Author: Ronnie

Posted on

The Forgotten Grifts: Police On Guard & Children’s Health Defense Canada

Today, we’re going back to a few lesser known lawsuits against lockdown measures. Both were filed in April 2021 (a full 2 years ago), and neither have had a single Court appearance. These are: (a) a police challenge promoted by the group “Police On Guard”; and (b) a challenge for students led by Children’s Health Defense Canada.

Both groups are still soliciting donations, while giving the impression that they have cases actively moving through the system.

So, what are the problems?

1. POG/CHDC Cases Filed In Wrong Ontario Court

To understand just how deep this goes, let’s take a look into the issue of jurisdiction. Filing in the wrong one is typically fatal to a case.

Applications for judicial review
2 (1) On an application by way of originating notice, which may be styled “Notice of Application for Judicial Review”, the court may, despite any right of appeal, by order grant any relief that the applicant would be entitled to in any one or more of the following:
.
1. Proceedings by way of application for an order in the nature of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari.
2. Proceedings by way of an action for a declaration or for an injunction, or both, in relation to the exercise, refusal to exercise or proposed or purported exercise of a statutory power.

Application to Divisional Court
6 (1) Subject to subsection (2), an application for judicial review shall be made to the Divisional Court.
Application to judge of Superior Court of Justice
.
(2) An application for judicial review may be made to the Superior Court of Justice with leave of a judge thereof, which may be granted at the hearing of the application, where it is made to appear to the judge that the case is one of urgency and that the delay required for an application to the Divisional Court is likely to involve a failure of justice.

According to Sections 2 and 6 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, litigation involving a mandamus (compulsion order), or a prohibition (ban), must be an Application for Judicial Review. It also needs to be filed in Divisional Court, unless leave (permission) is granted.

The Police On Guard case asks for a prohibition (page 13).

The Children’s Health Defense Canada case asks for a prohibition (page 14), and also for a mandamus (page 15).

It doesn’t appear that permission was ever obtained (or ever sought) in order to try these cases in Superior Court, as opposed to Divisional. Consequently, they would probably be thrown out for lack of jurisdiction if they were ever challenged.

Of course, it has to be asked why they haven’t yet been challenged. Perhaps there’s an agreement among the parties to just let these sit.

2. POG/CHDC Cases Haven’t Had Single Court Appearance

It’s easy to SEARCH ONLINE for the latest updates. Neither case has been in Court, and again, we must ask why. There has been no effort to advance either one.

There was a Rule 2.1.01(6) request to have the Children’s Health Defense Canada case thrown out. This is simply filing a letter asking for it to be done. Only in truly incoherent cases is this granted.

Instead, it was misrepresented in alt-media circles to mean that a formal Motion to Strike has been filed, and then dismissed. That didn’t happen. So, why hasn’t the Attorney General made any real effort to get either case tossed? Was there some kind of agreement?

3. POG/CHDC Cases Recycle Previously Struck Content

Both Applications are asking the Court to make declarations as to “what the science is”. These exact remedies have already been ruled as inappropriate both in the Action4Canada case, and the more recent Federal vaccine passport ruling. Both Judges said that these are not the types of questions that should be brought.

There’s also the problem that both Applications are pleaded very poorly, and would likely be struck for non-compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure. See the Vaccine Choice critique, as the flaws are nearly identical.

Worth pointing out: the Police On Guard and Children’s Health Defense pleadings are virtual clones. It’s as if one was directly cut and pasted to form the basis of the other.

4. Police On Guard Is A Lobbying/Fundraising Group

From their Certificate of Incorporation, it appears that one of the major purposes of Police on Guard is to convince officers to join the ongoing Court action. Yes, its function (at least in part), is to act as a recruitment and lobbying tool to drive potential applicants and donations.

It’s not a stretch to label Police on Guard as a fundraising arm.

5. CHD Canada Case Has Major Conflicts On Interest

Supposedly, Children’s Health Defense Canada is run by Amanda Forbes. That’s very interesting, considering that the documents from Corporations Canada don’t list her at all.

It gets weirder, as Galati, counsel for the CHD Canada lawsuit is listed as a Director. Considering that CHD Canada is listed as an Applicant, that would essentially make Galati a self-representing litigant. Was this ever disclosed?

