What's new

HC NOW WANTS CONFIRMATION MEDS ARE DESTROYED

Buddha1

Member
Veteran
If they what proof I no longer grow or have dried medicine on the premises, I will notify them with there form as requested. But...I've got a few lbs of good quality trim for making baking butter, I would love to send it to Health Canada, mixed with kitty litter and water, as further proof...HAHAHA.

If everyone did this...WOW!...FUNNY STUFF!!!


Peace...B
 

blastfrompast

Active member
Veteran
Yeah, I am going back to the seedling biz myself...

Fun times...schlopping veggies at the farmers market..

Upside I can grow alot of veggies with 80 acres to play with...Ever seen what 120 tomato plants will produce :)
 

crazy_eagle

Active member
This is so stupid that hc wants you to send in a form saying everything has bin destroyed..Well that's easy just say everything has bin smoked..lol
 

Canada

Active member
its just as easy to not do nothing and when the cops show at the door tell them the person they are asking for doesn't live here.

The people that use to live here got a strange parcel in the mail and split .
 

med-man

The TRUMP of SKUNK: making skunk loud again!
Boutique Breeder
ICMag Donor
Veteran
everyone has their breaking point,

as a whole we should all be drawing a line in the sand

we have the numbers

disobey!

med-man
 

Buddha1

Member
Veteran
Privacy Notice

Collection and use of personal information in this attestation is in accordance with the federal Privacy Act. The personal information you provide is collected under the authority of section 259.3 of the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations for the purpose of assessing compliance with the obligation to 1) destroy marijuana obtained under the MMAR and 2) notify Health Canada of the required information. This collection of personal information is described in Info Source under the Personal Information Bank (PIB) PPU 073. Personal information may be disclosed to law enforcement agencies for compliance and enforcement purposes. In some cases, information may also be disclosed without your consent for purposes not outlined in this Privacy Notice, pursuant to subsection 8(2) of the Privacy Act.

The Privacy Act gives you the rights of access to, correction of and protection of your personal information. For further information about this Privacy Notice please contact Health Canada's Next link will take you to another Web site Access to Information and Privacy Coordinator. A list of all ATIP Coordinators across the federal government is available at http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/atip-aiprp/apps/coords/index-eng.asp.






I find this interesting....In some cases, information may also be disclosed without your consent for purposes not outlined in this Privacy Notice, pursuant to subsection 8(2) of the Privacy Act.

This deeply concerns me.

I know I said no biggy...I'll give the government there filled out form. But I read the last line in the first paragraphed of the "Privacy Notice" on the 2nd page of the "Compliance of Destruction" form. Then I went to the privacy act and read Subsection 8(2) of the privacy act. To me, Section 8(2) kind of states that they can give it out to anyone they want, including and the police for warrants without the signers permission. This could be a "Damed if you do and damed if you don't", situation.

Here's Subsection 8(2) of the "Privacy Act"...Read it through, tell me what your interpretation is, I'm not a lawyer so I may be totally misunderstanding this entirely.

Peace...B

Privacy Act

Section 8

Disclosure of personal information


8. (1) Personal information under the control of a government institution shall not, without the consent of the individual to whom it relates, be disclosed by the institution except in accordance with this section.
Marginal note:Where personal information may be disclosed

(2) Subject to any other Act of Parliament, personal information under the control of a government institution may be disclosed

(a) for the purpose for which the information was obtained or compiled by the institution or for a use consistent with that purpose;

(b) for any purpose in accordance with any Act of Parliament or any regulation made thereunder that authorizes its disclosure;

(c) for the purpose of complying with a subpoena or warrant issued or order made by a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information or for the purpose of complying with rules of court relating to the production of information;

(d) to the Attorney General of Canada for use in legal proceedings involving the Crown in right of Canada or the Government of Canada;

(e) to an investigative body specified in the regulations, on the written request of the body, for the purpose of enforcing any law of Canada or a province or carrying out a lawful investigation, if the request specifies the purpose and describes the information to be disclosed;

