Bill C-51

[M.Dancer]

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!

but for somereason known only to you you are unable to actually back up what you say....

[M.Dancer]

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

I am waiting for you to reference your claims. As it, is they stand as ill informed opinions based on nothing. Without a citation most of us will put it down to you eating a bad mushroom.

[Drea]

I harvest and manufacture my product right here in Canada. My small home-based plant is inspected by the province and governed by CFIA rules. The new rules will now require me to shell out many tens of thousands of dollars in new inspection, registration, licencing, testing and labelling costs etc etc. I simply can't afford this and am being forced out of business as a result. These new rules are crippling thousands of other small home-based business' across North America many which also prepare their products from materials right here.

Even more "natural" home remedies will be coming from China soon. They should rightly be called un-natural corporate remedies because that is what this is all about, shifting production away from small business to large and these days that means...China . This legislation will only help China.

You've been duped into feeling shocked and great about the wrong things for the wrong reasons.

This is a travesty for consumers and small businesses!

Eyeball, I currently take a calcium/magnesium natural supplement. Friend of mine takes kelp (capsules).

We buy from a Canadian source. I would stop taking it if I had to buy otherwise.

"Conventional" medicine (pharma chemicals) do not work. Our bodies need natural herbs, vitamins and minerals to survive. Chemicals are a lousy substitute. A while back my doctor told me I had arthritis (sore wrists) and prescribed a medication that made me drowsy. Great. I went to a chiropractor and now I have no hand pain. Doctors are paid (wooed mostly) by big pharma to push their chemical cures, which at best, mask symptoms (or cause side effects). I haven't been to a gp for more than three years and have no need. My chiro and natureopath keep me healthy.

MDancer, do you think that eyball here (who already has a proven, tested and government approved product) should have to close because of this bill?

Edited May 7, 2008 by Drea

[eyeball]

QUOTE(Argus @ May 6 2008, 12:50 PM)

What would you suggest as an alternative? Let anyone market whatever they want under whatever label they want, without regard to truth of claims or even whether the right drugs or chemicals are in the pills? Much of our Vitamin C now comes from China. Vitamins, dietary suppliments, "herbal remedies". When granny takes her fiber pills is it really fiber or is it the scrapings of some factory floor in China? Do we not need someone to be able to tell what it is people are ingesting?

exactly.

How do we know eyeball is not doing the same thing?

There needs to be standards in this area and it is a way overdue. Sorry if I say screw the 'small businessman' on this one in the interests of not having another pet food fiasco with humans.

Its a fair question. My response would be that I'm subject to surprise inspections of my plant, such as a fish plant would be. My product is also subject to being sampled by CFIA who could just take a package off a shelf and test it without my knowing. If I put dried leaves in a bag and call it a vegetable and recommend a serving size of 5 grams there's no problem at all. If I produce a powdered extract of the same thing and put it into a capsule however, it suddenly becomes a drug. If I say take two a day I've now prescribed something and I have to justify why with studies and tests, labelling and DIN registration and on and on it goes. Its not enough to test something once, I'd have to test each batch. That's fine if a batch numbers in the millions of capsules but not thousands. I'm already competing against product from developing countries and have to add as much value as I can to what I sell, now I also have to compete with big pharmacuetical companies. I'm pretty much screwed because its just too marginal. I suppose I could make it work if I could hire people to work for $10 a day or if I just stuffed any old thing I scraped off the floor into my capsules but that just wouldn't be me.

I can see the need for protection from herbs and remedies that are known to be toxic but for the most part this is exactly the type of red-tape that politicians are famous for saying they'll cut. OTOH its also the type of red-tape I'd expect from a government that had been lobbied by large corporations seeking to dominate every corner of every niche they can.

[Argus]

Again, I do not need protection from inanimate objects like foods, vitamins, supplements or drugs from your Harper-Daddy. I can damn well decide for myself what products I will choose to buy and how I will freakin use them.

