Yesterday, I received an e-mail from Kathy Shaidle, pointing me to an issue that had been completely below my radar screen. The issue, a bill the Conservative Party has moved on the fast track, known as C-51, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
It sounds almost like an innocuous housekeeping bill, until you start reading it. When you start reading it, you find it is nothing of the sort. It's a bill, that seeks to give Health Canada inspectors wide-sweeping powers of search and seizure without warrant, except in the case of dwellings.
What else does that sound like? I'll skip you the suspense: it sounds a lot like the enforcement section of the Canadian Human Rights Act. In fact, it reads almost exactly like it:
Authority to enter a place
23. (1) Subject to subsection 23.1(1), an inspector may, for the purpose of verifying compliance or preventing non-compliance with this Act or the regulations, at any reasonable time enter a place,including a conveyance, in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds that an activity that is governed by this Act or the regulations is conducted or a document relating to the administration of this Act is located.
Powers of inspectors
(2) The inspector may
(a) examine or test anything — and take samples free of charge of an article to which this Act or the regulations apply — that is found in the place;
(b) open a receptacle or package that is found in the place;
(c) examine a document that is found in the place,make a copy of it or take an extract from it;
(d) seize and detain for any time that may be necessary
(i) an article to which this Act or the regulations apply that is found in the place, or
(ii) a conveyance; [They can seize your car! Yay!]
(e) direct the owner or the person having possession, care or control of a conveyance to move it
(f) use or cause to be used a computer or other device that is at the place to examine a document that is contained in or available to a computer system or reproduce it or cause it to be reproduced in the form of a printout or other intelligible output and remove the output for examination or copying;
(g) use or cause to be used copying equipment that is at the place and remove the copies for examination
(h) take photographs or make recordings or sketches; and
(i) direct the owner or person in charge of the place or a person who conducts an activity that is governed by this Act or the regulations at the place
(i) to establish their identity to the inspector's satisfaction, or
(ii) to stop or start the activity,
Assistance and information to be given to inspector
(3) The owner or person in charge of the place and aperson found in the place shall give an inspector who is carrying out their functions all reasonable assistance and provide them with the information that they may reasonably require
Private Property
4) An inspector who is carrying out their functions may enter on or pass through or over private property without being liable for doing so and without the owner of the property having the right to object to that use of the property.
Dwelling house
23.1 (1) If the place referred to in subsection 23(1) is a dwelling-house, an inspector may not enter itwithout the consent of the occupant except under the authority of a warrant issued under subsection (2).
Authority to issue warrant
(2) A justice of the peace may, on ex parte application, issue a warrant authorizing, subject to theconditions specified in the warrant, the inspector named in it to enter a dwelling-house if the justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath that
(a) the dwelling-house is a place referred to in subsection 23(1);
(b) entry to the dwelling-house is necessary for apurpose referred to in subsection 23(1); and
(c) entry to the dwelling-house was refused or there are reasonable grounds to believe that it will be refused.
Use of force
(3) In executing a warrant issued under subsection(2), the inspector may not use force unless the inspector is accompanied by a peace officer and the use of force is authorized in the warrant.
Telewarrant
(4) If an inspector believes that it would not be practical to appear personally to make an application for a warrant under subsection (2), a warrant may be issued by telephone or other means of telecommunication on application submitted by telephone or other means of telecommunication and section 487.1 of the Criminal Code applies for that purpose, with the necessary modifications.
Restriction on movement
23.2 An inspector may direct the owner or person having possession, care or control of an article to which this Act or the regulations apply to not move it — or to restrict its movement — for as long as is in the opinion of the inspector necessary for the purposes referred to in subsection 23(1).
This act is unacceptable. It is contrary to our liberal democratic traditions. It places extraordinary power in the hands of government bureaucrats, and it makes clear that we can expect no real reform on Human Rights Commissions and their illiberal transgressions into our basic rights. It makes clear that the Conservative Party has departed from any libertarian leanings it may have portrayed itself to have.
