Update on Bill C-6

C-6 Faces Major Obstacle. It is now a matter of public record that Bill C-6 has significant legal obstacles to overcome. Shawn Buckley, Constitutional Lawyer, while testifying before the Social Affairs/Science/Technology Committee (25-11-09) exposed serious legislative flaws in both the wording and intent of C-6. These flaws are so far-reaching as to be beyond the scope of the Social Affairs Committee, none of whose members have any training in law. In order to avert a legislative disaster, C-6 must next be examined by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. True democracy demands it.

Mr. Buckley brought the following concerns clearly to light:
·         C-6 moves away from the Rule of Law. It allows the state to take control of private property without supervision by the courts. It allows a government department to be both police and judge.
·         Safety is not the issue. There does not have to be a safety concern for property to be seized under the Act. An inspector can walk in and effectively take control of your business and ruin you financially over regulatory violations that may have nothing to do with safety.
·         Unlimited seizures. There are no limits on the amount of property than can be seized. Seizures do not have to be reported to a court. An inspector could show up at the door of a business he does not know, find the owner non-compliant, find no safety risk other than a presumed risk for non-compliance, and seize the property right then and there.
·         Presumed guilty. You do not get to go to court. You are not presumed innocent until you are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If you do not do anything, you are just presumed guilty.
·         No defence. The Health Minister decides whether you are guilty. In a court of law, the two main defences you would have would be due diligence and honest but mistaken belief. These are taken away from you. The Minister cares only if you violated an order and not whether the order was reasonable, justified, or excessive.
·         Trespass. C-6 overrides the law of trespass. Health Canada officials can go onto your property without a warrant and without being invited, even while investigating someone else.  
·         Charter Rights. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees everyone the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
·         Property Rights. C-6 gives Health Canada inspectors enormous discretion on some very significant property rights issues.
·         Alternatives. There are ways to accomplish legitimate goals [about product safety] in a way that involves the courts and the rule of law. 
The Hazardous Products Act is an effective piece of legislation to which features can be added without changing our legal philosophical landscape  
During Mr. Buckley’s testimony, Senator Wilbert Keon remarked: “I do not know how many emails we have had saying the same thing. The question is whether this legislation does encroach on the freedom of individuals guaranteed under the Charter.” These issues strike to the very core of our form of democratic government. They need to be resolved by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
It is also a matter of public record that we, the people, object to the unlawfulness of C-6. Senators have collectively received over 100,000 letters/emails protesting the constitutional and charter irregularities inherent in C-6.
Senator Jim Munson:
“What people are saying... is that the denial of due process of law being employed in Bill C-6 is unconstitutional. An email I received says:  ‘According to the book of criminal procedure, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution Act are the supreme laws of this country and any legislation that voids our rights is “of no force or effect”. Why is our government not only passing an unconstitutional law but fast-tracking it too? How can we trust that this legislation is for the good of the nation and all its citizens when such manoeuvring is being used to pass it? This bill must not be passed. It is unconstitutional, illegal and treasonous. You, as senators, are there to protect us and not to take our rights away.’”  (21-10-09)
Senator Joseph Day (lawyer):
“This particular piece of legislation calls for increased federal government control. ... this new scheme is much more invasive and intrusive than previous legislation ... Under Bill C-6, reasonable and probable grounds for entry by an inspector would be a belief that a consumer product is manufactured or sold on the particular property. There is no need to believe that the product is dangerous or problematic. ... Inspectors do not need a warrant, or reasonable or probable grounds that something is happening. They can go over private property willy-nilly and ... not be responsible for any problems that they cause. ... Fines can be $5 million per incident ... there is no defence of honesty or having done due diligence. Those defences ... are specifically excluded.” (16-09-09)
Senator Elaine McCoy (lawyer): 
“Why would we entrust Health Canada with extraordinary powers, given its track record of failing Canadians time and time again over the last decade?  How have you demonstrated that we should trust you to exercise your discretion in a way that is reasonable when we have seen it fail to be reasonable in instance after demonstrated instance over the past decade?” (21-10-09)
Senator Tommy Banks:
“We must be careful to strive ... for the balance between the larger public right and the rights of individual Canadians and their enterprises. ... We must be sure that the public interest in the present bill does not trample on the interests of individual Canadians or of their enterprises.”  (21-10-09)
"Senators, you are at an impasse: the above legal concerns are critical both to Canadian citizens and to you, who represent us. If C-6 is passed into law without proper legal scrutiny, you run the risk of enacting legislation that is unenforceable in any court of law. No one has to comply with it. Injunctions will be issued against it. The solution is simple: send C-6 to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. The office you hold demands it. 
Background information on Bill C-5/6 ~ http://www.charterofhealthfreedom.org/index.php?/table/related-international/