Positive Health Online

Thanks to Rose Stevens for sending me the following:

Conservatives are Angry and Resigning from the Party over Bills C 51 and C 52

From: Ken Dyck
To: Bill Blaikie
Sent: June 07, 2008
Subject: Bill C-51 & Bill C-52
Hi Mr Blaikie,
This is a copy of a letter sent to the Bill C-51 Committee tendering my resignation from the Progressive Conservative (PC) party. If you are in opposition to Bill C-51 and C-52, you have my support and vote. I am one of the constituents in your Transcona-Elmwood riding. Please help me defeat these Bills. You may you use this and the letter below in any way you see fit to affect the passing of those two Bills. I’m angry and not as cordial as I usually am, but this is how I feel.
Sincerely,
Ken Dyck

Dear Bill C-51 Committee Members,
I am outraged that our party, of which I am an honorary trustee campaign member, has presented to the House such treasonous pieces of legislation. The Spirit and Letter of these Bills C-51 & C-52 have nothing to do with protecting Canadians with poor quality health products, but rather the destruction of the natural health industry in Canada. These Bills will go farther than just allowing Health Canada to break the existing laws of the country; it will allow Health Canada to operate outside of the court system.

Seven years ago I fell victim to Health Canada not allowing a naturally formulated product (extremely anti-pathogenic) to be registered. Currently, my brother-in-law has tried to register an all natural single ingredient product that has also been denied in the agricultural sector. Our two products and others like it would have inflicted heavy damage to the pharmaceutical companies’ established market {in our opinion} while simultaneously improving the health of livestock and food chain in Canada. In our own product trials that we had conducted on numerous farms, we had completely eliminated the need for antibiotics or drugs of any kind while producing superior animals.

To add insult to injury, my brother-in-law’s product was classified by Health Canada as a drug because it was too potent to be considered just another natural product. I have had other friends and associates that have had their products seized without warrant or court order under the allegation that those products were tainted with heavy metals and poisonous substances. These allegations were proved to be false by two independent lab tests but not before they were discredited on national TV by Health Canada, and internationally on the Health Canada web site. This is something that is happening right now even though there are no legal provisions do to so. The proposed legislation will also give Health Canada the power to seize bank accounts, again without a court order. They will become the judge, the jury, and the executioner modelled after Judge Dread of Marvel Comic fame. The only difference in the comic book version, Judge Dread went after the drug companies (sorry, I meant drug pushers).

Tony Clement and Health Canada are trampling on the Constitution and the Charter and SO ARE YOU.

I have had to make the decision to remove myself from the party membership until the proponents of these two Bills are no longer with the party. I cannot in good conscience be affiliated with a party that would even consider presenting Bills like this to the House. This is high treason.

You must also consider the fact the Tony Clement may have a conflict of interest. These Bills are written in the tradition of the Liberal Party and the Communist Party, NOT the Conservative Party.

Please consider this my resignation from the party.

Immediate Action Needed Bills C-51 & 52

Many may have been lulled into relaxing given that Bill C-51 did not pass the second reading. The following note from Helke Ferrie is very important, as it clearly shows the nefarious nature of these Bills. Please support her efforts to launch court action as, not surprisingly, the government has sold us out.

Note from Helke Ferrie
I just got this information about a motion passed on Friday June 20 which would allow the government to put C-52 (which did go through Second Reading, as you know) through the Committee stage and bring it in for Third Reading in September, while we are all basking in the success of having stopped C-51, at least for now.

Below are also some comments I sent to Common Ground. Those are on C-52, the more pernicious of the two bills; read Shawn Buckley’s analysis of it on www.nhppa.org. (Draft Discussion Paper on Bill C-52 is here).

My opinion is that we need to take legal action at once: C-52 should be challenged in court so the Committee cannot proceed over the summer. It is stacked in any case, so their hearings are unlikely to be comprehensive, and how does one get enough people to Ottawa for hearings and briefs in June and July?
If we don’t act on this now, we have probably had it.


I just received from a friend the item below. It was a motion tabled and PASSED on Friday. Parliament did not debate C-51. As you know, C-52 has gone to Committee. If they feel like doing the Committee hearings on C-52 (the more pernicious of the two bills), they can do so and pass it, so parliament can take it into Third Reading as soon as they get back in September.

Below the parliamentary debate provided here I have attached some comments I sent to Common Ground earlier today about C-52 and its relationship to C-51.