As such, I do not support this party. I cannot support this party.
If you are a conservative, if you are a libertarian, or you consider yourself a capitalist, you have been deceived into thinking this is your party. It is not. It is at best, a populist party, with increasingly statist tendencies.
I will remain a member of the Blogging Tories. Why? Because I support the movement. I do not support the party. They are not worthy of support as I see it.
The base of support that rallied around them (myself included) believed what they were selling. We thought they'd be different. They weren't.
They pushed election spending laws to their limits—if not so far into the gray area—beyond them. They promised smaller government, and massively increased spending. Stephen Harper once said he thought the Human Rights Commissions were out of control, and today he instructs his party to sweep the issue under the rug.
Today his party wants to give even more authoritarian powers to bureaucrats, free of judicial oversight, contrary to liberal democratic tradition, and worse... contrary to how they tried to portray themselves to us.
It is appalling.
Now do you believe what many of us have been saying about Harper?
Can you support the movement without supporting the party?
hehe
Seriously though, did you really expect anything different out of this party? Look for it to pass quite easily with the support of the nanny state Liberals who probably think it's a great idea.
Unfortunately I doubt it will be just the Liberals supporting this one, SL. Political parties don't seem like their capable of noticing when legislation will subtly erode our liberties. Luckily though, Harper hasn't had time to strip away all the checks and balances on governmental power so the Supreme Court will still be available to squash this--like they just did to the dog sniffing Gestapo today--when it's challenged.
Nice to see you back, Mike, I'd abandoned hope that one of my favourite bloggers would resurface.
Now do you believe what many of us have been saying about Harper?
No. I think he's lost his spine. I think Ottawa has gotten to him, and it just makes me depressed.
There is an upcoming CPC Policy convention in the autumn if not pre-empted by a June Election. Your input and energy should be focused to effect changes there and would be more effectual than this posturing of withdrawing support I think. If you withdraw support from the CPC where will you then place it? Simply parking it nowhere is not an option in a democracy I think. Yell at me if you will, but we can't live in a vacuum. What is the alternative? If a June election brings in a Liberal minority we will NOT be better off. The devil we know is better than the bigger devil whom we know only too well who will be alot worse!
I was once a supporter of the CPC but no more. The reversal on the income trusts did it for me. All that has followed has been just more reason to forget about them. I now have no party to support so I consider myself a political orphan in a looming police state.
I am considering leaving Canada for a freer place. That will not be easy since I am at retirement age and the thought of cashing out and relocating is daunting.
But I cannot see any future here for a freedom loving person like myself or my wife.
Bummer man!
as the only conservative alive in canada or the u.s. see, i told you so.
While its easy to rag on about the CPC in this matter, what you're seeing is the Liberal agenda still at work. The libs built a fortress-like bureaucracy within the civil service, devolved authority to it, and its still running the show in many departments. The only solution to this and many other problems is a CPC majority, necessary to make fundamental legislative changes in the structure of government to reverse much of the devolution of authority the liberals created to prevent parliamentary oversight. Exercise your franchise - bitch long and loud to cabinet about what's wrong with government today.
The scale of the problem is beyond the ability of most ministers to be able to see without focused guidance from the constituency. Don't forget, the CPC is surrounded by career bureaucrats who will insist on telling him what they want him to know, not what he needs to. Often the first clue a minister gets thats there's a problem, comes from his constituency, not from his bureaucracy. Government is highly technical. Its easy to overwhelm a minister, and the bureaucracy knows it.
These administrative seizure sections have arisen for two reasons: the frequent ruling of the SCC against non-warranted search and seizures, and the high cost to a department to enforce legislation where a warrant becomes necessary. Its not that the action may not pass judicial scrutiny, its that the cost of the process is very slow, very expensive to the department, very public (which in and of itself is not a bad thing, but because agencies can't move quickly in these cases, tends to drive true criminal activity deeper underground by its public exposure. Its hard to find a balance). I know this because I do fed law enforcement for a living. Prosecution for criminality is now onerous with charter protections (and that's fair), but the investigative process to determine if criminality exists has become very difficult. Canada doesn't have misdemeanor law like the US. A substantial slap on the wrist rather than a full blown criminal investigation is difficult to achieve.
