IMMEDIATE ACTION needed Bills C-51 & 52
Subject: Bill C52 going to committee---needs immediate court challenge
Please make sure to read the summary of Bill C52---it affects far more
than even health concerns---it is about total control and our ability to
fight back.
Many may have been lulled into relaxing given that Bill C-51 did not
pass the
second reading. Following note from Helke Ferrie is very important as
it
clearly shows the nefarious nature of these Bills - Please support her
efforts
to launch court action as, not surprisingly, the government has sold us
out.
For those in Toronto and area a panel discussion with Helke Ferrie,
Shawn
Buckley and Shiv Chopra is scheduled for June 26, 2008 and is a must
attend.
Details are here. Others will be able to see live streamed on
www.cnhc.ca
See: Summaries of Bills C-51 & C-52 - Freedoms At Risk! for background
Chris Gupta
-------------------
Hi,
I just got this information about a motion passed on Friday June 20
which would
allow the government to put C-52 (which did go through Second Reading,
as you
know) through the Committee stage and bring it in for Third Reading in
September while we are all basking in the success of having stopped
C-51, at
least for now.
Below are also some comments I sent to Common Ground. Those are on
C-52, the
more pernicious of the two bills. read Shawn Buckley's analysis of it
on
www.nhppa.org. (Draft Discussion Paper on Bill C-52 is here)
My opinion is that we need to take legal action at once: C-52 should be
challenged in court so the Committee cannot proceed over the summer.
It is
stacked in any case, so their hearings are unlikely to be
comprehensive, and
how does one get enough people to Ottawa for hearings and briefs in
June and
July?
If we don't act on this now, we have probably had it.
Helke 519-927-1049
Committees of the House
[Table of Contents]
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton?Leduc, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations with all parties and I
believe
if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the
following
motion. I move:
That, at any time the House stands adjourned during June or July,
the
Standing Committee on Health or the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and
International Development has ready a report, when that report is
deposited
with the Clerk, it shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the
House.
[Table of Contents]
The Speaker:
Does the hon. member for Edmonton?Leduc have the unanimous consent
of the
House to propose this motion?
Hi,
I just received from a friend the item below. It was a motion tabled
and
PASSED on Friday. Parliament did not debate C-51. As you know, C-52
has gone
to Committee. If they feel like doing the Committee hearings on C-52
(the more
pernicious of the two bills), they can do so and pass it, so parliament
can
take it into Third Reading as soon as they get back in September.
Blow the parliamentary debate provided here I have attached some
comments I
sent to Common Ground earlier today about C-52 and its relationship to
C-51.
In my opinion something should be done immediately to tie up C-52 in
court and
challenge its legality so they cannot have committee hearings until the
court
has ruled. Should you have any doubts about this, I suggest you go to
www.nhppa.org and read Shawn Buckley's analysis of C-52 which explains
how it
could turn Canada into a police state.
Kind regards, Helke
Friday, June 20th, 2008
Committees of the House
[Table of Contents]
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton?Leduc, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations with all parties and I
believe
if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the
following
motion. I move:
That, at any time the House stands adjourned during June or July,
the
Standing Committee on Health or the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and
International Development has ready a report, when that report is
deposited
with the Clerk, it shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the
House.
[Table of Contents]
The Speaker:
Does the hon. member for Edmonton?Leduc have the unanimous consent
of the
House to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Bill C-51 is now dead. The house closed on Friday and they did not
bring it up
for second reading, even though it was on the order papers every day of
last
week for that purpose. So, we have been heard and they are regrouping.
The
Liberals, in the last minute, decided not to support this bill after
all. The
bill will now have to be 1) re-introduced with Tony Clement's proposed
amendments when they get back to work in September, and 2) they will
have to
start it from scratch at first reading. It is, therefore, vitally
important
that they don't even think about bringing it back, in any shape or
form, with
no matter how many amendments, because this bill is pernicious from
start to
finish and nothing will improve it.
What most people have not yet grasped is that bill C-52 has gone
through second
reading and will go to committee in September. If C-51 was pernicious,
C-52 is
outright diabolical. Furthermore, C-51 can be tagged onto C-52 by an
Order in
Council (cabinet decision without parliamentary debate, media inquiry,
public
input via our respective MP's office etc. - passed into law without
discussion!) if they feel like it and want to avoid another public
uproar as
they got themselves now.
The reason they can do this is anchored in C-52's provisions to allow
any
amendments or importations of other laws as they see fit, even from
foreign
governments, exactly as C-51 also stipulated.
Secondly, C-52 has an omnibus definition of "hazardous products" like
C-51 did
with "therapeutic products", and their definition of a "hazardous
product"
includes the media. My letter to you could be defined as such a
product. Due
to this omnibus definition as the basis of the entire bill, they can
import any
other hazard, as they see fit. The current act governing hazardous
products
overlaps in many of its provisions explicitly with the current Food and
Drugs
Act, so they are within their rights to assume that the areas of
responsibility
in both C-51 and C-52 may also overlap, should either become law.
My book (out Tuesday) What Part of No! Don't They Understand? covers
both
bills. My view is that we need to take the government to court and do a
Charter
challenge on C-52 as soon as parliament resumes, so the committee
cannot
discuss it until the court has ruled. If we allow the committee
process to
start, the expert witnesses will be brought forward that the government
wants,
and the committee is stacked - mostly Liberals and Conservatives who
both
support this bill.
Why do they support this bill? Both bills are strictly intended to
serve the
purposes of NAFTA and now the SPP which require that regulation is not
only
relaxed, but harmonized so that all countries involved are the same -
industry-
friendly, which means lacking in third-party oversight and with reduced
liability. (The US just brought in a law that takes liability away from
the
consumer of implants.) This was the main reason Ireland voted no to the
EU
Constitution on June 12th. Read the SPP documents and you will see what
I
mean. Health and hazardous products are explicitly mentioned in this
and the
other treaties.
I am selling my book at $ 20 and for every copy sold $ 10 go towards a
fund to
do this Charter challenge.
The September or October article in Vitality will be about this C-52
issue.
Meanwhile, below is my letter to the Prime Minister which is the intro
to my
book. It already includes comments on Tony Clement's proposed
amendments and
deals with both bills. You may spread this far and wide.
Hi,
I am attaching an item from the UK news which you should read. The EU
Constitution was refused by the Irish on June 12th. Food and natural
health
products were the main reasons, i.e. genetically engineered stuff, the
certain
demise of their own agriculture, and the mess with natural health
products.
Had they voted yes to the EU, no less than 110,000 amendments to their
regulatory systems for all EU countries would have kicked in. These are
C-51
and C-52 writ large and our two proposed bills even take their wording
from
this treaty! Saying No has given the other 7 countries still about to
vote the
courage to speak up. Checkoslovakia stated last week at the EU summit
they
would probably vote no, as the Irish did.
The globalization guys are so anxious to get their regulatory
harmonization in
place, the UK went ahead and ratified the EU Lisbon Treaty, which got
their
Supreme Court mad and this article indicates why. The court is about to
hear a
case which demands that the UK government have their public referendum
(which
the PM there refused, shortly after he came into power - having won nd
ousted
Tony Blair because he promised this very referendum; he obviously is a
Stephen
Harper clone) and the second is an injunction against the EU
ratification until
such a referendum has been heard. I have followed this for a while.
Should a
referendum be heard, the government there knows that they will lose.
More than
80% of Brits are against the EU treaty.
We need to go to court. Fast.
