Who Cares, O Canada? Civil Rights and the Cons

Send to friend

Printer-friendly version

As with the environment, which is being stripped of the meagre protections of due process through environmental assessments and debasement of the Fisheries Act, so with our civil rights.
This issue of civil rights is absolutely critical – we have LOST Habeas Corpus, first fought for by the barons of Britain against the totalitarian power of the King to arrest and hold people with no public oversight, about 900 years ago, and we are continually and ruthlessly being stripped of the rights which protected us from the state. And almost no one seems to notice or care. 
The ins and outs of so-called consumer protection are, as this writer says, almost insignificant compared to over-arching political impact of our loss of civil rights. Who cares, O Canada?  

Presentation to the Senate on Bill C-6: Canada Consumer Product Safety Act

Thank you, honourable senators, for allowing me to present my views concerning this Act.

No reasonable person would disagree with the need to protect Canadians from contaminated foods, from shoddily-constructed products, from mercury or other harmful chemicals in the paint of childrens' toys, in our water supply, our soil and air.  Canadians would not only agree with the need for this protection, they would demand it.  

My question is, why do we need Bill C-6 for this protection? The Food and Drugs Act, the Hazardous Products Act, and the Canada Health Act together already give us all the protection we need.  What is needed, overnment has been told time and time again, is proper enforcement of these Acts.  

Why then, is this Conservative government so insistent on bringing in yet another bill to regulate consumer products instead of properly enforcing legislation that already exists?  This is its third attempt to do so, its predecessors being the aborted Bill C-51 and Bill C-52.  

The answer to my question is obvious to me.  What puzzles me is why it hasn't been equally obvious to our representatives in the House of Commons and the Senate who are obliged, first and foremost, to protect and promote the interests and well-being of Canadians.  That this Act has passed the Commons and its second reading in the Senate is frightening.  

That it passed the Commons with a Division Party Vote in which MPs do not necessarily read a bill and needn't be in attendance, might explain but does not excuse its passage there.  But one would expect that the very real dangers inherent in this bill would be noticed by the members of the chamber of sober second thought!

According to Senate debates, however, only a handful of Senators have commented on the Act's removal of the judiciary's protective role between people and state, a move that would enable a police state to replace our historic rule of law.  This Act empowers Health Canada inspectors to enter any home or business without a search warrant, to seize anything they wish without reporting it to the courts, and hold it for as long as they wish.  In fact, they need never to return it to the rightful owner.  Furthermore, they would not be responsible for any damage they caused even if it involved destruction of a property.  They could also seize property and bank accounts.  To add insult to injury, the person(s) under investigation would be billed for the cost of the investigation.   

Bill C-6 also gives the health minister the option of charging someone with a criminal offence, which involves courts, or with an administrative offence, a new type of offence created with this Bill which has no court involvement.  In criminal cases, a person is deemed innocent until proven guilty; an administrative offence deems a person guilty rather than innocent.  Furthermore, unlike criminal cases, administrative charges do not allow as defences, honest but mistaken beliefs and due diligence.   

Not content with these unprecedented and unconstitutional powers, the Act also empowers health inspectors to raid homes and businesses on mere suspicion of violations of the Act, unlike search warrants which require convincing proof of illicit activity.  

 
I want here, to draw your attention to previous actions by Mr. Harper's government; specifically, to the elimination of reviewing bills for constitutionality before bringing Acts to Parliament, and elimination of the court challenge program which heard citizens' arguments about the unconstitutionality of passed laws.  In short, the Conservatives have eliminated all means for citizens to challenge the Government other than the very lengthy, very expensive process of taking court action all the way to Supreme Court, which few citizens can afford.

So with Bill C-6, we are exposed at the front end to warrantless raids on our homes and offices, and at the other end, the elimination of testing bills for constitutionality and elimination of the court challenges program, which cuts us off from seeking any recourse from Government. These three steps suggest to me the Conservative government's real reason for so persistently pushing for this legislation.   It is not to protect citizens.   With the innocuous-sounding Canada Consumer Protection Safety Act, this Government attempts to put in place the final step required to strip Canadians of virtually all their basic rights.

And how long will it be, I wonder, given this precedent should Bill C-6 become law, before agents of other government departments, Revenue Canada and  Immigration and Citizenship, for example, are breaking down the front doors of our homes and offices and rummaging through our dresser drawers and computer hard drives?

Tell me, honourable senators, are the potential dangers of consumer products more dangerous than this Act?   Are they serious enough to give the minister of Health Canada powers greater than any judge, any police force, any other government official? Are they serious enough to justify the extra costs that this Act would impose on taxpayers? It wouldn't appear so.  As one honourable senator pointed out, voluntary product recalls by companies and individuals last year totalled 165, and in the first nine months of this year they totalled 224.  This suggests that the voluntary system works and that government-ordered recall which Bill C-6 provides, along with proper enforcement of the other three protective bills, would be more than sufficient to strengthen consumer protection.  

Bill C-6 indicates to me that a threat to Canadians greater than any attack by terrorists from the outside is right here in our own Health Canada and in our House of Commons.  I hope we won't be adding the Senate's name to that list.

(Ms) Oli Cosgrove,
Private citizen deeply concerned about the loss of our democratic rights.