In my opinion, something should be done immediately to tie up C-52 in court and challenge its legality so they cannot have committee hearings until the court has ruled. Should you have any doubts about this, I suggest you go to www.nhppa.org and read Shawn Buckley’s analysis of C-52 which explains how it could turn Canada into a police state.
Kind regards, Helke

Committees of the House Mr James Rajotte (Edmonton Leduc, CPC):

Mr Speaker, there have been consultations with all parties and I believe if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, at any time the House stands adjourned during June or July, the Standing Committee on Health or the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development has ready a report, when that report is deposited with the Clerk, it shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House.

The Speaker: Does the hon. member for Edmonton? Leduc have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
Some Hon members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Hon members: Agreed.
Some Hon members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Hon members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)

Bill C-51 is now dead. The House closed on Friday and they did not bring it up for second reading, even though it was on the order papers every day of last week for that purpose. So, we have been heard and they are regrouping. The Liberals, in the last minute, decided not to support this bill after all. The bill will now have to be 1) re-introduced with Tony Clement’s proposed amendments when they get back to work in September, and 2) they will have to start it from scratch at first reading. It is therefore vitally important that they don’t even think about bringing it back, in any shape or form, with no matter how many amendments, because this bill is pernicious from start to finish and nothing will improve it.

What most people have not yet grasped is that bill C-52 has gone through second reading and will go to committee in September. If C-51 was pernicious, C-52 is outright diabolical. Furthermore, C-51 can be tagged onto C-52 by an Order in Council (cabinet decision without parliamentary debate, media inquiry, public input via our respective MP’s office etc. – passed into law without discussion!) if they feel like it and want to avoid another public uproar as they got themselves now.

The reason they can do this is anchored in C-52’s provisions to allow any amendments or importations of other laws as they see fit, even from foreign governments, exactly as C-51 also stipulated.

Secondly, C-52 has an omnibus definition of ‘hazardous products’ like C-51 did with “therapeutic products”, and their definition of a “hazardous product” includes the media. My letter to you could be defined as such a product. Due to this omnibus definition as the basis of the entire bill, they can import any other hazard, as they see fit. The current act governing hazardous products overlaps in many of its provisions explicitly with the current Food and Drugs Act, so they are within their rights to assume that the areas of responsibility in both C-51 and C-52 may also overlap, should either become law.

My book (out Tuesday) What Part of No! Don’t They Understand? covers both bills. My view is that we need to take the government to court and do a Charter challenge on C-52 as soon as parliament resumes, so the committee cannot discuss it until the court has ruled. If we allow the committee process to start, the expert witnesses will be brought forward that the government wants, and the committee is stacked – mostly Liberals and Conservatives who both support this bill.

Why do they support this bill? Both bills are strictly intended to serve the purposes of NAFTA and now the SPP which require that regulation is not only relaxed, but harmonized so that all countries involved are the same – industry-friendly, which means lacking in third-party oversight and with reduced liability. (The US just brought in a law that takes liability away from the consumer of implants.) This was the main reason Ireland voted no to the EU Constitution on June 12th. Read the SPP documents and you will see what I mean. Health and hazardous products are explicitly mentioned in this and the other treaties.

I am selling my book at $20 and for every copy sold, $10 go towards a fund to do this Charter challenge.

The EU Constitution was refused by the Irish on June 12th. Food and natural health products were the main reasons, i.e. genetically engineered stuff, the certain demise of their own agriculture, and the mess with natural health products. Had they voted yes to the EU, no less than 110,000 amendments to their regulatory systems for all EU countries would have kicked in. These are C-51 and C-52 writ large and our two proposed bills even take their wording from this treaty! Saying No has given the other 7 countries still about to vote the courage to speak up. Checkoslovakia stated last week at the EU summit they would probably vote no, as the Irish did.

The globalization guys are so anxious to get their regulatory harmonization in place, the UK went ahead and ratified the EU Lisbon Treaty, which got their Supreme Court mad and this article indicates why. The court is about to hear a case which demands that the UK government have their public referendum (which the PM there refused, shortly after he came into power – having won and ousted Tony Blair because he promised this very referendum; he obviously is a Stephen Harper clone) and the second is an injunction against the EU ratification until such a referendum has been heard. I have followed this for a while. Should a referendum be heard, the government there knows that they will lose. More than 80% of Brits are against the EU treaty.

We need to go to court. Fast.