You have a chemical lab in your basement? Actually, knowing you, you might have.

But most people don't, and I think when mothers give vitamens and suppliments to their kids they'd kind of like some reassurance they actually are what the label says they are.

[White Doors]

I understand were you are coming from but have you ever heard of the company "Jamesion"? Check them out on the net, its a Canadian company for many years located in Windsor On. I always buy Canadians first and and I also checked them and their products out first before using and they are a good company.

Yes, it's a big name in the vitamin game. So?

[White Doors]

Again, I do not need protection from inanimate objects like foods, vitamins, supplements or drugs from your Harper-Daddy. I can damn well decide for myself what products I will choose to buy and how I will freakin use them.

What are you so afraid of? People have existed for thousands of years on this planet without these kind of fascist laws, and survived just fine. This law makes it illegal to gather herbs for one's own use. This violates every human being's natural right to ALL THE PLANTS THAT GROW ON THIS EARTH! This makes me so angry I could spit! Who do these conservative arseholes think they are? What right do they think they have to control every aspect of our friggin lives including what we may eat? Free country? Yeah whatever. Just don't ask me to go to your wars to defend my "freedom". assholes.

You need to calm down. There are 'vitamins' for that.

What this does is close health and safety loopholes for 'vitamin' suppliers. They are now going to be more regulated like medicines. As they should be. You think medicines should be unregulated? Companies should be able to out codein in children's medicine? Get off your high horse (pardon the pun) and use your noggin.

This isn't the same world it was hundreds of years ago. Hundreds of years ago the elder woman in alot of societies picked their herbs for the tribe and boiled them up. They knew what aspirin was before Bayer did even though they had no idea what it was or how it worked, it worked. Their tribe trusted this elder and in times other than when they burned them as witches, this system worked fine. Once tribes began to trade with one another though, tribes would engage in warfare and it was not advantageous to take the 'medicine' of the rival's elder, for obvious reasons. This is a small example, for your small noggin, of why we need this legislation.

It has nothing to do with your weed.

NO ONE HERE CARES ABOUT YOUR WEED PROBLEM

Edited May 7, 2008 by White Doors

[White Doors]

Its a fair question. My response would be that I'm subject to surprise inspections of my plant, such as a fish plant would be. My product is also subject to being sampled by CFIA who could just take a package off a shelf and test it without my knowing. If I put dried leaves in a bag and call it a vegetable and recommend a serving size of 5 grams there's no problem at all. If I produce a powdered extract of the same thing and put it into a capsule however, it suddenly becomes a drug. If I say take two a day I've now prescribed something and I have to justify why with studies and tests, labelling and DIN registration and on and on it goes. Its not enough to test something once, I'd have to test each batch. That's fine if a batch numbers in the millions of capsules but not thousands. I'm already competing against product from developing countries and have to add as much value as I can to what I sell, now I also have to compete with big pharmacuetical companies. I'm pretty much screwed because its just too marginal. I suppose I could make it work if I could hire people to work for $10 a day or if I just stuffed any old thing I scraped off the floor into my capsules but that just wouldn't be me.

I can see the need for protection from herbs and remedies that are known to be toxic but for the most part this is exactly the type of red-tape that politicians are famous for saying they'll cut. OTOH its also the type of red-tape I'd expect from a government that had been lobbied by large corporations seeking to dominate every corner of every niche they can.

Hey eyeball

Sorry, I grew up in a small business family, I can sympathise with you.

However you will need to differentiate yourself from your competition, but I absolutely agree that you need to comply with the new legislation. We need to know what it is we are putting in our bodies and as consumers we have the right to know if what is sold to us is safe. And I'm sorry, but that right overrides yours in this instance.

Good luck.

[mikedavid00]

But most people don't, and I think when mothers give vitamens and suppliments to their kids they'd kind of like some reassurance they actually are what the label says they are.

Then independant private companies can put their stamp of approval and testing on products for consumption or people will be hesestant to eat it. (and the results more accurate and safe most likely).