Moreover, the addresses for all the Directors are that of his Toronto law office. So, is CHD Canada just a shell corporation?

Does Robert Kennedy know that his name and brand are being used for this?

Anyone can search and download Police On Guard and CHD Canada corporate documents.

There’s a public interest in knowing what’s going on. These lawsuits were filed 2 years ago, challenging various lockdown measures. They were publicly advertised, and public donations have been solicited. There’s nothing private about any of this.

Also, Court documents are public records, but the point has been made.

It’s past time to ask some hard questions, isn’t it?

(1) https://policeonguard.ca/category/police-on-guard-court-case/
(2) https://policeonguard.ca/donate/
(3) https://childrenshealthdefense.ca/legalcase/
(4) https://childrenshealthdefense.ca/about-us/donate/
(5) https://childrenshealthdefense.ca/about-us/
(6) https://ised-isde.canada.ca/cc/lgcy/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=13140873&V_TOKEN=null&crpNm=police%20on%20guard&crpNmbr=&bsNmbr=
(7) https://ised-isde.canada.ca/cc/lgcy/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=12951126&V_TOKEN=null&crpNm=children%27s%20health&crpNmbr=&bsNmbr=
(8) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-j1/latest/rso-1990-c-j1.html
(9) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online

POLICE ON GUARD/OFFICERS:
(1) Notice Of Application — April 20, 2021

POLICE ON GUARD CORPORATE DOCUMENTS:
(1) Police On Guard Incorporation
(2) Police On Guard Registered Office & Directors
(3) Police On Guard Directors
(4) Police On Guard Bylaws
(5) Police On Guard Directors Later

ONTARIO STUDENTS/CHDC:
(1) Notice Of Application — April 20, 2021, Masks On Students
(2) Schools – Rule 2.1.01 Decision
(3) Schools — Notice Of Appearance Robert Kyle
(4) Schools — Notice Of Appearance Halton Durham

CHD CANADA CORPORATE DOCUMENTS:
(1) Childrens Health Defense Canada Registered Office
(2) Childrens Health Defense Canada Incorporation
(3) Childrens Health Defense Registered office & Directors
(4) Childrens Health Defense Canada Annual Return

Posted on

Association of Doctors of B.C. Wants All Drugs Decriminalized, Previously Backed Vaccine Passport

Doctors of BC (British Columbia) describes itself as “a voluntary association of 14,000 physicians, residents and medical students in British Columbia.” It’s interesting that they refer to it as voluntary, as the group promotes policies that are anything but.

As an aside, lobbying efforts also include having obesity declared a chronic disease. This is because… reasons. There’s also calls for “health equity”, whatever that means.

Advocacy regarding decriminalization and safe supply of opioids with policy paper was published in June 2021. The policy paper contains a statement that calls on the provincial government to dedicate resources to health and social interventions that will have a positive impact on the life trajectories of people who use drugs, including reducing drug toxicity injuries and deaths.

This organization calls for: improving access to substance use prevention, harm reduction, and treatment programs and services, all while making it easier to access those same drugs.

Yes, an association which claims to speak for 14,000 physicians, residents and medical students wants to see all hard drugs in the Province decriminalized. Absurd as it sounds, it gets even worse when looking at other policies they recently advocated for.

The lobbying records also listed: “Advocacy regarding secondary use of EMR data with the outcome of a creation of a governance structure for secondary use of data generated from physician EMRs”, as one of the purposes meeting with M.L.A.s. While this is vague, it’s plausible that this could mean selling patient data (possibly with identifying markers removed) for research.

Another topic was: “Advocacy regarding the development of the legislative framework to expand the Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) with the goal of ensuring physicians are covered by the protections of PIDA.” This would make it easier and less risky to divulge confidential information, although the specifics are not clear.

This was less than 2 years ago, so it’s not ancient. It’s also very revealing into the ideologies of how such institutions are really run.

Doctors of BC applauds the provincial government for its announcement of progressive measures to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 in the province, including the reinstatement of the indoor mask mandate, and the introduction of the BC Vaccine Card requiring mandatory vaccinations in order to access discretionary indoor events. In taking these steps, government is recognizing the threat posed by highly transmissible COVID-19 variants and the mounting pressure on our health care system and to those who work in it.

