ALERT from Helke IMMEDIATE ACTION needed Bills C-51 & 52

[Guest guest]

Many may have been lulled into relaxing given that Bill C-51 did not pass

the second reading. Following note from _Helke Ferrie _

(http://www.kospublishing.com/) 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.

 

For those in Toronto and area a panel discussion with Helke Ferrie, Shawn

Buckley and Shiv Chopra is scheduled for June 26, 2008 and is a must attend.

_Details are here._

(http://fs07n5.sendspace.com/dl/a4d4271ec53cbb286aeae8e4502cc1b5/4859d19660e3e12\

6/ycpa8y/Stop%20Bill%20C-51%20Panel%20June%2026.pdf)

_http://www.sendspace.com/file/ycpa8y_ (http://www.sendspace.com/file/ycpa8y)

Others will be able to see live streamed on _www.cnhc.ca_

(http://www.cnhc.ca/)

 

See: _Summaries of Bills C-51 & C-52 - Freedoms At Risk!_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2008/05/22/_summaries_of_bills_c51_c52_fr\

eedoms_at_risk.htm

) _h

ttp://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2008/05/22/_summaries_of_bills_c51_c52_free\

doms_at_risk.htm_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2008/05/22/_summaries_of_bills_c51_c52_fr\

eedoms_at_risk.htm) for background

 

Chris Gupta

-------------------

 

Hi,

 

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_ (http://www.nhppa.org/) . (_Draft Discussion Paper on Bill C-52

is here_ (http://nhppa.org/?p=26) _http://nhppa.org/?p=26_

(http://nhppa.org/?p=26) )

 

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.

 

Helke 519-927-1049

 

 

 

 

Committees of the House

 

 

 

 

 

[Table of Contents]

 

 

_Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton?Leduc, CPC)_

(http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/GetWebOptionsCallBack.aspx?SourceSyste\

m=PRISM & ResourceType=Affiliation &

ResourceID=78709 & language=1 & DisplayMode=2) :

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.

 

 

[Table of Contents]

 

 

_The Speaker_

(http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/GetWebOptionsCallBack.aspx?SourceSyste\

m=PRISM & ResourceType=Affiliation & ResourceID=81017 & language=1 &

DisplayMode=2) :

Does the hon. member for _Edmonton?Leduc_

(http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/GetWebOptionsCallBack.aspx?SourceSyste\

m=PRISM & ResourceType=Affiliation & R

esourceID=78709 & language=1 & DisplayMode=2) have the unanimous consent of the

House to propose this motion?

 

 

Hi,

 

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.

 

Blow 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_ (http://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

 

Friday, June 20th, 2008

 

Committees of the House

 

 

 

[Table of Contents]

_Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton?Leduc, CPC)_

(http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/GetWebOptionsCallBack.aspx?SourceSyste\

m=PRISM & ResourceType=Affiliation &

ResourceID=78709 & language=1 & DisplayMode=2) :

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.

 

 

 

 

[Table of Contents]

 

 

_The Speaker_

(http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/GetWebOptionsCallBack.aspx?SourceSyste\

m=PRISM & ResourceType=Affiliation & ResourceID=81017 & language=1 &

DisplayMode=2) :

Does the hon. member for _Edmonton?Leduc_

(http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/GetWebOptionsCallBack.aspx?SourceSyste\

m=PRISM & ResourceType=Affiliation & R

esourceID=78709 & language=1 & DisplayMode=2) 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_ (http://stopspp.com/stopspp/?page_id=2)

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 September or October article in Vitality will be about this C-52 issue.

Meanwhile, below is my letter to the Prime Minister which is the intro to my

book. It already includes comments on Tony Clement's proposed amendments

and deals with both bills. You may spread this far and wide.

Hi,

 

_I am attaching an item from the UK _

(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4183718.ece)

_http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4183718.ece_

(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4183718.ece)

news which you should read. 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 nd

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.

To : _chrisgupta?subject=_

(chrisgupta?subject=)

To : _chrisgupta?subject=_

(chrisgupta?subject=)

List information is at: _http://tinyurl.com/2xohw_

(http://tinyurl.com/2xohw)

ARCHIVES: _http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/archives.htm

_ (http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/archives.htm) Share The Wealth:

_http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/)

 

Communication Agents: _http://www.communicationagents.com/_

(http://www.communicationagents.com/)

Council Member: Friends of Freedom International & the Canadian Coalition

for Health Freedom - _http://friendsoffreedom.org/intl/_

(http://friendsoffreedom.org/intl/)