian consumer products will be pulled from the shelves.

It also totally undermines what once was the rule of law for this country. Health Canada inspectors can search and seize without warrant, and hold property for as long as they see fit (at expense of the owner), and they do not even need to have any... suspicion of a crime or any evidence of one to do so.

So are Canadians going to just sit back and take this? I say hell NO!! The time to draw your line in the sand is now! To many people forget that revolutionary wars have been fought all threw out history over tyrannical laws like this.

I am not suggesting a war of revolution, but rather a peaceful stand against tyranny. The Canadian people have been left in the dark on this, and once we shine some light on the situation. The truth will unfold and and bring the corrupted politicians to justice!

Help us in this infowar. We need to have rallies all across this great land at exactly the same time. If we can get enough cities and people involved, the msm, politicians, and the Canadian people will have no choice but to see this Bill for what it is! A direct violation of the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms, and a move towards globalization.

Lets get out there and make our voices heard!!!

Join the facebook event page at: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=136759229714202&num_event_invites=0

Bill C-36 the Canadian Consumer Product Safety Bill passed the senate of Canada on December 13 2010. This is a day that will scar Canadian history forever, as the conservative majority ignored the Canadian people, ignored the experts and pushed ahead with this abomination of a bill.

Several more amendments were recommended by Hon. Elaine McCoy, with a great speech that I would like to share. (For the full reading click HERE

Hon. Elaine McCoy: Honourable senators, before I begin speaking on the clock, your honour, may I ask for clarification on a point of procedure? I spoke with the Leader of the Government in the Senate and with the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and I believe the table officers are aware and had spoken to His Honour about it, but it has been a long-standing practice of the Senate to stack amendments. In the course of my comments, I propose to move amendments that are not sub-amendments to Senator Banks' amendment. With leave of the Senate, I will proceed; otherwise, I will wait until later.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: The tradition in this house has been that in circumstances such as these, we do, in fact, stack amendments, and honourable senators are free to debate any of the amendments before the house.

Is it agreed, honourable senators, that the amendments be stacked?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator McCoy: Thank you very much. I appreciate honourable senators' agreement on that point.

I will invite all honourable senators to go on a little journey with me, and imagine for a moment how they would feel if suddenly a government official appears at their door, maybe flashes a tiny identification card, which, if honourable senators are like me, they would have to peer at to read, and without a by-your-leave, enters their premises, sits down at their computer, starts to search, stands up, wanders around their premises, and even begins to seize files and other products that they might sell or produce. The government official not only does that without a by-your-leave, they also do it without any prior notice or warning. They can hold on to those goods for long enough to disrupt a business and maybe even send the owner into financial difficulty.

There are no means to prevent this activity. Imagine how honourable senators would feel. There is no judicial review, there is no recourse for action, and there is no due process.

The business owners ask themselves and probably this official, "What is happening; have I committed a heinous crime of some kind?"

Of course, the answer is no because if it were a serious crime, it would be a police officer at their door, and the police officer would have a warrant from a justice of the peace or a judge before entering, let alone seizing any files or goods.

Perhaps they have been found guilty already of some crime. Again, the answer is no. All we have here is a bureaucratic desire to peek, pick, poke and God knows what else at products and files — a fishing expedition, as Senator Banks and others have said.

It is simple curiosity, based on nothing solid like judicial review or scientific review, and not even an honest belief that the act or regulations have been contravened — nothing.

The worst part is that there is nothing they can do about it and no one they can talk to until well after the fact.

With respect to that little movie, you might be thinking, "Oh, my goodness, no, no, no; that is a Cold War scenario; That is only in Eastern Bloc countries; that is one of the terrible situations that used to exist on the other side of the Great Wall."

However, it is not true. That can happen to anyone in Canada in the 21 century, not because they are a drug smuggler, as Senator Wallace and others were discussing, a human trafficker or a porn producer. They are someone whose occupation it is to make or sell consumer products in Canada — ordinary consumer goods — and they may be completely innocent of any wrongdoing. Think of it, honourable senators: they may be completely innocent.

The folks at their door who are demanding entry are not even trained police officers. They are Health Canada inspectors, for heaven's sakes, and the only thing someone can do after the fact is complain to other Health Canada inspectors, who probably have their office or desk next to each other and who are about as likely to overturn a colleague's commandments as one might expect.

