Is Bill C-36 constitutional?
- Thread starter Cliffy
- Start date
Why is he a nut case? I know a lot of people who are concerned about the Gestapo like powers taken by this conservative government and the lack of government oversight on this bill.
Why is he a nutcase? Because he sounds like one. I listened to him, and he projects himself as a nutcase.
Methinks he does a lot of jumping to conclusions....
Pls read
Legislative Summary of Bill C-36: An Act respecting the safety of consumer products
Pls read
Legislative Summary of Bill C-36: An Act respecting the safety of consumer products
I'm a failed candidate for a fringe party that nobody likes. As such, I want you to take me seriously.
Did you read the section 3.7 on search and seizure? Rather draconian.
3.7.3 Powers of Seizure and Forfeiture
When the inspector seizes anything for the purposes of carrying out his or her duties, persons are prohibited from removing, altering or interfering with the thing seized (clause 23). Inspectors may also, at the owner’s expense, move the thing seized to another place, on notice to the owner, or order the owner to do this (clause 24). The inspector must release the thing seized if he or she is satisfied that the Act and regulations have been complied with (clause 25).
Just one small example.
3.7.3 Powers of Seizure and Forfeiture
When the inspector seizes anything for the purposes of carrying out his or her duties, persons are prohibited from removing, altering or interfering with the thing seized (clause 23). Inspectors may also, at the owner’s expense, move the thing seized to another place, on notice to the owner, or order the owner to do this (clause 24). The inspector must release the thing seized if he or she is satisfied that the Act and regulations have been complied with (clause 25).
Just one small example.
This requires a little more study, however, I'm curious about the reverse onus provisions referred to. When I first took office as an executive member of a professional organization I made it known that I would do everything in my power to challenge all reverse onus legislation pertaining to my trade during my tenure, there was plenty of such and I had been caught up in it in the past. (It is hard to win a case when all the Crown has to do is show up.) To my surprise, all such relevent legislation had already been deemed unconstitutional and repealed. This is not the case for all Canadian legislation, primarily because they haven't been so challenged.
First things first, find the reverse onus statutes and fight them, it is our constitutional right to be innocent until proven otherwise.
BTW, right to be innocent until found guilty only applied to the Criminal Code of Canada prior to the Charter. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms extended that right to all other statutes upon its inception, we just haven't caught up yet considering the tens of thousands of statutes on the books. All reverse onus legislation must be repealed.
First things first, find the reverse onus statutes and fight them, it is our constitutional right to be innocent until proven otherwise.
BTW, right to be innocent until found guilty only applied to the Criminal Code of Canada prior to the Charter. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms extended that right to all other statutes upon its inception, we just haven't caught up yet considering the tens of thousands of statutes on the books. All reverse onus legislation must be repealed.
Last edited: