SoccerDad

*grin*, over the top and out to lunch? You had best read C-51 thoroughly my friend...

1) There is a simple solution to these types of problems. Please read my post on page 2ish of this thread. And before you counter with "well those folks wouldn't have died if the product was not available", then by extension we should remove Tylenol from the shelves 'cause those folks didn't get was was on the label either... 2) Doesn't count, not even apples to apples 3) I read it, all 62 wonderfully wasted pages...you can bet it does!

Good post Dr. Pretty much sums my point of view as well....

Ask and you shall receive! Read closly and you'll find that "summary" version is not too far off the mark.Bill C-51

Many humble apologies!! I guess it's time for new glasses!

Thanx for the heads up!

The most dangerous consumer product Pierre Lemieux - April 14, 2008 WesternStandard.ca The Harper government has introduced two bills as part of their "Food and Consumer Safety Action Plan," which will take decision-making power away from individuals and give it to the state. It's worth stepping back and asking: who exactly is being protected - Canadian consumers or Canadian business? Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Health Minister Tony Clement have introduced two bills as part of their “Food and Consumer Safety Action Plan.” Referring to some new power the bills grant to the state, Harper declared, “We don’t actually have this now, believe it or not, beyond foods.” Believe it or not, there is some power the state doesn’t yet have! The parliamentary “opposition” was elated: “It’s ... something that we started,” said Stéphane Dion. Bill C-51 would amend the Food and Drugs Act and other laws. Bill C-52 would enact a brand new law “respecting the safety of consumer products.” Jail terms of up to five years are proposed. These bills, each 30 pages thick, are complex and, as usual, not meant to be read by the simple subject. Indeed, virtually nobody reads proposed legislation, including MPs. Everybody relies on the government’s propaganda machine for explanations. Yet, it is an obvious truth, isn’t it, that the state must protect consumers against dangerous products? Not necessarily. The first reason why the state should not protect consumers is that they are generally quite capable of protecting themselves. Not only must they be if they are deemed competent to vote, but many private institutions have incentives to help consumers. Retailers, and especially those who have brand names with high reputation values (say, The Bay or Wall Mart), spend a lot of resources selecting the goods they resell. If you look under your toaster, you will probably see the “UL” mark which certifies that the product has been tested for safety by Underwriters Laboratories, a private organization that evaluates some 20,000 types of products around the world. If a wholesaler or retailer does not undertake such steps as requiring independent certifications, he may have problems with his insurance company and — except if a lower price compensates for the higher risk — with his clientèle. The second reason is that what constitutes a dangerous product is not as obvious as it may seem. Virtually everything is dangerous to a degree. And each individual with his own preferences for risk makes his own choices — unless he is overruled by politicians and bureaucrats. The bills introduced by the Conservative government would facilitate the arbitrary designation of products as dangerous. The preamble of each bill states that “the Parliament of Canada recognizes that a lack of full scientific certainty is not to be used as a reason for postponing measures that prevent adverse effects on human health if those effects could be serious or irreversible.” This idea of bulldozing individual preferences irrespective of scientific evidence has been called the “Lalonde doctrine,” in honour of the Liberal Health Minister who formulated it in 1974. No wonder Dion is happy! Section 4(2) of Bill C-52 states, “This Act applies to tobacco products ... but only in respect of their ignition propensity.” Schedule 2 of the bill prohibits some kites as well as lawn darts “with elongated tips.” What other jokers will come out of these bills? Third, consumer protection policies have perverse consequences that make the Welfare State even more in demand. The more people believe that the state protects them against everything, the more gullible they become and the more they need their Nanny. Fourth, there are hidden interests behind the safety regulations. The bills emphasize imported goods and will, the government explains, “enable law-abiding Canadian businesses to compete on a more level playing field.” Not only is “level playing field” socialist gibberish, but it also points to the commercial interests behind the plan: domestic businesses against lower-cost foreign competitors. As the Hugo Chavez of the North, Harper admonished the "outfits" who "care more about the almighty dollar than the safety of their customers," and "wilfully expose Canadians to dangers." However, Bill C-51 explicitly excludes foods and cosmetics "manufactured in Canada solely for the purpose of being exported." Let the bad Canadian capitalists kill foreigners! Fifth, the increased consumer protection, so-called, makes the state even more powerful and, thus, protection against it even more hopeless. Food and consumer product inspectors will be among the praetorians allowed to obtain search warrants by telephone, and to "enter on or pass through or over private property." Bill C-51 creates a registry for food importers and interprovincial merchants, besides boosting other licences and authorizations. As history shows, politics is the most dangerous consumer product one can think of. We are stuck in a perverse political system where each colour of government brings its own blocks — red or blue — to the building of the Police State. If you think that "Police State" is too strong a term, replace it (for now) by "Benevolent Totalitarian State" or "Administrative State." It is possible that Tony Clement, who has shown some concern for our liberties, does not wilfully participate in this construction. But he is paid to be blind and deaf, a bit like the consumer straw man who will swallow anything. Pierre Lemieux is a professor, an economist, and author of numerous books and articles, and editor of Liberty in Canada, an online pro-liberty news source sponsored by the Canadian Constitution Foundation.