So we are clear, I will say again what we have all been saying. At its heart, the bill has honourable goals, much as Senator Banks said about Bill S-10, and much as Senator Day, Senator Banks, Senator Cordy and others have said about Bill C-36. The goal of keeping safe products on our shelves, in our homes and in our business is a good one.

We also endorse the idea that they should be withdrawn from circulation, and there should be some teeth in that, if they are considered to be dangerous or likely to have a serious problem.

However, embedded in the minutia of the legislation are disturbing new powers given to bureaucrats that, in their present wording, would go against the tradition which started about 800 years ago — in 1215 in the Magna Carta, to be precise. It is going against the tradition of common law in Canada, for example, the right to due process. It is those powers that I am concerned about, and I would expect honourable senators would be concerned about as well.

The crux of the matter is this: Do we need to rescind our long-standing, established rights and freedoms in the name of consumer safety? My answer is no. That is a false choice, a false dichotomy.

The Meat Inspection Act, for example, is a similar piece of legislation, but the Meat Inspection Act requires inspectors to believe that something is wrong before they enter, seize or inspect products. That is the normal practice in our country, and we have fought hundreds of years to establish and maintain those kinds of rights. Everyone wants a safe world for their families, but I do not think we have to give up our rights and freedoms to achieve that.

I am inviting all honourable senators to join us in voting against this bill, or at least voting for it with some amendments tonight. We should resist unchecked bureaucratic powers and resist the ability of the state to intervene at will in our private business. We should, in fact, stop criminalizing our world. Let us make our world safer, by all means, but let us not lose our rights and freedoms along the way.

Motion in Amendment

Hon. Elaine McCoy: Honourable senators, therefore, I move that Bill C-36 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended in the following particulars, and I will summarize those particulars first, and then read them into the record: first, that they reinstate the requirement that an inspector must believe that the act or regulations have been contravened before entering or seizing or searching; second, that a warrant be required before entering; and third, that the common-law defences of due diligence and belief in fact be restored.

Let me read the amendment:

That Bill C-36 be not now read a third time but that it be amended

(a) in clause 21(1), on page 10, by replacing lines 34, 35, 36 and 37 with the following:

"(1) Subject to subsection 22(1), if an inspector has reasonable grounds to believe there has been non-compliance with this Act or the regulations, he may, at any reasonable";

(b) in clause 22, on page 12,

(i) by replacing lines 19, 20 and 21 with the following:

"(1) An inspector may not enter the place mentioned in subsection 21(1) without the consent of the occupant";

(ii) by replacing lines 27 and 28 with the following:

"person who is named in it to enter the place if the justice of the peace is satisfied by",

(iii) by replacing line 30 with the following:

"(a) the place is a place described in",

(iv) by replacing line 32 with the following:

(b) entry to the place is necessary",

(v) by replacing line 35 with the following:

"(c) entry to the place was refused".

(c) by deleting clause 59, on page 31, lines 28 to 41.

I would invite all honourable senators to uphold our rights and freedoms and to accept these amendments this evening.


CANADIAN RULE OF LAW - Born June 15, 1215, died December 13 2010
There is no question in the fact that we live in a tyrannical dictatorship anymore.

Running parallel to Bill C-36, that will hand over the ability to recall consumer products to foreign governments and private corporations. (It also destroys the rule of law in our once great country) There is another threat to Canadian sovereignty.

This threat has been discussed for many years and we have been watching it slowly take shape. The North American Union could now be a reality much quicker then I anticipated.

The National Post recently "broke" a story titled: Tories to announce deal forming North America 'perimeter'. It goes on to say:

"The Conservative government is set to announce a landmark security and trade deal with the United States, designed to create a perimeter around North America and allow people and goods to flow more freely across the border.

Sources suggested that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Barack Obama will sign the broad-ranging agreement in Washington as early as next month."

The plan is said to new common consumer product regulations, a pre-clearance agreement for goods crossing the border to expedite waiting times and the use of advanced technology to utilize biometric data for travelers at airports and land crossings.
Full storyHERE

The problems with this deal are vast.
New product relation plans and pre-clearance agreements that can dictate what products are being shipped and which ones are not. This could give large corporations that lobby our governments (thus controlling them) the ability eliminate any rising competition. Remember it was David Rockefeller who said "Competition is a sin".

The utilization of biometric data will add to the already emerging big brother system that we are living in. Giving the government the ability to track and trace every move you make is just a bad idea, common sense would tell you.