Many of these sections will not pass a challenge at the SCC, but the road to there is long and twisting. In the meantime, the depts will achieve some program success until they're told to shut it down. If the actions surround some activities which have a high judicial "fear factor", like guns and drugs, the agencies will get some support from the judiciary. Not much scares the bejeesus out of a judge, but a drug crazed whacko with a gun and revenge on his mind does, so your civil liberties will suffer for his personal security.
Rather than abandoning the CPC, yell long and loud to them about the problem. If the liberals get back in, the previous 13 years will seem like nirvana. The extent to which the liberals removed parliamentary oversight from govt was unprecedented (in my own agency, the minister is powerless to change the direction of the agency. He can only report to parliament what the board of commissioners tell him to say). Give the libs another run, and Canada will quickly become a democratic state in name only. Its very close to losing it now.
I'm a Border Officer and must honestly say that the powers of an Inspector for this legislation rivals mine! The ability to move through private property at will without a warrant/consent is unheard of!!!!! Formulating reasonable grounds under the CHRA appears to be fairly easy in my opinion! The ability to nearly indefinitely detain goods and conveyances "as necessary" is also incredible since no definitions of "as necessary" are given. I've also never heard of arbitrarily taking copies or reproductions without establishing reasonable grounds as to it's relevance to an investigation. Lastly, the ability to compel a person to possible self incrimination by the requirement to "provide them with the information that they may reasonably require" is nearly criminal!
Lost spine has nothing to do with it, Mike. This is at least the 20th attack on our liberty by Harper.
If my reading of the CHANGES on the govt web site are correct, it's the stuff that's underlined in the web page that's being changed. As such, it looks to me that the CPC are actually adding some restrictions to the act, not broadening them.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3398126&File=84#20
eg. the underlined words do NOT enlarge/enhance govt access do they ?!
23. (1) Subject to subsection 23.1(1), an inspector may, for the purpose of verifying compliance or preventing non-compliance with this Act or the regulations, at any reasonable time enter a place,
These powers are nothing new to gun owners, who have been subject to arbitrary search and seizure, reverse onus, and even charges for failing to ASSIST someone who is investigating you so that you can be charged, ever since C-68 passed. I feel much the same way, that my political choices only come down to which group of lying thieves is the least likely to screw me over for their own political benefit in the immediate future. When voting, I honestly don't remember ever checking a box that said "I agree to get ass-raped by these monkeys whenever they think it might be worth an extra 2 or 3% in a poll", yet that is what governs this country.
As a libertarian myself, I will continue to support the CPC. It remains, by far, the closest party to my ideals, despite incidents such as this. I agree that bills such as this are a danger.
Unfortunately, there is no libertarian party in Canada, or certainly there is no party that obtains enough votes to win a seat anywhere.
The other leftist parties do not have members who would consider your post the slightest bit appalling. The liberals ceased to be defenders of liberty decades ago. Leftists, by the definition of socialism (not just the old-fashioned kind, but also the NDP/liberal type of democratic socialism), are enemies of liberty, completely.
So you can ignore the silly comments by the leftist commenters here, who are simply happy to see any criticism of the CPC.
Thank you for your taking the lead on this issue. I must confess it was not on my radar.
Having read the details, I am appalled. I am trying to think what is going through the PM's head with this legislation, and I am puzzled.
I am a strong CPC and Harper supporter, and until now (including with the Income Trust thing) I have had no issue with this direction. But this one puzzles me.
Are we heading to an England-like situation where the "Conservatives" are as statist and socialist as the Labour party?
I'm inclined to give PM Harper the benefit of the doubt - has this been discussed with him? Do these extreme powers really need to be given to inspectors, or can they be watered down without losing the meaning of the bill.