I say, keep the gov't OUT and let the private market work that out. Get rid of Ag-Can. These massive, Canada wide gov't departments are killing us... to fund people who work half days and surf the web making $70k a year while truly skilled people are making $35k and barely being able to live.

(I had to friends at Ag Can at Dow's lake.. the offices and landscape is amazing. Ag Can is the best gov't dept. to work at IMO).

Let's get rid of it all together.

[mikedavid00]

While I certainly understand the need for standards, doing it this way brings nothing but harm for most and great profit for few.

I completely agree.

I feel the gov't should step out of the business all together and have absolutely no licenses available amd completely butt out of this insustry entirely and we should eliminate this dept.

What people put in their body is their choice, as long as it doesn't have the potential of effecting me.

The gov't needs to get out of the food and drug industry.

[Pliny]

Pierre Lemieux called Harper - the Hugo Chavez of the north.

I find it odd that the representatives of the left here on this forum are not applauding this health safety issue as being imperative to Canadians. Harper being characterized as the Hugo Chavez of the north? Shouldn't the likes of Topaz and Margrace be criticizing the conservatives for simply trying to win their vote. Isn't this just political posturing on the part of the Conservatives to appear more "Liberal"?

I agree with Mr. Lemieux in his article but I wouldn't go so far as to characterize Harper as the Hugo Chavez of the north. At least not until he nationalizes the oil industry and starts on a five year plan for the collectivization of farm land.

My analysis of Bill C51. is that it is in keeping with the general direction of western governments moving toward the totalitarian socialist state. Most here, that have read my posts are more or less aware of the fact that I do not believe the State necessary to save us from ourselves.

I wonder if the representatives of the right wing point of view support this Bill because it has been presented by the Conservatives?

Is it any wonder that the Conservative party and the Liberal party seem like the same entity? Conservatives will support Liberal issues if presented by the Conservatives and Liberals will support conservative issues if presented by the Liberals.

The Codex Alimentarius is in effect in Europe. I know there was resistance to it's implementation but I haven't heard how they are coping with it. Perhaps someone can add some info on that. Bill C51 seems like a stepping stone to adopting the Codex Alimentarius if it isn't the same thing.

The reason that the KFC is still open after someone got sick from eating there is because it is licensed and regulated by the government. If it weren't licensed and regulated by the government and someone would have gotten sick eating there it would be a page in history now. There would be no more KFC restaurants anywhere. No one would eat there knowing someone fell ill at one of their outlets. Since it is regulated and licensed by the government people continue to eat there because they feel safe and protected. Did you ever wonder why people still eat there? If you got sick there many of your friends were perhaps off it for awhile perhaps but it is safe again because they are licensed and regulated.

All in all Bill C51 is not healthy legislation in my view. It is the direction world governments are going in however.

The Liberals would have presented the Bill as well, in my opinion. I am not certain but suspect a heavy lobbying interest from the pharmaceutical companies is the push behind this Bill. It is a special interest and isn't really concerned who is in power as long as they support their special interest. Both parties would be lobbied and since politicians have no sense of what is right and what is wrong until they are "informed" by professional people with all the correct scientific information I don't particularly blame them except for stupidity - which is often obfuscated by conspiracy theories leaving the apparency of their intelligence remaining intact and often even considered crafty intelligence.

Well, got work to do. Gotta go! Have a glorious day!

[Pliny]

Just as an addendum to my previous post regarding the similarity of the Liberals and the Conservatives and how no matter how much things change they remain the same. We see this phenomenon in Canada, the US and all western democracies actually.

What exists in most western democracies are "special interests". They lobby government to enact legislation that they would like to see enacted. If it is a policy that the Liberals are more likely to support they will in times of elections lobby the electorate to vote Liberal. If the Conservatives win they have to re-package their legislation from a conservative perspective, or continue to lobby the opposition and present their case. Either way the only constant is a "special interest".