Canada will be bound into an American system of Homeland Security threw harmonization of Immigration, security and law enforcement policies. This is already becoming evident in Canada threw Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act that would require Canadian airline carriers that fly over the U.S. to provide the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with passenger information.

The Americans want concentric rings of security and do not trust the Canadians to police the northern perimeter of the continent.

All of this is said to increase our security, improve our trade agreements and improve these issues at the border.

So is the thinned border security and trade advantages really worth becoming harmonized into an American homeland security police state? This is the question that all Canadians should be pondering right now.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Senator Day has proposed new amendments to Bill C-36 and they were moved by Hon. Tommy Banks on Thursday December 9 2010. These amendments include:

THAT Bill C-36 be amended in clause 15, on page 9,

(a) by replacing line 13 with the following:

"information in relation to a consumer product to a person or a government that" and

(b) by replacing lines 17 to 20 with the following:

"relates only if

(a) 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; and

(b) the disclosure is necessary to identify or address a serious danger to human health or safety.

(2) The Minister shall provide prior notice of the intended disclosure to the individual to whom the personal information relates unless doing so would endanger human health or safety.

(3) If the Minister discloses personal information under subsection (1) without providing prior notice, he or she shall, as soon as practicable but not later than six months after the disclosure, notify the individual to whom the personal information relates.

(4) For greater certainty, nothing in this".

These amendments are a huge move in the right direction with this unconstitutional bill and the debate on Thursday was great.

Highlights from Thursday's debate:

"This bill, honourable senators, proposes a new scheme of a bureaucratic or an administrative type of governance. The basis for this legislation is criminal law legislation. However, rather than go through the time-honoured process of an offence under the criminal law jurisdiction and the checks that have been built into that to protect the individual, with which we are very familiar and comfortable here in Canada, this legislation proposes a new type of administrative process. Instead of offences, it refers to "violations." That, honourable senators, is the reason this bill deserves considerable study and why it must be scrutinized at the highest degree to ensure that, under this new scheme, individual rights and fundamental freedoms are not unnecessarily interfered with." - Senator Day

"I refer honourable senators quickly to section 21, which deals with verifying compliance. This provision means that inspectors can go into a property — they do not have to suspect that there is an infringement, a breach, or a violation of the act — and verify compliance. However, when they go in to verify compliance, they also can seize any product or vehicle for the purpose of verifying compliance. Furthermore, they can require the person whose product was seized to move that product somewhere else at that person's own expense.
Why is it necessary for this legislation to go that far? Why would inspectors not have the right to seize certain samples to verify; and then, if there is a breach or violation, they take the necessary steps?
There is no requirement for a warrant to enter into and over private property. The requirement for a warrant appears only with respect to dwelling houses, and then it is a weak warrant provision of ex parte, meaning that the warrant can be obtained without anyone knowing about it, without the knowledge of the person whose property will be violated, and without any representation there." - Senator Day

"Honourable senators, my office has received almost 1,000 emails requesting that the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology take the time to hear from witnesses who are familiar with the proposed legislation and to consider carefully the powers being sought by the government and ensuring that they are necessary and desirable.
Mr. Shawn Buckley was recommended as a possible witness, but the senators on the government side have refused to hear from him, and I asked myself why. Mr. Buckley is a very reputable constitutional lawyer and is highly qualified, probably one of the most qualified on this proposed legislation of anyone in Canada. We heard from Mr. Buckley in the previous version of this bill when it was Bill C-6, and he was very informative and insightful. Naturally, when the bill was reintroduced, he was the person we immediately suggested should be brought in to discuss the changes, those changes that were not made, as well as to enlighten us on the strengths and weaknesses of this new legislation being proposed. Unfortunately, the Conservative senators unanimously voted down Senator Cordy's motion to allow Mr. Buckley to appear before the committee. - Senator Day

Senator Mercer: Shame.

Senator Tardif: Shame."