Concerned.
Lori
Welcome to the land of political party apathy Mike. Politicians are all the same. Their goal is to win and maintain power. They will do so at the expense of individual rights at every turn to win votes. Your decision is a good one but you might as well kick the Blogging Tories to the curb too. They enable the kinds of issues you oppose.
The problem is that there is no alternative in Canada. I can't imagine this country under the worst of the socialist experimenters Jack Layton, Steph Dion is a spineless academic out of his environment and the Bloc are marginalized and only have a say because Quebec keeps returning them to collect their pension cheques from Canada, God knows why, I guess they hope to keep the large piece of the pie that the Liberals have been serving and hope the CPC will continue with the free ride.
The biggest problem we face in Canada is the belief that the government can solve the problems, not the private sector. For some reason a lot of Canadians now believe that if we throw enough government money at a problem it can be saved. Check out Manitoba Healthcare just to see how foolish this is. Increased spending has not solved hallway beds and emergency room crowding. Only innovation can do that, and bureaucracy is not known to innovate, private sector is known for that.
Does anyone truly believe politicians especially Conservatives run the country. It's mandarins and bureaucracy stupid and it's been that way since Trudeau brought in central planning.
It's a given that senior bureaucrats hate, despise and loathe Harper and his government and now that they see Harper in some trouble they flex their muscles to fan the flames of discontent. Pile on the negatives is their strategy. It took a long time to start the anti Harper ball moving and now these parasites seek to keep the ball moving and gathering speed.
Of course they want the lieberals back in power so bureaucracy can resume their rightful place in the Canadian power structure.
The question I have for Conservative malcontents is DO YOU THINK DION AND HIS FLOCK WILL GIVE YOU WANT YOU WANT?
I say bring on the election and lets give Harper the majority he needs to clean up the cesspool called Ottawa.
Um, you guys do realize that this reads very similarly to the "Health Protection and Promotion Act" that has been in place in Ontario since 1990 (with a similar version in place before that)? Health inspectors have had these rights for a looong time at the provincial level.
Mike I can state for a fact the search & seizure and compliance directives for "inspectors" in this bill mirror those given police in the Liberal firearms act bill C-68.
The CPC already screwed firearms owners by not dismantling the registry and not decriminalizing long gun ownership and they are screwing free speech advocates by piling on more bolshi administrative HR law like this.
As a Libertarian and a Reformer I joined Harper's big tent CPC because western reformers were at the switches, but I saw at the policy convention that the hands of red Tories and amoral influence brokers were at the switches....I have with held funding and my active support of the party until they live up to the principles expressed in the CPC policy document.
I think the problem does not so much lie with Harper but those who run the PMO and are installed as "advisors"...they have the acrid stench of influence brokers and political "fixers" about them.
Well to all you Harper bashers,why not join the Libs??You certainly sound like ranting Libs and you seem to love their policies so much,go join them.You wont be missed.Elections Canada will be the first to pay for the dishonest way they stole the Conservative files.And you Liberal ASS-Holes will be crying in the empty trough come election day.So if you dont know what the hell your talking about,dont start the Liberal BS here,go to the Liberal blogs where they are used to this kind of BS.We expect honesty here,but i guess you Libs have never heard of that either.
bert, are you calling me a Liberal?
Skip on April 26, 2008 7:30 AM wrote:
"These administrative seizure sections have arisen for two reasons: the frequent ruling of the SCC against non-warranted search and seizures, and the high cost to a department to enforce legislation where a warrant becomes necessary. Its not that the action may not pass judicial scrutiny, its that the cost of the process is very slow, very expensive to the department...."
Hardly a good reason to justify police-state authority.
Harry on April 26, 2008 9:40 AM wrote:
"If my reading of the CHANGES on the govt web site are correct, it's the stuff that's underlined in the web page that's being changed. As such, it looks to me that the CPC are actually adding some restrictions to the act, not broadening them.""