No party caters to the uninterested, politically apathetic crowd unless they feel getting them off their butts would make a difference. The uninterested, politically apathetic are a majority in Canada. They don't hold any special interests that will motivate them to go and vote let alone educate themselves on issues.

Look how long public healthcare has been benig lobbied for in the US. The Republicans aren't for it and the Democrats don't necessarily think it is a great idea either. The Democrats would have been swept into office without hesitation if Canadians had the vote down there. Why are Americans so different? They have a bit more of an aversion to big government than Canadians. But they too have special interests lobbying government.

If a special interest group gets the attention of the public and the public looks like it will swing an election the special interest gets special consideration from all parties.

What really happens is special interests create bigger government and the bigger it is the less it changes when parties change roles from Government to opposition.

Had some more time so thought I would add that opinion.

[truth-now]

It has nothing to do with your weed.

NO ONE HERE CARES ABOUT YOUR WEED PROBLEM

1) It has everything to do with the weed scenario. Unjustifiable banning of substances should ITSELF be banned. Sure, if there are impurities and toxic materials identified then certain penalties and notices could be ordered, in order to maintain purity, transparency and consumer protection. But they need to be measured and case-specific in application. Banning an entire classification of supplement across the board because ONE underregulated manufacturer included certain ingredients which they shouldn't have, is too extreme. Scientific studies could ascertain safer and more pure forms of the supplements/treatments/remedies in question.

2) Many MILLIONS of Canadians DO care about the weed issue, as they are (peaceful, responsible) users. In fact, the vast majority of Canadians, in every recent poll, either approve of cannabis decriminalization or outright legalization.

Edited May 8, 2008 by truth-now

[truth-now]

Just as an addendum to my previous post regarding the similarity of the Liberals and the Conservatives and how no matter how much things change they remain the same. We see this phenomenon in Canada, the US and all western democracies actually.

Canada would be better off if the NDP and Greens could provide a counterbalance to the 2-party monopoly of Neo-Lib/Neo-Con dinosaurs. US citizens don't really have an alternative to their 2-party monopoly, but Canadians DO, so we should excercise it.

All Canadians have to do is vote NDP or Green. Flip a coin even, heads=NDP / tails=Green. A strong opposition is important, and to date, Harper & Dion have had a disproportionate share of power, which they use in order to move forth similar agendas. Dion never seems to be principally opposed to anything the Neo-Cons do.

Here is more data to consider...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_polit...the_Netherlands

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_polit...ties_in_Finland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_polit...ties_in_Ireland

Ireland looks interesting... they have quite a diverse set of politics happening over there, and it has turned their country around...

http://www.politicalcompass.org/ireland

[truth-now]

My analysis of Bill C51. is that it is in keeping with the general direction of western governments moving toward the totalitarian socialist state.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2005

Totalitarian (AUTHORITARIAN) ? YES. But not socialist. If you have governments which consistently cut taxes on the rich and corporations, you are moving towards a more capitalist model. If you, as a millionaire, have to pay more than 50% income tax, and that is used to extensively benefit the poor with an adequate living wage, then sure, you've crossed the line into a system which is predominantly socialist, but still not pure socialist.

But the wealthiest Canadians do NOT pay over 50% taxes, and welfare rates aren't enough to keep anyone alive (at 600$/mo.), and we have increased child poverty rates in Canada, increased homelessness and record profits for corporations.

To look at Harper and Dion, and see a left-winger, one would have to be at the extreme right-wing laissez-faire capitalist fringe.

Edited May 8, 2008 by truth-now

[White Doors]

1) It has everything to do with the weed scenario. Unjustifiable banning of substances should ITSELF be banned. Sure, if there are impurities and toxic materials identified then certain penalties and notices could be ordered, in order to maintain purity, transparency and consumer protection. But they need to be measured and case-specific in application. Banning an entire classification of supplement across the board because ONE underregulated manufacturer included certain ingredients which they shouldn't have, is too extreme. Scientific studies could ascertain safer and more pure forms of the supplements/treatments/remedies in question.