(f) under an agreement or arrangement between the Government of Canada or an institution thereof and the government of a province, the council of the Westbank First Nation, the council of a participating First Nation — as defined in subsection 2(1) of the First Nations Jurisdiction over Education in British Columbia Act —, the government of a foreign state, an international organization of states or an international organization established by the governments of states, or any institution of any such government or organization, for the purpose of administering or enforcing any law or carrying out a lawful investigation;

(g) to a member of Parliament for the purpose of assisting the individual to whom the information relates in resolving a problem;

(h) to officers or employees of the institution for internal audit purposes, or to the office of the Comptroller General or any other person or body specified in the regulations for audit purposes;

(i) to the Library and Archives of Canada for archival purposes;

(j) to any person or body for research or statistical purposes if the head of the government institution

(i) is satisfied that the purpose for which the information is disclosed cannot reasonably be accomplished unless the information is provided in a form that would identify the individual to whom it relates, and

(ii) obtains from the person or body a written undertaking that no subsequent disclosure of the information will be made in a form that could reasonably be expected to identify the individual to whom it relates;

(k) to any aboriginal government, association of aboriginal people, Indian band, government institution or part thereof, or to any person acting on behalf of such government, association, band, institution or part thereof, for the purpose of researching or validating the claims, disputes or grievances of any of the aboriginal peoples of Canada;

(l) to any government institution for the purpose of locating an individual in order to collect a debt owing to Her Majesty in right of Canada by that individual or make a payment owing to that individual by Her Majesty in right of Canada; and

(m) for any purpose where, in the opinion of the head of the institution,

(i) the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any invasion of privacy that could result from the disclosure, or

(ii) disclosure would clearly benefit the individual to whom the information relates.
Marginal note:personal information disclosed by Library and Archives of Canada


(3) Subject to any other Act of Parliament, personal information under the custody or control of the Library and Archives of Canada that has been transferred there by a government institution for historical or archival purposes may be disclosed in accordance with the regulations to any person or body for research or statistical purposes.
Marginal note:Copies of requests under paragraph (2)(e) to be retained

(4) The head of a government institution shall retain a copy of every request received by the government institution under paragraph (2)(e) for such period of time as may be prescribed by regulation, shall keep a record of any information disclosed pursuant to the request for such period of time as may be prescribed by regulation and shall, on the request of the Privacy Commissioner, make those copies and records available to the Privacy Commissioner.
Marginal note:Notice of disclosure under paragraph (2)(m)

(5) The head of a government institution shall notify the Privacy Commissioner in writing of any disclosure of personal information under paragraph (2)(m) prior to the disclosure where reasonably practicable or in any other case forthwith on the disclosure, and the Privacy Commissioner may, if the Commissioner deems it appropriate, notify the individual to whom the information relates of the disclosure.

Definition of “Indian band”

(6) In paragraph (2)(k), “Indian band” means

(a) a band, as defined in the Indian Act;

(b) a band, as defined in the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, chapter 18 of the Statutes of Canada, 1984;

(c) the Band, as defined in the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act, chapter 27 of the Statutes of Canada, 1986; or

(d) a first nation named in Schedule II to the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act.

Definition of “aboriginal government”

(7) The expression “aboriginal government” in paragraph (2)(k) means

(a) Nisga’a Government, as defined in the Nisga’a Final Agreement given effect by the Nisga’a Final Agreement Act;

(b) the council of the Westbank First Nation;

(c) the Tlicho Government, as defined in section 2 of the Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act;

(d) the Nunatsiavut Government, as defined in section 2 of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act;

(e) the council of a participating First Nation as defined in subsection 2(1) of the First Nations Jurisdiction over Education in British Columbia Act;

(f) the Tsawwassen Government, as defined in subsection 2(2) of the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act; or

(g) a Maanulth Government, within the meaning of subsection 2(2) of the Maanulth First Nations Final Agreement Act.

