kuzadd Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 (edited) I thought the Conservatives ran on small government, and all that baloney. Government that stay out of your business, no nanny state etc., etc., Ah, political propoganda, you gotta ignore it. Anyway.... remember bill c #51 and C # 52, it's back, as Bill C #6 Yup the Tories, renamed it and reintroduced it and it passed in the house of commons. I guess no one read the bill. It is in the Senate now. bill c-6 My personal favourite is this the definition of government as defined by the bill “government” means any of the following or their institutions: (a) the federal government; (a corporation named in Schedule III to the Financial Administration Act; © a provincial government or a public body established under an Act of the legislature of a province; (d) an aboriginal government as defined in subsection 13(3) of the Access to Information Act; (e) a government of a foreign state or of a subdivision of a foreign state; or (f) an international organization of states. So anywhere in that bill you read the government can arrest you, incarcerate you, fine you, search your home, think of what defines government in this bill A corporation ?- Blackwater? Dyncorp who? A foreign government?- Maybe Mexico? An International organization of States ?- That must be the UN? Why would the Tories include this in their bill? Have they taken big brother to the next level, and made all Canadians subjects of foreign governments and the UN?? And corporations? I like this part too, in the preamble "Whereas 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;" So they can take 'measures' allegedly to prevent adverse effects, even when there is a LACK OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE?? So what are they going to take action on? Hunches? Lucky Guesses? The say so of big pharmaceutical corporations? Well ya know, Wyeth says the herbal remedy is bad and that is good enough under Bill C-6. NO scientific evidence necessary. get out your crystal balls. The Tories have taken tyranny to the next level. so much for all their bogus claims. I hope all my fellow Canadians enjoy the fact that all those governments have jurisdiction over your life. Especially the Conservative supporters. Edited September 16, 2009 by kuzadd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Your link is worthless Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzadd Posted September 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 here is a constitutional lawyer talking on Bill C-6 take about 20 minutes to watch the 2 parts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Canadians are so busy with their jobs and families that a lot of them don't pay attention what is going on until something big happens and its to late and being tired of politicans makes it easier for the politicans to pass bills in the Commons. IF the NAU is too happen down the road then we have to have similar laws in everything and we are starting to give up our liberties just like the US. For those who think its a lot of "tinfoil" fine, but you'll probably be the first to scream at the government when there's no doubt what is happening down the road. BTW, there are people who can't use the "man-made" drugs and depend on the naturals. Its the big drug companies lobbying the govt to do its dirty work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 You can sign the petition against this Bill and I think it should be voted down. Why do you think this is a conservative initiative, kuzadd? I agree with you that Conservativism has seemingly abandoned the idea of small government. Is it perhaps because Liberals demand big government and it seems to have been effective in getting them elected in the past? Do you think they have become a little Liberal, maybe? Yes, conservatives have become progressive. Harper has only somewhat stemmed the tide of progressivism somewhat in certain areas. He still does stupid political things. I believe that there is a global initiative behind this bill. It is a foot in the door for the Codex Alimentarius, which is already established in Europe. It is being pushed by the UN. Do we lose sovereignty? Yes, I believe so. But isn't it teachers that inform their students that patriotism is wrong and health care is a right? Government run health care will determine the delivery of health care. Liberals agree the government should run health care. If it doesn't run it the way you like then too bad - they know better than you. They have experts and authorities that tell them your view is not important - Liberal or Conservative. When you vote for big government or redistribution of wealth or entitlements or privileges then prepare to be heavily governed, have your wealth redistributed, and pay for entitlements and privileges that others demand. I guess I am not Conservative as I am against big government. This Bill especially needs to die. Why are Liberals, I assume you are one, the proponents of big government, against this Bill? Is it just because Conservatives are presenting it? Would you approve of it if Liberals brought it forward? And you can't deny they wouldn't! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 the definition of government as defined by the billI only found this:"Finally, the definition of “government” in this bill encompasses not only federal and provincial governments in Canada, but also federal Crown corporations, Aboriginal governments in Canada, foreign governments, and international organizations of states, such as the United Nations."Absolutely nothing about private corporations.The rest of the text clearly specifies that the powers of the bill are reserved for the 'federal government' and not governments in general. The general term 'government' is used when making statement like 'product recalls ordered by governments' which is perfectly reasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Canadians are so busy with their jobs and families that a lot of them don't pay attention what is going on until something big happens and its to late and being tired of politicans makes it easier for the politicans to pass bills in the Commons. IF the NAU is too happen down the road then we have to have similar laws in everything and we are starting to give up our liberties just like the US. For those who think its a lot of "tinfoil" fine, but you'll probably be the first to scream at the government when there's no doubt what is happening down the road. BTW, there are people who can't use the "man-made" drugs and depend on the naturals. Its the big drug companies lobbying the govt to do its dirty work. Canadians should be busy with their jobs and families and not have to worry about what is going on politically. But drug companies are lobbying for privilege just like the citizens vote for