I hope you're right, that Minister Clement is unaware of the full substance of the Act, that he's acting out of ignorance rather than complicity. Neither possibility is confidence - inspiring.
Mike Brock,
I'm glad you brought closer scrutiny to this bill. When I first heard about it, I thought it was simply symbolic pandering to the socialist-leaners, but these "search and seizure" measures are very serious.
If they are left-overs from the previous act, they should be removed or watered down to make them reasonable for a free and democratic society. If they are new measures, the same applies, but I would be shocked.
I'm not sure, but maybe this is the bill the Conservatives want to be defeated on - then they can go to the polls during the summer and hopefully get a majority. Once they get a majority they real change can happen.
I'm not sure, but maybe this is the bill the Conservatives want to be defeated on - then they can go to the polls during the summer and hopefully get a majority. Once they get a majority they real change can happen.
Bert gives us a glimpse into the Harper cult of personality that we have developing here in Canada. It is truly dangerous, not to mention simple-minded, to say that one can't criticize Harper or one is a Liberal. Is this what the CPC is degenerating into - a bunch of yes-men who are afraid of their leader?
Having been involved in re-writing an Act (one which I think deserves less re-writing than others) I think the issue is not with the politicians but with the bureaucrats writing them. By the time an Act reaches Parliament it has had around 100 people add and subtract to it, each one changing a bit here and there. Most have little legal background to understand the words they are using and most changes are to address specific issues without fully understanding the consequences of those changes. The Justice department is supposed to catch those legal issues, but they are generally overworked and understaffed and a Bill might be reviewed piecemeal by several different lawyers over a period of years, many not being subject matter experts.
Frankly when I look back at the early Acts, people said much more with much fewer words, some of the oldest Acts in Canada are only 20-30 sections long but have stood the test of time. New Acts may be 120 Sections long and conflict with other Acts.
I don't think the CPC is perfect and holding a candle to their toes is good for them and the country. good government needs a good opposition, right now we have a useless opposition and a fairly new and inexperienced government. I will still vote for CPC, because the thought of having to work for the Liberals again is enough to make me puke.
23.1.(2) A justice of the peace may, on ex parte application, issue a warrant authorizing, subject to theconditions specified in the warrant, the inspector named in it to enter a dwelling-house if the justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath that
(a) the dwelling-house is a place referred to in subsection 23(1);
(b) entry to the dwelling-house is necessary for apurpose referred to in subsection 23(1); and
(c) entry to the dwelling-house was refused or there are reasonable grounds to believe that it will be refused.
Doesn't "ex parte" mean "without notification to the intended target"? No chance to respond or contest the application in court.
Why are spitting venom at the CPC? Place the blame where it really lies. With the voters.
Those of you who a criticizing this bill are obviously not familiar with the day to day activities of health inspectors. These provisions are not an intrusion on civil liberties if limited to this area. They are necessary for the inspectors to do their job on a day to day basis. I have worked in three meat packing plants, and in one I was in quality control. Nobody responsible in the industry who understands the inspection system objects to these provisions. They give legal authority to the normal daily duties of the inspectors. The relationship between the inspectors and the firms they are inspecting is not adversarial unless the firms are blatantly disregarding the procedures that insure the food you buy at the store is safe. I wouldn't buy any product from a company that objected to this legislation. They simply want to cut corners that would endanger my health.
Swift,
I know the arguments, and I know there is similar legislation for other types of regulatory enforcement such as firearm enforcement, and similar powers at the provincial level.
As it pertains to health inspectors at the provincial level, such as those who enter restaurants in spot inspections to ensure compliancy with their license I see a completely different dynamic. I would say that: a restaurant should have every right to deny a health inspector access to it's kitchen, but in turn, have to sacrifice their operating license.
You can use something like a license to compel someone to comply with inspectors, but you can not in my view, make it illegal to deny the inspector access.