"Does the honourable senator have a better definition or feel for what the term "foreign entity" means within Bill C-36? - Senator Cordy
Senator Day: I thank Senator Cordy for that question. I was here when she asked that question of Senator Martin, as well, and I referred to it earlier on. It is in clause 14 of the bill. Clause 14(1)(d) states that the minister can initiate a recall based on a recall or a measure that is initiated for human health or safety reasons by a foreign entity. That is one of the places where the term is used.
Senator Cordy has expressed a concern about an 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.
If one looks at the definition of "government," it is so terribly broad that it includes so many subsections of government operating in foreign areas. "Foreign entity," I would say, would be interpreted as something broader than that, and that is just virtually every group, organization, company or business anywhere in the world, quite frankly. It is troublesome." - Senator Day


"Before I get there, I want to reiterate some of the things that Senator Day has said. 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.
In addition, there is the matter that Senator Day referred to that is very important in that connection. The things that are now called "violations" and not "offences" are, in this act, made not susceptible of a defence in common law. In common law, we have always been able to defend against a charge of an offence by reason of having done demonstrable due diligence or by demonstrating that we reasonably believed in facts, which, if they were true, would be exculpatory. We have always been able to do that.
Now here are these "violations," not offences, in which this bill states the defence of common law, of due diligence, or of having believed in facts, which, if they were true, would be exculpatory, is no longer applicable. One cannot use the common law as a defence here. That is the beginning of a slippery slope, honourable senators. I hope we are not going down this staircase. - Senator Banks

Full debate can be found HERE


Here is the email response that senator Day is sending out:
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 1...st 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. The Conservative majority in committee all voted to pass the Bill without amendments, and now it returns to the Senate for third reading. The Conservatives hold a similar majority in the Senate.

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 then case. I have also proposed many amendments, all of which were voted down by the Conservatives voting together.

Many have asked what they can do to address this situation, to which I recommend the following; continue to e-mail your Senators, voicing your concern about how this Bill is being passed. In particular, you should contact the office of those Conservative Senators who seem intent on ramming this Bill through without giving due consideration to its repercussions. They seem totally disinterested in the potential effects of this Bill.

Below you will find a list of those Senators who voted in favour of passing Bill C-36 in committee. The Senate Chamber is meant to be a chamber of independent second thought, occupied by independent minded people. Amendments in the Senate will not cause an election, and thus should happen more frequently.

We are now in debate in the Senate. I spoke on Thursday, and it will continue Monday and Tuesday. Let’s hope for the best.

Yours Truly,

Joseph A. Day LL.M., P. Eng.
Senator

E-mails:

The Honourable Senator Braley
braled@sen.parl.gc.ca

The Honourable Senator Champagne
champa@sen.parl.gc.ca

The Honourable Senator Eaton
eatonn@sen.parl.gc.ca

The Honourable Senator Housakos
lacomd@sen.parl.gc.ca

The Honourable Senator Martin
martin@sen.parl.gc.ca

The Honourable Senator Ogilvie
ogilvk@sen.parl.gc.ca

The Honourable Senator Seidman
seidmj@sen.parl.gc.ca

I would suggest that we take his advice! Rather than continuing to email all of the senators, We should focus our efforts on the conservative senators. If we can spook even a couple of them, they may back off a little bit.

Even though the house and now the senate is rushing Bill C-36 threw, there is still hope in stopping it!

And it is thanks to all of you! In the Tuesday December 7th senate debate, two senators had the guts to stand up and ask some real questions. Citing that he had received thousands of emails from concerned Canadians who want Shawn Buckley to appear before the Senate committee.

Quote "The honourable senator talked about consultation. I have received thousands of emails asking that Mr. Shawn Buckley appear before the Senate committee. However, when I brought that motion forward at committee, it was voted down unanimously by the Conservative members of the committee. To say that there was consultation is an exaggeration."

Senator Cordy brought questions about Clause 14(1)(d)(i) that reads:

(d) a recall or measure that is initiated for human health or safety reasons by

(i) a foreign entity,

I found that some of the answers that he received were shocking and very telling. Here is some highlights of the conversation. The full version can be found HERE

Senator Cordy: My question is not related to other government organizations, with which I have do not have a problem. The difficulty I have was expressed at the committee: The recall can be initiated by a foreign entity.

The honourable senator has not given me a good definition of "foreign entity." When I asked her specifically if a foreign entity includes private businesses in another country, the honourable senator did not address that question in her answer. Perhaps she can tell the house whether a private business in another country is considered a foreign entity under the bill.

Senator Martin: A "foreign entity" is one that is not in Canada, which will include governments and regulatory counterparts.

This bill governs what happens in Canada when there is a recall. Any information is shared only with persons or governments that carry out functions related to the protection of human health, safety or the environment in relation to these consumer products.

Senator Cordy: My question is: Does it include private companies?

