Conservatives' Facebook post promoting Bill C-51 may be violation of same law: expert

[Dazzle]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/conservatives-facebook-post-promoting-bill-c-51-may-be-violation-of-same-law-expert-1.2266747

Conservatives' Facebook post promoting Bill C-51 may be violation of same law: expert\

CTVNews.ca Staff

Published Thursday, March 5, 2015 10:13PM EST
Last Updated Thursday, March 5, 2015 10:25PM EST

Even some Conservatives say the party’s Facebook post promoting its anti-terrorism bill, using an image of a Somali militant and a quote threatening an attack on the West Edmonton Mall, was over the top. But the ad may also be in violation of the very law the government is trying to implement.

Thomas Lukaszuk, an Alberta Progressive Conservative MLA, says the post "touches on divisive politics.'

"It touches on capitalizing fear -– that's just not what I would do," Lukaszuk said.

And Alberta MP Laurie Hawn, who has announced he's not running in the next election, said in a statement to CTV News that he supports his party but, "I wouldn't have made that post; call it a matter of style."

NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair, who is leading the opposition to Bill C-51, has attacked the Conservatives for their Facebook post. "Stephen Harper is trying to fundraise on fear and frankly I find that shameful," Mulcair said.

The Facebook post did not ask for political donations, but it provided a link to the party website where donations can be made.

The quote used in the Facebook post is drawn from a video of the al-Qaeda-linked group al-Shabaab. The use of such language, experts argue, is in violation of the legislation that the Conservatives are trying to promote.

Bill C-51 aims to remove terrorist propaganda from the Internet, and the party's Facebook post could be interpreted as a retransmission of such propaganda –- using a still from the terrorist group's video and a quote from the video message.

Lorne Waldman, a Toronto lawyer who specializes in immigration and refugee law, says the Facebook ad "could well be against the new proposed law.”

"I think it could certainly be argued that this ad, if it were promulgated after the legislation was passed, could lead to charges being laid against the Conservative Party of Canada," Waldman said.

Waldman finds that ironic, especially because critics have been saying all along that the legislation is too broad, and was hastily prepared. The ad, he says, "encompasses a lot of activities that could be legitimate and needs to be amended."

The Conservatives defend the Facebook post.

"This post informed Canadians about the legislation we brought forward," Alberta Conservative MP Tim Uppal said. "It's important for Canadians to know what this government is doing to help keep them safe."

Thomas A. Lukaszuk @LukaszukMLA Follow

This troubles me on so many different levels... #cdnpoli

5:50 PM - 3 Mar 2015

Fear-mongering to pass a bill through? Yikes.

It speaks volumes about how unpopular this bill is, if other Conservatives are questioning the bill itself and how it's being promoted.

Good on the other MPs for stepping up and voicing their opinion.

Can the next election start already?

[LordCanuck]

This bill should die. Its a knee jerk reaction to 1 idiot and an internet threat. Also with American politicians and police saying its bad also its really bad.

[luckylager]

A former agent for CSIS called the bill "fascist", which is entirely appropriate.

It's not a "knee jerk reaction" but another well planned nail in the coffin of democracy that contains the rotting corpse of Canada.

We've gone from a peace keeping nation with a diverse economy to a war mongering, debt riddled, one trick pony.

Thanks Scumbag Steve, you're the worst PM in Canadian history. Unless you're insanely rich, he's been really good for the 1%. I'll never figure out how some many people were fooled into voting for these neo-con, oligarch asshats. Fools

[nucklehead]

Because they're easily beguiled with 5% GST, longer jail time for bad guys, anti terror crapola, income tax and family benefit flim flam.

[2SKATES1STICK]

to those that think c-51 'just appeared' after that incident, how do you keep the sand out of your mouth while you speak

[drummer4now]

to those that think c-51 'just appeared' after that incident, how do you keep the sand out of your mouth while you speak

Well when did it originate? There was no mentioning of this bill prior to that event.

Also I did some research and apparently there was Bill C-51 before around 2008 but it was for a completey different cause..

Food and Drugs.