I believe this transgresses on private property rights. I don't agree with it, and I'm not a fan of abridging rights for the purposes of expediency in enforcement.
You can tell me it takes too long to get a warrant, or the courts are too backlogged. I don't care. This is not my concern. My concern is my rights as someone who owns a private business, and the property that I own.
I do not grant the government the right to abridge those rights solely so it may "save money" or operate "more efficiently".
I am one of those people who would rather let a thousand murderers go free, to avoid the conviction of a single innocent person. So you're not going to waver my position on this matter, as a matter of enforcement expediency. Screw expediency. And screw the government now that I think about it :)
Do you have to get a search warrant to go into work every day? I worked at a large kill operation that had an inspector on every day. For a well run operation there are no grounds for a search warrant anyway. The reason he was there essentially every day was to ensure that there were no cattle with any signs of disease slaughtered. Nobody objected, in fact just the opposite. As QC in another plant, I did not have any problems with the inspectors coming in. While I hoped that they did not find any problems, if there was anything that I had missed, I wanted them to find it. There is nothing worse than having to issue a recall because something went wrong and somebody got sick. When you open a facility to process food, especially meat, you agree to these things, or you don't open. This legislation just crosses the t's and dots the i's in a legal way. Running an operation in a safe way is expensive, without the seemingly draconian powers that the health inspectors have, there would be some who try to cut costs and endanger the public's health.
There are far to many government rules and regulations in many areas, but this is not one of them. Libertarianism is the political philosophy that says we should have only the minimum necessary government. However much you, or I, may dislike it, the necessary in this case is much more than what we would normally find tolerable.
Swift,
If the food processing plant refuses government inspection, then revoke their license to operate. That's the solution.
I simply think the right of private property is supreme. I think regulatory enforcement can occur without inspectors being given broad powers to violate private property.
To me, it's just like, my employer cannot force me to wear a uniform. They do not control my body. But they can deny me employment if I refuse.
In your example, I think the government should not be allowed to enter private property unless invited. If there is a regulatory regime, tied to licensing which needs to be enforced, then you use the threat of license revocation to ensure compliance. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.
Extremely disturbing, even though I have been waiting for these crooks to pass something such as this for years. Its really too bad most people have other priorities and put trust into our corrupt system. Unfortunately, I feel our COMPLETE loss of our
Liberties is just moments away. Are you ready for Marshall Law?
WE should all be doing our homework and informing our friends and family. I have done mine, and I can tell you one thing. It doesn't matter who gets into power. If you are high up on the totem pole, you are nothing but a puppet. Revolution 2008/2009
I understand your position. However refusal to admit an inspector gets you shut down now. I assume that you would be against giving government agents in general, including police, more power than they have now. I also assume that you would not weaken the rules of evidence that are now in place and may want to tighten them. Given these things and probably several other things if I sat down and really tried to consider all possibilities, it becomes obvious that the inspectors need these powers in certain situations that are obvious to me knowing the details of the industry and the duties that need to be performed by the inspectors after they are given admittance. So you either have to give the inspectors the powers in the legislation or you have to have legislation that provides that everybody that wants to go into the food industry must sign a contract giving the inspectors these powers. If you choose the second you have just made at least one huge loophole that someone will eventually notice. There is the third alternative of course, food poisoning if you don't do your own butchering.
The country has 40 years of socialism to overcome. Did you think it was going to be easy? Harper has very clearly stated that he will have to govern as the Liberal party. Change will be incremental. Get Harper a majority and then continue that most Conservative of pastimes, that reliable elector of horrendus Liberal governments, patricide/fratricide. Disappointing.
Bert barks:
"Well to all you Harper bashers,why not join the Libs??"
Hell bert why don' you just equate partisan CPC policy to being "Canadian" and brand people who dissent to party policy as "unCanadian" and tell us to leave the country if we don't like it?...That would be like joining the Liberals too ::/
These inspection powers are almost verbatim the same as those found in the Firearms Act - how many of you guys support that piece of trash legislation?