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!

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.