Bill C-51: A small step in the right direction

Issue: BCMJ, Vol. 50, No. 8, October 2008, page(s) 440 Council on Health Promotion

Lloyd Oppel, MD, MHSc, FCFP(Em)

In April of this year the Harper government introduced Bill C-51: An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act. The bill was intended to update consumer protection legislation dating from the 1950s and to bring Canada’s legislative framework in line with the international community. The bill covers all therapeutic products and devices including regular drugs and natural health products.

The bill adds the following elements to the regime that currently governs medicinal products and medical devices:

• The power to issue mandatory re­calls (at present, Health Canada has only the power to issue a warning if a drug or natural health product is found to be tainted or unsafe).

• An increase in the fines for offences committed under the Food and Drugs Act.

• The ability to enforce the existing standards that apply to claims of effectiveness.

Section 14 of Bill C-51 states:

No person shall manufacture, process, label, package, sell, import for sale or advertise a therapeutic product in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its benefits, risks, conditions of use, quality, quantity, composition, design, construction, performance, origin or authorization status.

While the above language would seem to be a commonsense standard that any country should employ, the requirement for even a modest measure of truth in advertising appears to have triggered an avalanche of antipathy from proponents of natural health products. A simple Google search of the term “Bill C-51” uncovers a boiling cauldron of paranoia, vitriol, and anti-science that makes the X-Files look downright scholarly.

It is perhaps understandable that the natural health product sector would feel surprised by the suggestion of a restriction placed on advertised benefits. Intense lobbying by proponents of herbal medicine in the late 1990s led to regulatory changes at Health Canada that saw a dramatic reduction in the levels of proof required for natural remedies.

Standards of clinical evidence are much lower than those for regular medications, and many health claims can now be allowed if remedies have simply been part of what is called “traditional use.” As well, a new bureau—the Natural Health Products Directorate—has been created to adjudicate and administer the new weakened regulations. This body is led by proponents of alternative medicine. Yet Health Canada does not have enough staff to evaluate and enforce even these low standards.

The sale of natural health products is big business—and many of the producers are owned by so-called big pharma. Canadians spend over $2 billion yearly on natural health products ranging from herbal preparation to homeopathic remedies.

Health Minister Tony Clement’s assertion that Bill C-51 will not have much effect on the rules around the sale of and claims allowed for herbal remedies is likely correct. Although the language in Section 14 is in the right form to protect Canadians, it is in the subsequent regulations where the real test of consumer protection lies—and these regulations are not slated to change.

Yet there is still fear within the natural health product community. There is acute anxiety that even if the current regulations were enforced, up to 60% of natural remedies would be removed from the shelves. One has to wonder what percentage would be left if we not only enforced the current low standards but also required the sort of genuine scientific testing that would truly protect the public.

—Lloyd Oppel, MD Chair, Council on Health Promotion

https://www.bcmj.org/council-health-promotion/bill-c-51-small-step-right-direction

Bill C-51 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This bill was last introduced in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in September 2008.

Sponsor

Tony Clement Conservative

Status

Not active, as of April 8, 2008

(This bill did not become law.)

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

This enactment amends the Food and Drugs Act to modernize the regulatory system for foods and therapeutic products, to strengthen the oversight of the benefits and risks of therapeutic products throughout their life cycle, to support effective compliance and enforcement actions and to enable a greater transparency and openness of the regulatory system.

It also amends other Acts in consequence and includes transitional provisions and coordinating amendments

.

What a bunch of sneaky crooks.. Using the same bill codename for their anti-terror bill..

[William_Clarkson]

I (for the most part) prefer Conservative policies, but this bill alone would have me rather see the NDP or the Liberals win the next election. Just awful.

[drummer4now]

I (for the most part) prefer Conservative policies, but this bill alone would have me rather see the NDP or the Liberals win the next election. Just awful.

Then I guess your only choice is NDP as Trudeau and the Liberals also support this bill.

The only thing they want to do is just tweak it a bit.

[luckylager]

I (for the most part) prefer Conservative policies, but this bill alone would have me rather see the NDP or the Liberals win the next election. Just awful.

They can call themselves conservatives all they want, but they're not. I know a few real conservatives (in their 50's and 60's), they hate the guy.

[Webster6]

They can call themselves conservatives all they want, but they're not. I know a few real conservatives (in their 50's and 60's), they hate the guy.

