Bill C-6

[DrGreenthumb]

To all you Canadians who were worried about C51 and its effect on moving us even closer to a police state have a look at bill C-6.

This law removes the crime of trespass, allowing search and seizure with no warrants.

"if Bill C-6 passes, a precedent is set. It is completely unrealistic to assume that similar enforcement provisions and penalties would not be applied to drugs and Natural Health Products. As discussed below, Bill C-6 provides Health Canada with dramatically expanded powers to:

a. search private property without a warrant;

b. seize private property without Court supervision;

c. destroy private property without Court supervision;

d. take control of businesses without Court supervision;

e. in some circumstances to keep seized private property without a Court order;

f. impose penalties that manufacturers, distributors and retailers in the natural health community could not survive.

The real change brought about by Bill C-6 is not that it protects consumers, as the current law already grants the State significant powers to protect safety. Rather the real change is the abolition of procedural safeguards citizens currently enjoy.

Bill C-6 abolishes the law of trespass thus allowing the State access onto private property without any legal recourse.

Bill C-6 for the first time in Canadian history allows warrants to be issued to search private homes without evidence of criminal wrong doing.

Bill C-6 allows the State to seize property without a Court order, without reporting the seizure to a Court, and for an indefinite period.

Bill C-6 allows the State to assume control over the movement of private property without a Court order and without a safety concern.

The search and seizure powers in Bill C-6 are probably unconstitutional for violating the right found in section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

Persons can be fined and have property forfeited to the State for administrative violations. Persons so charged have no right to have a Court determine their guilt or innocence. Guilt is determined by the Minister. There is no defence of due diligence or of honest but mistaken belief. There does not have to be a safety risk to be charged with an administrative offence. The Minister who determines your guilt or innocence can keep seized property if he/she finds you guilty."

The above points were copied and pasted from a discussion paper written by Shawn Buckley of the NHPPA. The full discussion paper and link to a petition against bill c-6 can be found here.

http://nhppa.org/?page_id=70 or try this link http://nhppa.org/

I have a PDF of the dicussion paper if anyone would like a copy pm me your email address and I will send you a copy.

Edited February 28, 2009 by DrGreenthumb