The Association of Doctors of BC supported (in Summer 2021) the vaccine passport being introduced, as well as mask mandates being reinstated. Matthew Chow, President of the group, wrote glowingly about it.

The Association of Doctors of B.C. says it takes people’s health (including mental health) seriously, but openly supported excluding them from society in order to coerce them into taking mRNA shots.

This also helps explain why no doctors were willing to hand out mask or vaccine exemption letters in this Province. They were all controlled.

For an organization that claims to want to create a healthier Province, it ignores the obvious cause of drug use and overdoses in the last few years: medical lockdown measures. In other words, they supposedly want to fix a problem, but support actions that lead to it getting worse.

Even today, they’re still hyping the vaccines.

Just the previous month, the group released a paper calling for the decriminalization of all illicit drugs in B.C. in the name of health and safety. Specifically, there were goals to:

  • Decriminalization of simple possession of all controlled substances for personal use.
  • Enhanced coordination of and improved access to a range of community-based, culturally appropriate, evidence-informed substance use prevention, harm reduction, and treatment programs and services.
  • Increased access to health and social programs and services to address the social determinants of health.
  • Efforts to separate people from the toxic, illicit drug supply, and prevent unintentional toxic drug poisoning or overdose, including improved access to safer pharmaceutical alternatives.

This isn’t really designed to get people to stop doing drugs altogether, but to have them doing it “safely”. And yes, this is a doctor’s group.

The state of health care in B.C….

(1) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=193&regId=56567406
(2) https://www.doctorsofbc.ca/about-us
(3) https://www.doctorsofbc.ca/news/doctors-bc-supports-provincial-government-actions-calls-mandatory-vaccination-health-care
(4) https://archive.is/YrAle
(5) https://www.doctorsofbc.ca/presidents-blog/government-makes-good-moves-we-need-more-curb-covid-19
(6) https://archive.is/FguBF
(7) https://www.doctorsofbc.ca/presidents-blog/government-makes-good-moves-we-need-more-curb-covid-19
(8) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/18022
(9) https://twitter.com/VCHhealthcare/status/1643026387425714176

Posted on

Alberta Firearms Act, Bill 8, Also Backdoored And Worthless

A month ago, the Alberta Government introduced Bill 8, the Alberta Firearms Act. This was sold as a protective measure to keep the Federal Government (or Trudeau, more specifically) from further encroaching on the gun rights of legal owners.

It was presented as a way to circumvent a 2020 Order-In-Council that made some 1,500 models of firearms “prohibited” overnight. Alberta wouldn’t play along with the gun grab that was to result from it.

Bill 8, which is widely expected to become law in the near future. It has passed Third Reading, and is awaiting Royal Assent. (See archive.)

Tyler Shandro, who is now the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, has been hyping up the legislation. He’s a bizarre choice, to be blunt. During his time as Health Minister, he was famous for imposing lockdown measures, and punishing people who dared to resist.

However, despite all the public attention this firearms piece gets, this legislation isn’t anywhere close to what its being presented as.

Here are some highlights:

Section 8 gives the Province the right to act as a seizure agent, or to contract out with a company to hire seizure agents.

Section 9 gives the Minister the right to impose conditions of licencing.

Section 10 requires seizure agents to be licensed.

Section 11 sets out a compensation scheme for seized firearms and ammunition.

Section 12 gives the Minister the power to set out a program for forensic and ballistic testing of firearms that are seized.

Section 13 establishes penalties for seizure agents who fail to comply with their licencing and other requirements.

Section 14 makes directors of corporations liable if they were in any way involved in the decision making process which led to violations of the Act.

Now, before anyone thinks that this will somehow protect gun owners, here’s what can be changed by regulation. This means changed without debate.

