Or are we protected

The Hon. Keith Ashford, MP - NB

Dear Mr. Ashford,

Re: Bill C-6, The Canada Consumer Protection Act

I am writing at the request of your constituent, Ms. Marlene MacFarlane, with whom I share a grave concern regarding Bill C-6, which your government passed on June 11th and forwarded to the Senate, where it is at Second Reading.

Ms. MacFarlane rightly expressed to you that we in the health freedom movement are not fooled by a shuffling of language, ostensibly to guarantee that Bill C-6 will not, and cannot, apply to Natural Health Products. However, due to the portability of clauses from one piece of legislation to another, and the "ministerial regulatory change" procedure, the offensive nature of Bill C-6 can be spread to other legislation, including NHP's without Parliamentary debate. We find this two-step dance of words to be extremely disingenuous and offensive to all Canadians, and feel that it was a deliberate obfuscation of the dangers of the Bill's language, which could be used to force vaccinations, create a medical police state, or even institute martial law.

As Senators Jerry Grafstein, Joseph Day and Elaine McCoy expressed, in the first day of Senate debate at Second Reading (September 16th), several of the provisions of this Act are unconstitutional on their face: yet Parliament saw fit to pass this egregious bill, and send it on to the Senate, where at least some semblance of logic in this regard is now evident.

Sir, to my mind, Parliament has just committed a serious offence against Canadian liberty under the guise of this Bill. It provides for the denial of due process of law, makes the Minister judge, jury and executioner, and allows the government, outside of court jurisdiction, to run roughshod over the enshrined Charter Rights of all Canadians. You, who voted for this unconstitutional abomination of law, should have been aware that you were setting a dangerous precedent where the right of recourse to a jury of one's peers, guaranteed all human beings under Magna Carta, under the BNA Act, under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is abolished.

The following is a list of offensive clauses within C-6, clauses which should not be included in ANY Canadian legislation, because they have the potential to be used as enforcement tools in any number of ways:


Scientific Ignorance. In the total absence of scientific evidence of harm

caused by a particular product, the Minister may take action against

the vendors of any product simply because they believe that it may have an

adverse effect on a person's health. [Preamble; 2]



Allegiance to Foreign Governments. The Ministry can ignore Canadian

sovereignty and force compliance to the dictates of foreign authorities. [2(e)(f); 14(1)(d)(i)]



Disclosure of Confidential Information. The Minister may

disclose personal and confidential business information to third parties

without the consent of the person to whom the information relates and

without notifying that person. [15; 16]



Unreasonable Search and Seizure. Inspectors may enter any premises where

they believe there are products/materials relating to the Act. They may examine

anything and seize anything they deem relevant. [20(2)]



Trespassing. Inspectors may enter on or pass through or over private

property, without being liable for so doing. [20(4)]



Use of Force. Inspectors may be accompanied by peace officers authorized to

use force. [21(3)]



Confiscation. Goods seized may never be returned to their owner. Anything

seized may become forfeited to Her Majesty in right of Canada [25; 26; 27; 61]



Lack of Training. The Minister may designate any person she wishes to be

enforcers of the Act, regardless of their qualifications, training, or

experience. [28; 33]



Unlimited Powers. Inspectors may take any measures they consider necessary

to remedy non-compliance with the Act, including putting the person out of

business. [31(2)]



Excessive Penalties. Anyone who contravenes a provision of the Act may be

fined up to $5,000,000 and imprisoned for up to five years. [38(1)(3)].



Presumed Guilty. Anyone whom is believed to have contravened sections of

the Act is deemed guilty of an offence.Anyone who pays a fine is deemed to have

committed the violation in respect of which the amount is paid. [38(1); 50(1)(a)]



No Defense. Those named in a notice of violation are not allowed to defend

themselves by truthfully claiming that they exercised due diligence to

prevent the violation. Innocence and truth are irrelevant. [56(1)]



Bypassing Parliament. Health Canada, or any other ministry, may expand the powers of C-6

even further by issuing Orders in Council which will not be subject to

parliamentary debate. [36]



The following are rights and freedoms guaranteed to us all:



Universal Declaration of Human Rights



10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public

hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of

his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.



11. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be

presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at

which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.



12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his

privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and

reputation.



17(2). No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.



The following are rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:





1. It is recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and

shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national

origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental

freedoms, namely,



1(a). The right of the individual to life, liberty, security of

person and enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof

except by due process of law.



1(b). The right of the individual to equality before the law and the

protection of the law.



2. Every Law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by

an Act of Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the

Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate,

abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or

infringement of any of the rights or freedoms recognized and declared, and

in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to



2(e). Deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance

with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his

rights and obligations.



2(f). Deprive a person charged with a criminal offence of the right

to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a fair and

public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, or of the right to

reasonable bail without just cause.



Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms



8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable

search or seizure.



11. Anyone charged with an offence has the right:



11(d). To be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a

fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal"



Further, the Book of Criminal Procedure defines the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution Act as "The Supreme Law of Canada", and states that any legislation which abridges these rights is "of no legal force or effect."

Legal experts are telling us that there is no way that C-6 will stand a Constitutional Challenge; even laypersons are not so blind as to notice when their rights are threatened. Parliament had no business even considering this monstrous piece of legislation, and hornswoggling not only ordinary Canadians, but also Members of Parliament, into thinking that the denial of due process was justified by the existence of hazardous products. Due process of law is guaranteed to ALL, even hardened criminals, in order to secure justice in this and other nations. Operational issues, such as fast access to warrants, should be resolved by operational means, as Senator McCoy rightly points out: there is no justification for taking away the essential freedom of access to courts and justice in order to solve the problem of easier access to court-approved warrants and other procedures. That bears a strong resemblance to using a cannon to kill a fly: the end does not justify the means.

In my humble opinion, Sir, as a proud native-born Canadian, all those who voted for this blatant misprision of our rights ought to be expelled from the House for their traitorous offense to Canadian liberties, which they sit in that House to protect. That would include, according to my information, yourself.

It is to be hoped that greater minds than those resident in the lower House will prevail, and this nefarious legislation will be killed in the Senate. In the meantime, some honorable members of the citizenship of Canada are crying "Shame! Shame!", and the government had best take heed: this sort of assault on the rights and freedoms of all Canadians will not be allowed.

I would like to know, Sir, what possessed the lower House to think that its passage of this offensive Bill, along with its implications against our democratic freedoms, would escape the notice of Canadians. I would also like to know, by what right or mandate you believe that you and the other "honorable" members who supported this atrocity should be allowed to continue to draw a salary and benefits paid for with taxpayer dollars, along with the privileges of elected office, on the broken back of our freedom?

Sincerely,