Definition of “council of the Westbank First Nation”

(8) The expression “council of the Westbank First Nation” in paragraphs (2)(f) and (7)(b) means the council, as defined in the Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement given effect by the Westbank First Nation Self-Government Act.
 
yes, that's what I was pointing to earlier in this thread. I spoke with a few lawyers who said that the document is too broadly worded and should not be signed. They say to either cross out the bottom and rewrite it stating you do not consent to have your information shared, or get an affidavit created stating you you have complied and do not consent to the sharing of information. Also you should read section 259.3 of the mmpr. It has nothing to do with the collection or sharing of information. hopefully conroy wins the case and health Canada can get stuffed. everyone should be calling the privacy commissioner of Canada to complain about the threat of having there privacy breached.

The lawyer also stated that the privacy of health information supersedes the need of law enforcement for information to go on a witch hunt, and in court health Canada would loose if challenged on this. problem is it would cost money...... anyone with deep pockets want to launch another class action?
 

Buddha1

Member
Veteran
yes, that's what I was pointing to earlier in this thread. I spoke with a few lawyers who said that the document is too broadly worded and should not be signed. They say to either cross out the bottom and rewrite it stating you do not consent to have your information shared, or get an affidavit created stating you you have complied and do not consent to the sharing of information. Also you should read section 259.3 of the mmpr. It has nothing to do with the collection or sharing of information. hopefully conroy wins the case and health Canada can get stuffed. everyone should be calling the privacy commissioner of Canada to complain about the threat of having there privacy breached.

The lawyer also stated that the privacy of health information supersedes the need of law enforcement for information to go on a witch hunt, and in court health Canada would loose if challenged on this. problem is it would cost money...... anyone with deep pockets want to launch another class action?

So we should fill it out but NOT sign the "Compliance of Destruction" form or rewrite the "Privacy Notice" to read that we don't agree to the sharing of any information. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think either of those would help, since the signature is above the "Privacy Notice". I would understand this "Privacy Notice", placed under the signature as a..."We are telling you what's going to happen", rather than anyone agreeing or disagreeing to it. If it was a..."Do you agree" notice, wouldn't the signature be under the "Privacy Notice".

I think an..."Affidavit stating you have complied and do not consent to the sharing of your information" is a better idea or not send the "Compliance of Destruction" form in at all. I believe that the police would need a search warrant to enter the grow area to inspect that compliance has occurred. I also believe that having a MMAR license to grow before April 1 2014 is not evidence enough to grant a search warrant. I believe the police would have to present all the same evidence used in obtaining a warrant to a judge that is usually presented for a grow op search warrant.

Personally, after some thought...I don't think I will send the "Compliance of Destruction" form in to Health Canada. I think if they(RCMP) come to my door, I will ask for the search warrant and they will not have one, nor will they be able to get one since I will be shut down and no longer growing. And the usual evidence would not be present(High power consumption, Smell and Odor, Sounds of Running Equipment, Etc., Etc.). No judge in his right mind would sign a warrant based on, just past events and the RCMP stating, I believe this is happening...judges are all about the evidence. The RCMP would have no choice but, to leave and not come back and Health Canada would have none of my information to share.

But...

I am not a lawyer and could be wrong...So check with your lawyer friends and post the answer....ASAP...could save me and others a whole lot of grief.

Thank You.
Peace...B
 
So we should fill it out but NOT sign the "Compliance of Destruction" form or rewrite the "Privacy Notice" to read that we don't agree to the sharing of any information. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think either of those would help, since the signature is above the "Privacy Notice". I would understand this "Privacy Notice", placed under the signature as a..."We are telling you what's going to happen", rather than anyone agreeing or disagreeing to it. If it was a..."Do you agree" notice, wouldn't the signature be under the "Privacy Notice".

I think an..."Affidavit stating you have complied and do not consent to the sharing of your information" is a better idea or not send the "Compliance of Destruction" form in at all. I believe that the police would need a search warrant to enter the grow area to inspect that compliance has occurred. I also believe that having a MMAR license to grow before April 1 2014 is not evidence enough to grant a search warrant. I believe the police would have to present all the same evidence used in obtaining a warrant to a judge that is usually presented for a grow op search warrant.

