Bill C-6: Restricting The
Health Freedom of Canadians
For the past decade, Canada has been on a mission to consistently
introduce bills and legislation that limit access to natural health
products and dietary supplements. Just as its predecessors, such
as the consumer protection act, Bill C-51/52, the upgraded Bill
C-6 makes the same promises to ultimately destroy health freedom
If you want something done in Canada, you do it in the winter.
If you want to prevent something from being done, you do it in
the summer. This tactic has worked for Liberals and Conservatives
alike for at least a century. Therefore, Manitobas Senator
Sharon Carstairs surprising move on June 23 to adjourn second
reading of C-6 until September could at first be understood as
summertime having arrived in Canada and that the living was easier
without debating Bills. However, knowing her thoughtful work in
the late 1990s, which made public the antiquated, inhumane
policies that dictated chronic pain management, I suspect her
decision to have C-6 discussed in the fall was based on her correct
assessment of its assault on human rights.
C-6 was tabled in the Senate on September 16. Over the summer,
determined and coordinated action by various health freedom groups
resulted in each Senator receiving at least 600 e-mails or letters
from across Canada protesting this Bill on the issue of its unconstitutionality.
Having waded through the moral and legal morass of Bills C-51
and C-52 last year, this campaign went to the very heart of the
matter: the loss of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms which
were snuck into a Bill under the guise of protecting public health.
By the time the Senators met to discuss C-6, they had read the
Bill, its legal analysis, and got an earful from Canadians. The
result: the Senators were furious.
The last time that happened, about a decade ago, a public inquiry
was the result of their outrage. They subpoenaed those now internationally
famous rogue scientists from Health Canada (Drs. Shiv
Chopra, Margret Haydon and Gerard Lambert) who had consistently
fought the governments of Prime Ministers Mulroney (Conservative)
and Chretien (Liberal) for disregarding published science and
safety requirements of the Food and Drugs Act, and for knowingly
passing into our food and pharmacies drugs that cause cancer,
liver failure, hormone disruption, systemic disease, birth defects,
and central nervous system injury. As payback for their audacity
in testifying before the Senate, those scientists were fired by
the next Prime Minister, Paul Martin (Liberal).
In 1999, bovine growth hormone and other killer drugs investigated
by that Senate inquiry were subsequently banned in Canada and
the rest of the world. But many more such scientifically and legally
insupportable or unsupported drugs are still killing and maiming
Canadians (in fact, at least 23,000 people annually) according
to the Canadian Medical Association.
Natural Health Products Under Siege
Meanwhile, the natural health products (NHP) which kill nobody
and often cure, continue to be under attack in blatantly illegal
ways -; including recent raids at gunpoint. Over the
past 6 months, the Canadian Coalition for Health Freedom has provided
to the Senate documented case histories of these assaults on natural
health product distributors. This is highly significant because
Health Canada is acting already as if C-6 was in place, and as
if consequential amendments had already been made to the Food
and Drugs Act. Passing C-6 would legalize Health Canadas
now out-of-control behaviour.
Currently, some 35,000 NHPs are still awaiting approval, unlike
the rapid approval given to every kind of liver-toxic synthetic
drug or immune-system-assaulting vaccine of unknown safety and
effectiveness. Despite the total lack of provable harm and in
blatant disregard of their effectiveness, the 70,000 natural health
products which were on the market in 2004 have now been reduced
to less than 40,000. These will be reduced by about 50-70% yet
again, starting in January 2010, because most cannot meet the
approval process designed for synthetic drugs. Why not? Because,
unlike synthetic drugs, NHPs arent toxic, but involve essential
nutrients; hence, toxicity studies required for synthetic drugs
cannot be performed. Also unlike synthetic drugs, NHPs work best
when taken together with other nutrients (i.e. synergistically),
while toxic drugs tend to deliver one major active ingredient.
Conservative Gov't Seeks Escape From Accountability
The July 2009 Weatherall Report on the recent listeria crisis
documented that Health Canada failed to provide adequate
direction [to industry] because government inspectors werent
even required to ask for listeria tests. Well -; yes, of course:
there werent enough inspectors to do the job! The Harper
government had been on a deregulation frenzy to make things really
easy for industry. This report made 57 recommendations and not
one called for new legislation. Its conclusion was that Health
Canada follow current legislation and do their jobs.
Toxic drugs, environmental poisons, and infected food have a
way of keeping scientists, doctors, and the public focused on
tried and true methods of enforcing accountability. But C-6 was
designed to go straight to the heart of the matter by trying to
outlaw all dissent, due process, and independent oversight. The
Harper government must have figured that under the subterfuge
of protecting babies and the public, they could get away with
Nice try. Trouble is, the senators were doing their due diligence,
something that is dangerous to totalitarian objectives. Senators
thankfully have the same powers as Parliament -; and
they dont get lobbied and thereby ethically challenged like
our MPs do, because Senators dont have to worry about being
re-elected. Big Pharma, Big Agri, and Big Industry have to concentrate
their lobbying resources on those with future ambitions. It is
difficult to buy somebody who has arrived for life; its
as pointless as lobbying the Queen.