Bingo!

Hello Angus! While I will concede that my original post could have had a question mark after the fascism bit or that using the word itself may be cause for hackle raising due to it's broad definition, on the rest of your points we'll have to agree to disagree. But that's a good thing as disagreement will often breed great discussion. Hava good one, SD

Hello Friend! Only 22 posts until the first flame bait/forum trolling; not bad for a political forum! You need to tackle a wee bit of self education on the term Fascism as your previous definition is only a result, not the concept itself. And, umm, the post was made in order to get comment and discussion going which is why I posted with none initially. I'll bite, nothing like a little flame retardant for a Saturday night. Sadly, it's folks like yourself that perpetuate and fuel the behaviour of our current governing body. Comments like within the context of your entire post indicate that you are a self centered individual who is not concerned all at about anything unless it has a direct impact on you. At that point, you will prolly wail like a child and bang the drums of injustice. You obviously have no concerns for our rights and freedoms as your completely sarcastic post points out. And hey, guess what? I've never taken a natural remedy in my life...hmm, can't even say I've been to a health store. I do however, have friends and family that require these types of medications for their daily well being, and for them, and for my own personal freedom(s), I'm willing to fight legislation such as this; are you?I appreciate your comments, but will not waste any more of my time with you. Have a great evening! Be well my sad little friend, SD

So true....

Hey BuffyCat! I'm kewl with whatever works forum wise. My only concern is bringing up awareness with this evil bill.

And of course, where are the opposition parties?

If our government were truly interested in crafting some effective regulation that is in the best interest of the folks to whom they are supposed to be beholden and whom pay their salaries, it would be something like this: 1) The contents of the container are exactly as laid out on the label. 2) The contents of the container are of pre-defined acceptable quality. 3) Any claims made by the manufacturer must be backed up by independent study. 4) There are penalties in place for not adhering to 1 & 2 & 3. The responsibility for proper consumption should be placed back on the consumer. There is too much "passing of the buck" when it comes to personal responsibility. Google would provide a great starting point for folks looking to get information on herbal remedies. There, plain and simple. This bill is so insane, there can only be two motivations IMHO: 1) Canada is now truly run by the corporate complex 2) They want to use this as an election trigger SIDE NOTE: Tony Clement is a 1/4 quarter equity holder in a major pharma company (whose name is escaping me at the moment sadly)...can you say conflict of interest?!?

If our government were truly interested in crafting some effective regulation that is in the best interest of the folks to whom they are supposed to be beholden and whom pay their salaries, it would be something like this: 1) The contents of the container are exactly as laid out on the label. 2) The contents of the container are of pre-defined acceptable quality. 3) Any claims made by the manufacturer must be backed up by independent study. 4) There are penalties in place for not adhering to 1 & 2 & 3. The responsibility for proper consumption should be placed back on the consumer. There is too much "passing of the buck" when it comes to personal responsibility. Google would provide a great starting point for folks looking to get information on herbal remedies. There, plain and simple. This bill is so insane, there can only be two motivations IMHO: 1) Canada is now truly run by the corporate complex 2) They want to use this as an election trigger SIDE NOTE: Tony Clement is a 1/4 quarter equity holder in a major pharma company (whose name is escaping me at the moment sadly)...can you say conflict of interest?!?

<sarcasm>And it keeps getting better</sarcasm> Tories kill Information registry used to hold government accountable May 02, 2008 Dean Beeby, THE CANADIAN PRESS The Canadian Press, 2008 OTTAWA - The federal Conservatives have quietly killed a giant information registry that was used by lawyers, academics, journalists and ordinary citizens to hold government accountable. The registry, created in 1989, is an electronic list of every request filed to all federal departments and agencies under the Access to Information Act. Known as CAIRS, for Co-ordination of Access to Information Requests System, the database allowed ordinary citizens to identify millions of pages of once-secret documents that became public through individual freedom-of-information requests over many years. But in a notice last week to civil servants on the Treasury Board website, officials posted an innocuous obituary: effective April 1, 2008, "the requirement to update CAIRS is no longer in effect." A spokesman for Treasury Board confirmed Friday that the system is being killed because "extensive" consultations showed it was not valued by government departments. The consultations concluded "the valuable resources currently being used to maintain CAIRS would be better used in the collection and analysis of improved statistical reporting," said Robert Makichuk. Public Works, which has operated the database, spent $166,000 improving it in 2001. As recently as 2003 federal officials had been working on a publicly accessible, online version. Monthly paper lists have also been made available since the 1990s for public consultation at a central federal office in Ottawa. In the meantime, a Canadian academic put the database on his website and opened it to public use, allowing citizens to quickly search thousands of requests for key words. Alasdair Roberts, a political scientist at Syracuse University in New York, built a version of the database by requesting the CAIRS electronic records through an Access to Information Act request, and updated the site monthly. CBC journalist David McKie took over the work in 2006 using another publicly accessible website (http://www.onlinedemocracy.ca). Users searching key words cannot access the documents themselves, only the wording of the original access-to-information request, the date, the department, a file number, and general information about the requester, whether media, business, academic or other. But by citing that file number, a citizen can approach the appropriate department and request copies of the already released documents. CAIRS was originally designed as an internal government tool to manage the flow of often embarrassing information. Particularly sensitive requests from news media or opposition politicians would often be red-flagged for special handling that frequently delayed release. But requesters soon began to mine the database to discover obscure documents, fine-tune the phrasing on new requests, and even to do statistical studies - effectively turning the tool against government. If departments and agencies are no longer required to update the CAIRS database with new requests, its value as an accountability tool will quickly diminish, critics said. "This is terrible and I consider this to be yet one more step in making records less accessible," said Michel Drapeau, a lawyer, frequent user and co-author of a standard reference work on access law. "To do this now after the CAIRS' usefulness has been proven over and over again is indicative of the extent to which government will go to stifle the access regime." New Democrat MP Dawn Black, whose office uses the database regularly, condemned the Tories for shutting down the system. "It's another example of the Harper government's talk about accountability and transparency - they talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk." The Conservative government has a mixed record in the area of freedom of information. The Federal Accountability Act broadened the access legislation to cover new entities, such as the CBC, Via Rail, Canada Post and even the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, who's the ombudsman for the system. At the same time, long delays for responses, along with heavy censorship of documents, have become endemic. The number of complaints received by the information commissioner in 2007-2008, for example, soared to 2,387 - more than 1,000 higher than the previous year. The level is the second-highest on record, next to the 2,821 received in 1988 - 2,242 of those from a single complainant.