2) Many MILLIONS of Canadians DO care about the weed issue, as they are (peaceful, responsible) users. In fact, the vast majority of Canadians, in every recent poll, either approve of cannabis decriminalization or outright legalization.

And what, exactly, does Marijuana have to do with this Bill?

thank you.

[Fain]

Yeah odd eh?

Used to be that conservatives stood for small government and NO nanny state.

Amazing what fear politics combined with some good old fashioned redneckedness does eh?

pffft

At least our taxes are lower and some old liberal programs are still in place.

[Fain]

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

Bill C-51

LOL, there we go.

I voted for the conservatives but i don't like this bill. Still i'm happy with the 2% GST cut so i think stick with them

[Pliny]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2005

Totalitarian (AUTHORITARIAN) ? YES. But not socialist. If you have governments which consistently cut taxes on the rich and corporations, you are moving towards a more capitalist model. If you, as a millionaire, have to pay more than 50% income tax, and that is used to extensively benefit the poor with an adequate living wage, then sure, you've crossed the line into a system which is predominantly socialist, but still not pure socialist.

But the wealthiest Canadians do NOT pay over 50% taxes, and welfare rates aren't enough to keep anyone alive (at 600$/mo.), and we have increased child poverty rates in Canada, increased homelessness and record profits for corporations.

To look at Harper and Dion, and see a left-winger, one would have to be at the extreme right-wing laissez-faire capitalist fringe.

I'm sorry you would have to define what you mean by socialist. Socialism, in my view is an evolutionary process toward the totalitarian state. While differentiation can be made regarding ideology, such as between the extreme right fascist-syndicalist or Nazi type of totalitarianism and the extreme left revolutionary communist type of totalitarianism, the goal of all socialism is similarly totalitarianism.

I think it a mistake to think of socialism only in terms of it being totalitarian, or "pure" as you call it. A "predominantly" socialist system is just one that is closer to the end goal of totalitarianism or "being pure".

Now let's not confuse laissez-faire with extreme right-wing. The only thing extreme about your claim of there existing an "extreme right wing laissez-faire capitalist fringe" is in it's oxymoronic content. Right wing extremism has nothing to do with laissez faire capitalism. Fascism and Nazism do indeed have corporatist elements in it's ideology but they are no less dictatorial than any politburo. Economic domination of society is also a part of all socialist ideologies and have nothing to do with laissez faire capitalism.

If you have governments which consistently cut taxes on the rich and corporations, you are moving towards a more capitalist model.

The policy of cutting taxes in and of itself is not a move toward a more capitalist system. It is a governmental economic regulatory tool, often abused by government as a form of vote buying. Unless a tax cut is accompanied with at least equal cuts in government spending and bureaucracy it is not a move toward capitalism. Your complaint is with government corporatism, that is to say, socialism, not capitalism.

The political scene becomes a very complicated tangle, which I believe is intentional, when viewed from current political theory. I think the lay person, the average citizen, need only understand that government either gets bigger or it gets smaller and to heck with left, right, as someone termed it, socred, I believe, "false dialectics". I would have called it an artificially contrived dialectic for the purpose of creating political complexity and erudition.

A whole science has been created out of that "dialectic".

We should call extreme left and right wing ideologies just different factions vying for control of the centralized power of the totalitarian state. They will be adversarial but they are not by any means opposites, They could conceivably be, and in actuality are, looked at as a dialectic.

Gotta go! It's another glorious day!

[truthwins]

And what, exactly, does Marijuana have to do with this Bill?

thank you.

Hypocritical banishment according to the mainstream, corporate monopolizing standard.

[truthwins]

I'm sorry you would have to define what you mean by socialist. Socialism, in my view is an evolutionary process toward the totalitarian state. While differentiation can be made regarding ideology, such as between the extreme right fascist-syndicalist or Nazi type of totalitarianism and the extreme left revolutionary communist type of totalitarianism, the goal of all socialism is similarly totalitarianism.