Senator McCoy used the word totalitarian to describe
Bill C-6. Vitality published a detailed summary of the Bill in
its April and September issues:
- C-6 abolishes protection from trespass, a court-ordered warrant,
and the need for court-supervised search and seizure;
- it bypasses existing laws on privacy and confidentiality and
explicitly exempts the Minister of Health and government inspectors
from any kind of third-party oversight and accountability;
- the need to publish regulations governing the activities of
the inspectors is abolished, too;
- accused individuals have their access to the courts seriously
limited, even the assumption of innocence is gone;
- astronomical fines are to be handed out for crimes committed
on the Ministers assumption of guilt which requires no supporting
evidence for independent examination;
- even the corporate shield would disappear, because corporate
directors would be legally liable for the actions of their employees
-; which actions would be deemed criminal solely on the opinion
of the Minister, not by the courts;
- this bill allows foreign governments and institutions, like
CODEX and the World Trade Organization, to have the same powers
over Canadians in all these matters outlined above, as if they
were part of our own government.
Senators Respond to Bill C-6
what on earth are we imposing on the people of Canada
with this kind of totalitarian tactic that is being endorsed and
spread through this legislation into the tiniest corners of our
lives? It even gives the minister the ability to take the
word of a foreign government on which to base decisions in Canada!
Senator Elaine McCoy, during Senate Debate on Bill C-6, September
Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein, an expert in corporate and administrative
law, father of the CHUM media empire and cofounder of CityTV,
flatly stated: I was involved in the establishment of the
first Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. [This Bill
C-6] is unconstitutional.
Senator Joseph A. Day, a lawyer from New Brunswick, stated
this is much more invasive and intrusive than previous legislation
and its ideology is vastly different I am very concerned
about the constitutionality with respect to due process violation.
He was amazed that the government is moving away from
requiring a scientific basis for making an order and inspectors
can enter a business without [having to show] reasonable and probable
grounds, [that] no warrant is necessary, and they can seize any
thing and there is no definition of thing!
Senator Day was incredulous as to the very need for this assault
on basic rights: Why do we need to do away with the [current]
Hazardous Products Act and the regime that has become well-known
in the courts and in society? Why must we pass this new
piece of legislation, which is quite different [and only]
provides for increased federal government control?
In disbelief he pointed out: Guidelines will not be published
in the Canada Gazette. They will not go before the Standing Joint
Committee for the Security of Regulations because they are exempt .[clauses
3 and 9], and the minister does not have to go to the Privy Council
Office to ensure an interim order is within the rules ... This
situation is not acceptable.
Senator Day then asked: Is this where we want to go with
respect to public safety?
So the Senate tossed Bill C-6 into a serious review process involving
privacy law, plus constitutional and criminal law tests from which
this Bill may never emerge, because we may have an election that
kills all Bills on the order papers in Parliament and the Senate.
The Senate has the power to stop a Bill -; they did it six
times already -; but will only do so if they keep hearing
from many Canadians. This is not over!
Public Urged to Take Further Action
In 2008, when I was researching the origins of Bill C-51 (food
and drugs) and C-52 (hazardous products, now C-6) for my book
What Part of No! Dont They Understand? (free on www.kospublishing.com),
I was struck by the eerie similarities and frequent use of identical
wording found in these Bills introduced in the parliaments of
the EU, Australia, the USA, and Canada. Trade treaties alone could
not explain this cloning. Treaties are supposed to enable countries
with different national priorities to find common methods of exchange.
When countries with different social histories, regional priorities,
government ideologies, and saleable goods mysteriously propose
virtually identical regulatory legislation which would wipe out
all visible differences, this drastic leveling process begs the
question, Who profits?
The answer is a no-brainer: the only ones who can possibly benefit
from such legislation are those who wont make safe foods,
cant make safe drugs, get rich on toxic products, and sneer
at oversight that slows down production and sales.
Dr. Shiv Chopra has an elegant and simple solution to this mess
which arises from the fact that government and industry have for
so long colluded to perpetrate such lies that seeing them for
what they are may now make corrective action possible. According
to Dr. Chopras Five Pillars of Food Safety, and in obedience
to the current Food and Drugs Act, we must demand our natural
right for real protection from harm:
1. Remove all hormones from food production. 2. forbid the use
of all prophylactic antibiotics. 3. Stop feeding slaughterhouse
waste to food-producing animals. 4. Stop the production of all
genetically modified foods. 5. Stop the use of pesticides in food
production, agriculture, and for cosmetic purposes.
The same principles apply to all other hazardous products, which
Bill C-6 pretends to regulate but actually sets the stage for
their proliferation by removing all accountability. As for oxymoronic
Health Canada, we need the Charter of Health Freedom to become
law and let Health Canada die a natural and overdue death.