Nobody should label themselves Conservative or Liberal. If you're left or right on absolutely all issues than you're just an ignorant fool that likely is a well indoctrinated sheep. If you just choose a team over a handful of social issues, and let a singular representative do most of the critical thinking for you. Then you're just helping to feed the corrupt system by letting yourself get played.

[Dazzle]

Then I guess your only choice is NDP as Trudeau and the Liberals also support this bill.

The only thing they want to do is just tweak it a bit.

Are you serious?

I'm really going to have to research this further. This would be close to being a dealbreaker for me for choosing Libs as an alternative.

God forbid, I'm going with NDP?

And yes, God Forbid, I am going to vote NDP.

YAY for throwing away votes! Completely asinine on him to support this ridiculous bill, even "without amendments". Are you serious?

This bill flat out sucks and I'm not a terrorist. It's comparable to using a nuke on a termite problem.

I don't think any of the parties (with its current leaders) are worth choosing at all now. Mulcair is good for a laugh I guess, even though I'm technically not voting for him directly.

[Dazzle]

Nobody should label themselves Conservative or Liberal. If you're left or right on absolutely all issues than you're just an ignorant fool that likely is a well indoctrinated sheep. If you just choose a team over a handful of social issues, and let a singular representative do most of the critical thinking for you. Then you're just helping to feed the corrupt system by letting yourself get played.

I vote for white power and slavery again.

HEETLER!

BTW, I agree with you completely. It's completely impossible to align yourself in the political spectrum AND agree with every single issue that a party has.

This system is screwed and needs an overhaul somehow. I don't have alternatives.

[JAY JAY]

Democracy Eh!

They do say that democracy rules,
where the electorate are played as fools.

While the entrenched corporate power,
uses the Constitutional Monarchy as it's tools.

by Jay-Scrawl

[terrible.dee]

I (for the most part) prefer Conservative policies, but this bill alone would have me rather see the NDP or the Liberals win the next election. Just awful.

Ther're all a$$holes

This country needs a political enima

[Lockout Casualty]

[Lockout Casualty]

Then I guess your only choice is NDP as Trudeau and the Liberals also support this bill.

The only thing they want to do is just tweak it a bit.

Doesn't Trudeau want to tweak it a bit also? Seems to me the only difference is that Mulcair wouldn't pass the bill without amendments, while Trudeau would see it amended after winning the election. Considering CPC majority, both positions are irrelevant to the outcome and could be seen as pandering for votes if one's cynical enough (as I am).

NDP will probably shed some votes to Libs as a result of their lukewarm opposition to C51, which is good, but NDP loses credibility, which is bad. I'm split on how I feel about the NDP softening their position. On the one hand, I'm left of the NDP and I prefer the electoral system they would advance, on the other my single issue vote is for election reform, and I see the Libs as by far the best chance to beat the CPC and implement any reform. It's a vote for the future, and some improvement is better than allowing status quo to win again. /shudder

Are you serious?

I'm really going to have to research this further. This would be close to being a dealbreaker for me for choosing Libs as an alternative.

God forbid, I'm going with NDP?

And yes, God Forbid, I am going to vote NDP.

YAY for throwing away votes! Completely asinine on him to support this ridiculous bill, even "without amendments". Are you serious?

This bill flat out sucks and I'm not a terrorist. It's comparable to using a nuke on a termite problem.

I don't think any of the parties (with its current leaders) are worth choosing at all now. Mulcair is good for a laugh I guess, even though I'm technically not voting for him directly.

How so?

[Dazzle]

Doesn't Trudeau want to tweak it a bit also? Seems to me the only difference is that Mulcair wouldn't pass the bill without amendments, while Trudeau would see it amended after winning the election. Considering CPC majority, both positions are irrelevant to the outcome and could be seen as pandering for votes if one's cynical enough (as I am).

NDP will probably shed some votes to Libs as a result of their lukewarm opposition to C51, which is good, but NDP loses credibility, which is bad. I'm split on how I feel about the NDP softening their position. On the one hand, I'm left of the NDP and I prefer the electoral system they would advance, on the other my single issue vote is for election reform, and I see the Libs as by far the best chance to beat the CPC and implement any reform. It's a vote for the future, and some improvement is better than allowing status quo to win again. /shudder

How so?

Mulcair is good for a laugh because he doesn't really have much of a platform to offer, as of yet. He's mostly been engaged in debates that don't reveal what solutions that he'd do instead (because that would be opening a can of worms in some cases). Can't say I blame him - he's walking the political field like it's a minefield.

Mulcair's also been partisan-like in his debates, whereas Trudeau pretends to be at least 'non-partisan' when it comes to his arguments.

Problem with Trudeau is that he's agreeing on this bill that is heavily unpopular amongst (young) Canadians. People are getting disillusioned with Harper and how he's pushing draconian bills like these ones.

Trudeau should've stood out from him and he would've stolen the votes. Instead, people like me are flocking to NDP because of the default alternative.

The whole political scene is like Rogers/Telus/Bell. NDP right now is the lesser of evils, which is not to say that I even like the NDP.

[Lockout Casualty]

Mulcair is good for a laugh because he doesn't really have much of a platform to offer, as of yet. He's mostly been engaged in debates that don't reveal what solutions that he'd do instead (because that would be opening a can of worms in some cases). Can't say I blame him - he's walking the political field like it's a minefield.

Mulcair's also been partisan-like in his debates, whereas Trudeau pretends to be at least 'non-partisan' when it comes to his arguments.

Problem with Trudeau is that he's agreeing on this bill that is heavily unpopular amongst (young) Canadians. People are getting disillusioned with Harper and how he's pushing draconian bills like these ones.

Trudeau should've stood out from him and he would've stolen the votes. Instead, people like me are flocking to NDP because of the default alternative.

The whole political scene is like Rogers/Telus/Bell. NDP right now is the lesser of evils, which is not to say that I even like the NDP.

Neither NDP nor Libs have offered a platform yet. Hardly a fair criticism of Mulcair, no? I would also say he's been pretty good during QP and in my opinion looks like he'd make a more competent PM than the other two combined.

I recall a situation where I thought Mulcair was overly partisan, but I don't think that's also any more true about Mulcair than of the other parties. Libs have an advantage of straddling the middle, also. A bit easier to swing both ways.

Mulcair supports the spirit of the bill though, what's to suggest electing him won't result in a similar bill, albeit with some amendments? Where's the party that actively stands against the bill in spirit?

I think an immediate lesser evil would be to legalize marijuana. Unwarranted spying will affect a few people for sure, but this one issue is ruining people's lives by the thousand, with millions affected already.

[Dazzle]

Neither NDP nor Libs have offered a platform yet. Hardly a fair criticism of Mulcair, no? I would also say he's been pretty good during QP and in my opinion looks like he'd make a more competent PM than the other two combined.

I recall a situation where I thought Mulcair was overly partisan, but I don't think that's also any more true about Mulcair than of the other parties. Libs have an advantage of straddling the middle, also. A bit easier to swing both ways.

Mulcair supports the spirit of the bill though, what's to suggest electing him won't result in a similar bill, albeit with some amendments? Where's the party that actively stands against the bill in spirit?

I think an immediate lesser evil would be to legalize marijuana. Unwarranted spying will affect a few people for sure, but this one issue is ruining people's lives by the thousand, with millions affected already.

Say what you want about marijuana, it's a drug/plant that doesn't ruin people's lives in the way that cocaine, ecstasy etc does. Lots of people, including some people I may or may not know, have used it recreationally and/or medicinally. That being said, I'm not here to promote marijuana. I don't smoke it; never have and likely never will.

Currently, marijuana IS illegal and enormous profits are being made by gangs and unscruptulous individuals. Making it 'illegal' hasn't stopped its "success" in this province. It is a cash crop as a result of its legality status (and the lack of it). Decriminalizing it crashes the market and makes it much less worth it to grow it (which ultimately would stop the 'ruining' of lives of people, as you are speculating). The fact that it may get decriminalized has no direct effect in my life.

[Mustapha]

Then I guess your only choice is NDP as Trudeau and the Liberals also support this bill.

The only thing they want to do is just tweak it a bit.

If you are voting NDP, don't bother voting at all. All they manage to do is split the vote to allow another Conservative majority.

Besides, the Liberals don't see the point in opposing he bill entirely as they will simply reverse it when they are elected.