Personally, after some thought...I don't think I will send the "Compliance of Destruction" form in to Health Canada. I think if they(RCMP) come to my door, I will ask for the search warrant and they will not have one, nor will they be able to get one since I will be shut down and no longer growing. And the usual evidence would not be present(High power consumption, Smell and Odor, Sounds of Running Equipment, Etc., Etc.). No judge in his right mind would sign a warrant based on, just past events and the RCMP stating, I believe this is happening...judges are all about the evidence. The RCMP would have no choice but, to leave and not come back and Health Canada would have none of my information to share.

But...

I am not a lawyer and could be wrong...So check with your lawyer friends and post the answer....ASAP...could save me and others a whole lot of grief.

Thank You.
Peace...B

Why not re write the statement and print it out so it looks like the same as current except add a line saying you don't agree to the release of your info. Chances are they'll overlook it and file it away. Now if 40K people do it what can they really do but accept. They would have tp spend another 400K to send the letters back lol.
 
Don't send those ass hats a goddamn thing. They've already handed over the data base to the RCMP if this little encounter is actually factual.

http://www.reddit.com/r/canadients/comments/20uwd7/was_just_pulled_over_by_rcmp/

They were already allowed to give the info out if there was a warrant for it. Just like any statement made by both sides there's two sides to a story. You know how many people got sloppy and careless with security because they got a license. Its quite amazing.
 
I don't really buy that storey from reddit. Chances are they where already under investigation and the rcmp called HC to confirm the grow. As far as the notice of destruction goes if you can afford to pay a lawyer to create an affidavit that definitely seems like the way to go. If you cannot afford it sending in a modified version of the form containing all the information they ask for without giving them the right to take away your privacy is the best you could do under the circumstances. I am waiting until a decision in the conroy challenge has been reached before I see the lawyer again, no point wasting money yet. funny thing is even if there is an injunction who is going to renew with HC after all the crap they have pulled. I have a feeling we'd all be better off to just keep the script from the dr in a safe place and take our chances in court if any trouble occurs. I don't trust those turds at all anymore, they have made it abundantly clear that they are looking to fuck as all any way they can.
 

blastfrompast

Active member
Veteran
Do you guys believe EVERYTHING you read online??????

peace
Chefboy

I will say that someone who got "investigated" and gets their #'s checked by the RCMP every 2 months or so has been told the that the RCMP has a list...I personally think the RCMP officer's were fucking with my buddy...but you never know..

And by list I mean a listing of every grow they have "investigated" where HC told them that it was legal..these grows will be "re-investigated" in April according to the nice officer.

My buddy will be asking for a warrant, and is hoping they don't show up during the drying period....
 

Buddha1

Member
Veteran
Don't send those ass hats a goddamn thing. They've already handed over the data base to the RCMP if this little encounter is actually factual.

http://www.reddit.com/r/canadients/comments/20uwd7/was_just_pulled_over_by_rcmp/

The list could have been collected and compiled when Health Canada sent out the MMPR notice regular mail for all to see. Health Canada may have even notified the municipalities that a letter was being sent out that was not secure. I wouldn't put anything past HC at this point in time. I'm thinking this way because after that "Big Yellow Colored, Huge Window" letter arrived from Health Canada that outed all of us, my mail carrier brought my renewal. And I quote what she said "I've got your license here for you to sign for". Never before did she say that to me and I have been licensed for 8 years, living at the same address.

Things couldn't be anymore suspect than they are right now...All kinds of shady going on.

Peace...B
 

Canada

Active member
The list could have been collected and compiled when Health Canada sent out the MMPR notice regular mail for all to see. Health Canada may have even notified the municipalities that a letter was being sent out that was not secure. I wouldn't put anything past HC at this point in time. I'm thinking this way because after that "Big Yellow Colored, Huge Window" letter arrived from Health Canada that outed all of us, my mail carrier brought my renewal. And I quote what she said "I've got your license here for you to sign for". Never before did she say that to me and I have been licensed for 8 years, living at the same address.

Things couldn't be anymore suspect than they are right now...All kinds of shady going on.

Peace...B


I woukld have asked her Did you open it or something ? how did you know its a license ? then I would have made a complaint to the postoffice about the comment then called a lawyer.
 

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top