Greetings to my fellow Canadians. It's sad that my first post has to be about a very nasty topic, however, we need to spread the word! Canadian Rights and Freedoms are at Risk An Important Notice Regarding Bill C-51 On April 8th, 2008, the Canadian Minister of Health introduced Bill C-51 into the House of Commons. This Bill proposes significant changes to the current Food and Drugs Act that will have wide-ranging negative implications for Canadians. Bill C-51 will: · Remove democratic oversight, bypassing elected officials to vote in laws and allow bureaucrats to adopt laws from other countries without our consent. · Remove more than 70% of Natural Health Products from Canadians and many others will be available by prescription only. · Restrict research and development of safe natural alternatives in favor of high risk drugs. · Punish Canadians with little or no opportunity for protection or recourse for simply speaking about or giving a natural product without the approval of government. More than 70% of people in Canada use a Natural Health Product. The new law goes so far as to warrant action against a person who would give another person an unapproved amount of garlic on the recommendation that it would improve that persons health. When C-51 becomes law government agents will be able to: · Enter private property without a warrant · Take your property at their discretion · Dispose of your property at will · Not reimburse you for your losses · Seize your bank accounts without a warrent · charge owners shipping and storage charges for seized property · store your property indefinitely · levy fines of up to $5,000,000.00 and/or seek 2 years in jail per charge With your assets and money under their control will you be able to defend yourself in Court? Can you trust government with this new law and enforcement power? Would our government really ever turn this law against us? Read the following account. Example In 2003 Health Canada launched an attack on a group of mentally ill patients and the company who supported them naturally. They seized shipments of a safe natural therapy required by the patients and stormed the support center with 17 armed officers and agents. The company (Truehope) reported that they lost contact with more than 300 of their Canadian participants. The Canadian Mental Health Association told of suicides as a result of government action. Health Canada then charged the not for profit company, burdening them with heavy legal costs. Health Canada lost this case. Although the agents admitted knowing they were injuring people through their actions, they continued to enforce policy at the cost of life. And what happened to the more than 300 mentally ill Canadians that became unreachable? In the months and years following, reports of hospitalizations and suicides during the seizures have surfaced. No Health Canada agent has ever been charged. · Will this new law be used to abuse and punish special interest groups, minorities, religious groups or others? · Why do bureaucrats want to bypass the Parliament and Senates approval to create new laws? · Why do bureaucrats want seizure warrants without judge approval ? · With fines being increased a 1000 times, and seizing authority without a warrant, is Bill C-51 meant to bankrupt and silence its target audience? Here's what you can do to protect your rights: Educate Yourself · Go to http://www.stopc51.com/ · Read a legal discussion on Bill C-51 · Read bill C-51 on http://www.parl.gc.ca Tell others about it · Talk to your local Press · Contact your local MP Click Here · Ask the leaders in your community to get involved · Contact your MLA · Tell your Friends Get involved · Print off this fact sheet and hand it out in your neighborhood. · Attend our rally at the Calgary Federal Court on May 9th 2008. Call 1-888-878-3467 for Details Federal Court Rally Information Where: 635 8 Ave SW, Calgary, AB, Canada Federal Court When: 11:45 AM Friday May 9th This is a peaceful rally, after which a hearing will be held asking the judge to place restraints on our governments ability to seize property without a warrant. Taking place on the 4th floor at 1:00pm. Forward this email to all of your concerned friends, family and community leaders.