theirs. It makes for big government. Is it getting too big for you? The one thing about wanting big government is it eventually grants privilege to people you disagree with and soon you are irrelevant. Something Liberals don't seem to get when they demand government do something and in order to deliver it gets bigger. It isn't a matter of left and right when government is big it does what it wants and you may agree with it or you may feel your irrelevance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzadd Posted September 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 You can sign the petition against this Bill and I think it should be voted down.Why do you think this is a conservative initiative, kuzadd? I agree with you that Conservativism has seemingly abandoned the idea of small government. Is it perhaps because Liberals demand big government and it seems to have been effective in getting them elected in the past? Do you think they have become a little Liberal, maybe? Yes, conservatives have become progressive. Harper has only somewhat stemmed the tide of progressivism somewhat in certain areas. He still does stupid political things. I believe that there is a global initiative behind this bill. It is a foot in the door for the Codex Alimentarius, which is already established in Europe. It is being pushed by the UN. Do we lose sovereignty? Yes, I believe so. But isn't it teachers that inform their students that patriotism is wrong and health care is a right? Government run health care will determine the delivery of health care. Liberals agree the government should run health care. If it doesn't run it the way you like then too bad - they know better than you. They have experts and authorities that tell them your view is not important - Liberal or Conservative. When you vote for big government or redistribution of wealth or entitlements or privileges then prepare to be heavily governed, have your wealth redistributed, and pay for entitlements and privileges that others demand. I guess I am not Conservative as I am against big government. This Bill especially needs to die. Why are Liberals, I assume you are one, the proponents of big government, against this Bill? Is it just because Conservatives are presenting it? Would you approve of it if Liberals brought it forward? And you can't deny they wouldn't! I have signed the petition and written a number of senators already. why do I think this is a conservative initiatiative? The is a rehash of Tony Clement's previous bill- He is conservative. The conservative government is the gov of the day. I agree there is a global inititiative behind this, that is obvious by the definitions of government found in the bill itself, which I put word for word in my post. This isn't just a healthcare issue, it is a food issue, etc., I am not a Liberal, as in supporter of the Liberal party. It is not relevant to the issue, since they are not the government of the day, the conservatives are. But IMO, the Liberals would have done the same thing. Personally they are two peas in a pod. The conservatives campaigned on accountability and small government, they lied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzadd Posted September 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 I only found this:Absolutely nothing about private corporations. The rest of the text clearly specifies that the powers of the bill are reserved for the 'federal government' and not governments in general. The general term 'government' is used when making statement like 'product recalls ordered by governments' which is perfectly reasonable. Then you did not read the bill how is that possible? Why is that not a surprise? Let me help you. go here scroll down while reading the left margin preamble short title defintions----keep going down until you see this in the left margin: “government” « administration » to the right of that you will read “government” means any of the following or their institutions: (a) the federal government; (a corporation named in Schedule III to the Financial Administration Act; © a provincial government or a public body established under an Act of the legislature of a province; (d) an aboriginal government as defined in subsection 13(3) of the Access to Information Act; (e) a government of a foreign state or of a subdivision of a foreign state; or (f) an international organization of states. I bolded the questionable 'governments' that will now apply to Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 “government” means any of the following or their institutions:(a corporation named in Schedule III to the Financial Administration Act; It means, according to schedule III of the federal Administration act, A CROWN CORPORATION Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 SCHEDULE III (Section 3) PART I Atlantic Pilotage Authority Administration de pilotage de l’Atlantique Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Énergie atomique du Canada, Limitée Blue Water Bridge Authority Administration du pont Blue Water Business Development Bank of Canada Banque de développement du Canada Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Société d’assurance-dépôts du Canada Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board Office de financement de l’assurance-emploi du Canada Canada Lands Company Limited Société immobilière du Canada Limitée Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Société canadienne d’hypothèques et de logement Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Administration canadienne de la sûreté du transport aérien Canadian Commercial Corporation Corporation commerciale canadienne Canadian Dairy Commission Commission canadienne du lait Canadian Museum for Human Rights Musée canadien des droits de la personne Canadian Museum of Civilization Musée canadien des civilisations Canadian Museum of Nature Musée canadien de la nature Canadian Tourism Commission Commission canadienne du tourisme Cape Breton Development Corporation Société de développement du Cap-Breton Corporation for the Mitigation of Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Société d’atténuation des répercussions du projet gazier Mackenzie Defence Construction (1951) Limited Construction de défense (1951) Limitée Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation Société d’expansion du Cap-Breton Export Development Canada Exportation et développement Canada Farm Credit Canada Financement agricole Canada The Federal Bridge Corporation Limited La Société des ponts fédéraux Limitée First Nations Statistical Institute Institut de la statistique des premières nations Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation Office de commercialisation du poisson d’eau douce Great Lakes Pilotage Authority Administration de pilotage des Grands Lacs Laurentian Pilotage Authority Administration de pilotage des Laurentides Marine Atlantic Inc. Marine Atlantique S.C.C. National Capital Commission Commission de la capitale nationale National Gallery of Canada Musée des beaux-arts du Canada National Museum of Science and Technology Musée national des sciences et de la technologie Pacific Pilotage Authority Administration de pilotage du Pacifique Ridley Terminals Inc. Ridley Terminals Inc. Standards Council of Canada Conseil canadien des normes VIA Rail Canada Inc. VIA Rail Canada Inc. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F-11/text.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzadd Posted September 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 the use of the term "government' as defined by bill C -6 will apply "The Minister may disclose personal information to a person or a government that carries out functions relating to the protection of human health...." "The Minister may disclose confidential business information to a person or a government that carries out functions.... " That is sure alot of power the Health Minister has to disclose personal information to governments as defined, including corporations, foreign governments, or international organization of states. Why would this type of government definition be included in Bill C-6 if not necessary? It would seem the elected governments of Canada provinces/terrritories and aboriginals aside, is not the only governing body with power when in comes to C-6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 the use of the term "government' as defined by bill C -6will apply "The Minister may disclose personal information to a person or a government that carries out functions relating to the protection of human health...." "The Minister may disclose confidential business information to a person or a government that carries out functions.... " It has to do with verifying claims that are often made regarding health foods or supplements. If a company claims that X is helpful for prostate problems, they will need submit their formulae and such, things that may be confidential in regards to trade secrets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzadd Posted September 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 I just thought I would point out that this Bill c-6 covers everything, every good a consumer can dream of. It is food, it is vitamins and herbals it is seeds, it is everything. Theoretically speaking, if you save seeds from your garden, you could be breaking some aspect of Bill C-6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 I just thought I would point out that this Bill c-6 covers everything, every good a consumer can dream of.It is food, it is vitamins and herbals it is seeds, it is everything. Theoretically speaking, if you save seeds from your garden, you could be breaking some aspect of Bill C-6 Given that I have shown you don't understand much of the bill (ie corporations) and musings about what is or not covered by the bill from you are highly suspect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzadd Posted September 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 mdancer: I will make an exception to your general unworthiness of my time read bill c-6 here is the defintion of goods covered by the bill “consumer product” « produit de consommation » “consumer product” means a product, including its components, parts or accessories, that may reasonably be expected to be obtained by an individual to be used for non-commercial purposes, including for domestic, recreational and sports purposes, and includes its packaging. that definition includes everything and anything. In schedule 1 we get an idea of the concept of " consumer products" and here we find: 17. Seeds within the meaning of section 2 of the Seeds Act, except for Jequirity beans (abrus precatorius). Yes, individuals can obtain seeds for domestic purposes. Therefore they are covered. what you have posted??? what is the point again? oh yeah, nothing read the bill- btw, I won't waste any more of my extremely valuable time on your claptrap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 btw, I won't waste any more of my extremely valuable time on your claptrap Tell me what a corporation as defined in schedule III is again? Your valuable time? What, is being corrected taking up too much time from being confused? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 Theoretically speaking, if you save seeds from your garden, you could be breaking some aspect of Bill C-6 If you have some spare time from your occupation of being confused, the Seed Act that you so happily misconstrue covers seeds that are for sale. So theoritically, no, Seeds you save from the garden are not covered, unless you intend to sell them. Seeds Act S-8 An Act respecting the testing, inspection, quality and sale of seeds http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/S-8/text.html You are most welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 Given that I have shown you don't understand much of the bill (ie corporations) and musings about what is or not covered by the bill from you are highly suspect. I was correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrGreenthumb Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 This bill another terrible unconstitutional Conservative attack on Canadian citizens rights and freedoms. Jack Layton needs to have his head examined for propping up these police state Conservative fascists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzadd Posted September 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 This bill another terrible unconstitutional Conservative attack on Canadian citizens rights and freedoms. Jack Layton needs to have his head examined for propping up these police state Conservative fascists. Yup, the conservatives, small gov and accuontability, are really propping up the tyranny very well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 This bill another terrible unconstitutional Conservative attack on Canadian citizens rights and freedoms. Jack Layton needs to have his head examined for propping up these police state Conservative fascists. What is unconstitutional about it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrGreenthumb Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 What is unconstitutional about it? well warrantless search and seizure powers for health canada for one thing, forced vaccinations for another, have you even read it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 well warrantless search and seizure powers for health canada for one thing, forced vaccinations for another, have you even read it? No not all. Only the parts that confused kuzad. Can you link the warrentless siezure and forced vaccinations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.