Senator Martin: I do not know about private companies. That is something I cannot answer at this time. In terms of the process and the act that is governed in Canada, it includes the regulatory counterparts and government departments in other jurisdictions.


Senator Baker also brought forth questions about health Canada's inspectors not having to get a regular warrant to search a persons home. His questions were answered with responses like this one from Senator Martin.
"In today's globalized marketplace, many businesses are in homes or dwelling houses. When such is the case, and it is established and known, an inspector may enter as the inspector would enter a business in a mall or other location."

The debate then adjourned after senator Day finished with:
In view of the fact that we presented several amendments last week and they were voted down, but that the minister has not yet had the six months to consider those amendments, if we delay passage of this bill for six months, I was wondering if perhaps the minister would have an opportunity to see that these particular amendments are appropriate.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Some Hon. Senators: Oh, oh.

Senator Martin: Judging from the response, I am sure that the honourable senator also agrees on the importance and urgency of this bill, the fact that it has been several years in the making, that the stakeholders are waiting, and that all honourable senators have already given their support in principle.

Senator Day: The difficulty with the response that I heard from the other side is that they are the same people who the last time voted against the amendments which the minister later saw the wisdom of accepting.

Senator Martin refusing to answer the question of private companies in foreign countries falling under the "foreign entity" title, and the answer about our globalized marketplace making it necessary for the uncommon conditions to get a warrant to search a private home are huge! When the real questions are asked the legality and truth starts to shine through!

The senators are being left with very little choice now. They are having to ask the real questions, because the Canadian public is making their voices heard! But don't stop now! Keep it up. The louder the voices become the more they have to listen.

Once again here is the list of the senators and their contact info. Please keep it up!! Let them know your concerns about this bill.

Thank you senator Cordy and senator Baker!
Oh and Senator Martin. The "stakeholders" can wait as long as it takes. The freedoms and rights of the Canadian public out weigh whatever role they have in this!

Shawn Buckley shares his thoughts on Bill C-36, December 6 2010.

Bill C-36 is one of the biggest threats to Canadian sovereignty ever seen, and it could come into law as early as next week.

After quietly passing the house of commons, and two very quick readings in the senate. The senate could very possibly be giving the bill its third and final reading as early as December 8th 2010.

On the Canadian senate debate section for the second reading, on their website it states:

Canada Consumer Product Safety Bill

Thirteenth Report of Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee Presented

Hon. Art Eggleton, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, presented the following report:

Thursday, December 2, 2010

The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology has the honour to present its

THIRTEENTH REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-36, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products, has, in obedience to the order of reference of Thursday, November 18, 2010, examined the said bill and now reports the same without amendment.

Respectfully submitted,

ART EGGLETON P.C.
Chair

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?

(On motion of Senator Eggleton, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.)

Source

Senators confirmed hundreds of emails, phone calls and faxes flooded their offices, and the Liberal senators who tabled the NHPPA's requests were consistently voted down by a Conservative majority.

The Stephen Harper government seems to be hell bent on totally dismantling Canada as we know it. Between the fiasco of the Toronto G20, his several comments on "enlightened sovereignty" and "There is no more Canadian economy, only a global one", and now this bill C51/C-6/C-36 that has been presented 3 times with different names since Harper government came into power (Only 3 examples of a very long list).

If we wish for our country to remain the Canada that is the True North Strong and Free. The Harper government and this bill need to be stopped!

We all need to contact as many senators as we can, to let them know what the Canadian people think about this bill. We can also ask them to allow Shawn Buckley to appear before them. Using our democratic power to ask a constitutional expert to be allowed to advise government on the constitutional and legal risks associated with Bill C-36.

Click here to find the senators Phone number, email, and fax info

Wondering why you should be so concerned over this bill? Please watch this.

I know that 99% of main stream media is useless and nothing more then controlled propaganda. But when I read this CBC article it totally amazed me!


Senate debates consumer protection bill

The Senate on Wednesday began hearings on a consumer protection bill that could fundamentally change how dangerous products are recalled from the marketplace.

Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq, seen touring a government product testing facility in Ottawa, examines products that were recalled due to product safety. Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq, seen touring a government product testing facility in Ottawa, examines products that were recalled due to product safety. (Adrian Wyld/Associated Press)If passed, the new act would require manufacturers and distributors to prove products are safe. It would also allow the government to order the recall of dangerous products.