I think it a mistake to think of socialism only in terms of it being totalitarian, or "pure" as you call it. A "predominantly" socialist system is just one that is closer to the end goal of totalitarianism or "being pure".

Now let's not confuse laissez-faire with extreme right-wing. The only thing extreme about your claim of there existing an "extreme right wing laissez-faire capitalist fringe" is in it's oxymoronic content. Right wing extremism has nothing to do with laissez faire capitalism. Fascism and Nazism do indeed have corporatist elements in it's ideology but they are no less dictatorial than any politburo. Economic domination of society is also a part of all socialist ideologies and have nothing to do with laissez faire capitalism.

The policy of cutting taxes in and of itself is not a move toward a more capitalist system. It is a governmental economic regulatory tool, often abused by government as a form of vote buying. Unless a tax cut is accompanied with at least equal cuts in government spending and bureaucracy it is not a move toward capitalism. Your complaint is with government corporatism, that is to say, socialism, not capitalism.

The political scene becomes a very complicated tangle, which I believe is intentional, when viewed from current political theory. I think the lay person, the average citizen, need only understand that government either gets bigger or it gets smaller and to heck with left, right, as someone termed it, socred, I believe, "false dialectics". I would have called it an artificially contrived dialectic for the purpose of creating political complexity and erudition.

A whole science has been created out of that "dialectic".

We should call extreme left and right wing ideologies just different factions vying for control of the centralized power of the totalitarian state. They will be adversarial but they are not by any means opposites, They could conceivably be, and in actuality are, looked at as a dialectic.

Gotta go! It's another glorious day!

2008 Oslo Norway vs. 1980 Moscow USSR ... see the principled difference ? The former is free, democratic, non-corrupt, peaceful and prosperous, because it stops at the semi-socialist point and goes no further, the people have 8 parties to choose from and they simply vote center-right if the system goes left of the center-left point. That's what social-DEMOCRACY is.

...too bad us North Americans can't operate in the middle or even understand and acknowledge it, it's between the 2 extremes.

On a strictly economic policy based left-right spectrum, laissez-faire capitalism is the farthest right point, in strictly economic terms.

That's why politicalcompass.org places foreign & social policies top-bottom on the authoritarian-libertarian scale... it's more of a clear policy aspect distinction.

[scribblet]

I'm not sure that I care for the bill either, but I think it has to do with quality control and requiring that importers of natural medicines prove that what they say is in the package actually is, and in the amounts advertised, and free from contaminants. Considering what is happening with some of food products these days, maybe it really is necessary.

[margrace]

In an article in the Globe and Mail yesterday they were taking about the Foods that are packaged and Labelled in Canada and saying Made in Canada. One persons response to that article was as follows:

A person for Canada Writes,

Mushrooms! The story Made in Canada left out the story of mushrooms. No mushroom farmer in Canada can compete with the Chinese Bulk mushrooms that are canned in Vancouver, thus 51% Canadian.

Mushrooms are grown in human manure. You can't really wash mushrooms - just pick off the lumps, try Googling " Fecal matter in mushrooms". There are special lab test but any time spent with you kids microscope looking at the ecosystem in that can of mushrooms will leave you barfing. How much food can be in food before we reject it - especially when it wasn't pooped in Canada?

Remember the dog and cat food.

Edited May 9, 2008 by margrace

[M.Dancer]

Mushrooms are grown in human manure.

Maybe in China....not in north america. They are grown in muchroom compost which is mainly straw and dried chicken poop.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... How much food can be in food before we reject it - especially when it wasn't pooped in Canada?

How much "food" in "food"? Perhaps you meant "poop" in "food". Anyway, I applaud such strong nationalist and patriotic sentiments.....Canadian "poop" is better than icky Chinese "poop"...right?

Remember the dog and cat food.

Yes....it was a Canadian pet food company!