COOPRADIO.ORG: The dangers of Bill C-6 with Dee Nicholson
When: July 13, 2009 @ Noon - 1 PM PDT
Where: Vancouver Coop Radio CFRO 102.7 FM www.coopradio.org
What: A conversation with activist and author Dee Nicholson on the dangers of Canadian bill C-6.
Website: http://nhppa.org
Listen to audio archive now (MP3):
http://exopolitics.blogs.com/files/dangers-of-bill-c-6.mp3
Host: Alfred Lambremont Webre
Canadians have reason to be concerned over Bill C-6.
Relevance to the Natural Health Community
Bill C-6 currently does not cover Natural Health Products. Section 4(1) of the Bill sets out that the Bill does not apply to consumer products listed in Schedule 1 of the Bill. Schedule 1 of the Bill includes in its list: “Drugs within the meaning of section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act”. Natural Health Products are “drugs” under the Food and Drugs Act and consequently are currently exempted from the application of Bill C-6. Although Bill C-6 does not “currently” apply to Natural Health Products, the Bill poses a threat to Natural Health Products in two ways:
1. Bill C-6 could be made applicable to Natural Health Products by a simple regulatory amendment. Regulatory amendments do not need the approval of Parliament. Section 36(1)(c) of the Bill allows the Government to amend Schedule 1 to make Bill C-6 apply to drugs (which includes Natural Health Products) by passing a regulation. This puts Canadians in an awkward position. After successfully fighting Bill C-51 in 2008, they could find Natural Health Products threatened by the same provisions found in Bill
Bills such as Bill C-6 are carefully drafted and it is fair to assume that the power to expand the Bill to cover things such as drugs and Natural Health Products without Parliament’s supervision is deliberate. On this point it is important to note that the Hazardous Products Act which Bill C-6 will replace does not apply to drugs. The Hazardous Products Act was drafted to ensure that drugs could not be included without Parliament’s approval;
2. if Bill C-6 passes, a precedent is set. It is completely unrealistic to assume that similar enforcement provisions and penalties would not be applied to drugs and Natural Health Products. As discussed below, Bill C-6 provides Health Canada with dramatically expanded powers to:
a. search private property without a warrant;
b. seize private property without Court supervision;
c. destroy private property without Court supervision;
d. take control of businesses without Court supervision;
e. in some circumstances to keep seized private property without a Court order;
f. impose penalties that manufacturers, distributors and retailers in the natural health community could not survive.
If Bill C-6 becomes law, then Health Canada inspectors will have two sets of powers. One set for foods, drugs, medical devices and cosmetics, and another set for consumer products. Their powers concerning consumer products will be dramatically more powerful than their tools for foods, drugs medical devices and cosmetics. Since it is beyond question that drugs carry a much higher risk profile than consumer products, how long will it be before Health Canada will credibly argue that they need the same powers for “drugs”? From a public policy perspective it would make no sense for Health Canada to have less power to protect public safety for drugs than they have for less risky consumer products. Bill C-6 would represent a dramatic precedent of a move away from the rule of law, and towards unaccountability for bureaucratic incursion into privacy and property rights.
http://nhppa.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/discussion_paper_on_bill_c-61.pdf
ARTICLE:
http://exopolitics.blogs.com/coopradio/2009/06/coopradioorg-the-dangers-of-bill-c-6.html