'It creates a safety net that doesn't currently exist.'—Robert Ianiro, Health Canada

"It basically says to suppliers … you cannot manufacture, import, advertise or sell a consumer product that poses an unreasonable danger to human health and safety," said Robert Ianiro, director of the consumer product safety bureau at Health Canada.

"That is very important because it creates a safety net that doesn't currently exist."

The current consumer safety net is the 40-year-old Hazardous Products Act, which gives the government only limited consumer protection powers.

For instance, under the current legislation, the government cannot order a product recall. It must instead convince the manufacturer to voluntarily recall unsafe products.

In an era of globalization, that approach does not serve consumers well, says Hari Bapuji, a University of Manitoba business professor.

"We need to approach product safety a little more proactively and more broadly," he said in an interview with CBC News.

So far this year, Health Canada has posted more than 300 voluntary recall notices, a third of them for children's products.

The government says new legislation will give it more muscle to order a product recall, impose fines on the makers and sellers of dangerous products and the authority to order independent testing.

While he supports the bill, Bupuji worries about Health Canada's ability to enforce new legislation.

"We are not going to get the full benefits of legislation unless we reform Health Canada and give more resources to them," he said.

The government hopes to have the bill passed within the next few weeks. By then, it has promised to double the number of consumer product safety inspectors.


CBC Story

This is blatant propaganda in it's fullest form! There is no mention of the apposition to the bill, never mind even the bills name.

No mention of what extra powers health Canada and it's inspectors will get. Which we will now tell you.

Health Canada inspectors will be able to snoop around on private property without warrant, and all that is needed to obtain a warrant is to prove that the premise has a consumer product (even abandoned buildings have consumer products). They can also search and seize the property of business owners without warrant. The seizures have no time limit or oversight by the courts.

This is a bill that will destroy the rule of law in Canada! But you will never see this on CBC news!

Just imagine seeing things like the story of Dr. Eldon Dahl (video below) being common place. Is this kind of Health Canada authority really necessary?



I encourage all of you to call CBC news and let them know that this kind of propaganda will not be tolerated!!!! Their toll free phone number is 1-866-306-4636

In recent years two bills (C-51 and C-6) that would have brought us one step closer to becoming Codex Alimentarius compliant failed to pass the the house and senate. Both bills were almost exactly the same thing, but with a few re writes. Thanks to people like constitutional lawyer Shawn Buckley, the people of Canada were alerted about the risks of such bills and acted on them.

But now the federal government has not only re introduced the bill again, they have secretly passed it in the house of commons. Bill C-36 (once again the same bill as the previous two, with only a few re writes) will remove the rule of law in Canada!

How will it do this?

Bil C-36 will provide the framework in which Trade Agreements can become law without Parliamentary Review. This would give the government of Canada the legal OK, to continue on the road to global regulations and global governance.

From Section 37 of Bill C-36
(2)a regulation made under this Act may incorporate by reference documents produced by a person or body other than the minister including by:

(c) a government

from section 2 definitions:

“government” :

(e) a government of a foreign state or of a sub divisions of foreign states

(f) an international organization of states.

The full Bill can be read HERE

"The ability of foreign governments to dictate our Canadian regulations."


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.


So how would this bill fit into Codex Alimentarius?

To make that connection we must first take a look at what Codex is. Codex Alimentarius is a program from the world health organization (WHO) to regulate global food standards.

Here is the about us section from the Codex website:
The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1963 by FAO and WHO to develop food standards, guidelines and related texts such as codes of practice under the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Program. The main purposes of this Program are protecting health of the consumers and ensuring fair trade practices in the food trade, and promoting coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations.

In other words a department of the United Nations that plans to regulate the food trade.

This is what I believe to be the "foreign governments" that the bill is referring to. Our food products will be regulated by the United Nations. But that's OK right? They just want to protect us right? Or does this program fall into the United nations admitted and documented plans for a global population reduction by 90%?

Here is a good breakdown of Codex and what it is:



And becoming Codex complaint is only the beginning of the problems with this bill. Since food products are only one part of the list of consumer products. This will also help the process of harmonization into the North American Union. Under this bill Canadian regulations can then be controlled by the United Sates or any private corporation that is involved in the North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA). All without any safeguards for the Canadian people!

And it is very convenient that this bill secretly passed the house at the same time that the American version Bill S510 passed.

If you have not already contact your MP, the time to do so is now! We need to make sure that they know, we are not going to just stand by and allow our sovereignty and rule of law go quietly into the night!