Regulations
15 The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations
(a) establishing types or classes of licences;
(b) prescribing types or classes of firearms, ammunition, accessories and parts in respect of which this Part and the regulations made under this Part apply;
(c) prescribing persons or classes of persons who are required to hold a licence;
(d) prescribing persons or classes of persons who are not required to hold or are prohibited from holding a licence;
(e) prescribing activities that licensees are authorized to carry out and prohibiting the carrying out of those activities without a licence;
(f) respecting the powers, duties and functions of licensees;
(g) respecting applications for the issuance and renewal of licences;
(h) respecting application fees, including regulations
(i) authorizing the Minister to charge application fees, and
(ii) fixing the amount of those fees;
(i) respecting the requirements that must be met for the issuance or renewal of licences;
(j) respecting the circumstances in which the Minister may refuse to issue or renew licences;
(k) respecting terms and conditions that the Minister may impose on licences;
(l) respecting the term of licences;
(m) respecting the amendment, suspension and cancellation of licences;
(n) respecting the requirement to return expired, suspended, cancelled or otherwise invalid licences;
(o) respecting requirements that licensees must meet as a condition of holding a licence;
(p) respecting records and other documents that licensees are required to keep for the purposes of this Part and the manner in which such records and documents are to be kept;
(q) respecting the prohibition, regulation and control of advertising by licensees;
(r) respecting complaints relating to licensees;
(s) respecting inspections and investigations relating to licensees, including regulations
(i) authorizing the Minister to appoint inspectors and investigators,
(ii) prescribing the circumstances in which inspections and investigations may be or are required to be carried out,
(iii) respecting the powers, duties and functions of inspectors and investigators,
(iv) respecting procedural and evidentiary matters relating to inspections and investigations,
(v) respecting the production of records, documents, objects and information, and
(vi) respecting entry and searches of premises;
(t) respecting the seizure by licensees of firearms, ammunition, accessories and parts;
(u) respecting the rights of persons from whom firearms, ammunition, accessories and parts are seized to make
written representations;
(v) respecting the transportation by licensees of seized firearms, ammunition, accessories and parts;
(w) respecting the storage by licensees of seized firearms, ammunition, accessories and parts;
(x) respecting the modification, destruction and deactivation by licensees of seized firearms, ammunition, accessories and parts;
(y) respecting identification and uniforms for licensees;
(z) respecting safety requirements for licensees;
(aa) respecting the reporting of incidents involving the use of force or other unusual interventions;
(bb) respecting the establishment, implementation and operation of a compensation program;
(cc) respecting the payment of compensation, including regulations respecting the circumstances in which
compensation is payable and by whom it is payable;
(dd) respecting the factors to be considered for the payment of compensation;
(ee) respecting the determination of the fair market value of firearms, ammunition, accessories and parts for the
purposes of the payment of compensation, including regulations respecting methods to be used to determine
fair market value;
(ff) respecting information and documents that the Chief Firearms Officer may request for the purposes of determining the fair market value of firearms, ammunition, accessories and parts;
(gg) respecting firearms compensation committees, including regulations respecting
(i) the establishment and composition of firearms compensation committees,
(ii) the reimbursement of members of firearms compensation committees for expenses, and
(iii) the powers, duties and functions of firearms compensation committees;
(hh) respecting exemptions from the requirement to pay compensation or circumstances in which the payment of
compensation is prohibited;
(ii) respecting the establishment, implementation and operation of a testing program;
(jj) respecting the submission of seized firearms, ammunition, accessories and parts to a testing program;
(kk) respecting the forensic and ballistic testing of seized firearms, ammunition, accessories and parts;
(ll) respecting the designation by the Chief Firearms Officer of approved testing facilities;
(mm) respecting the powers, duties and functions of approved testing facilities;
(nn) respecting the powers, duties and functions of the Chief Firearms Officer and the Minister for the purposes of this Part;
(oo) prescribing provisions of this Part or the regulations made under this Part or terms and conditions of licences for the purposes of section 13(2);
(pp) prescribing penalties for the purposes of section 13(2).

Federally, and soon in Saskatchewan as well, there are provisions that circumvent the democratic process. If basic rights can be “altered” by regulation changes, then nothing is secure.

Scott Moe and Danielle Smith are implementing much the same thing they criticize Trudeau about.

As with the Saskatchewan Act, the provision allowing for regulation changes on documentation and record keeping leave open the possibility of a new gun registry emerging from this.

Section 15 of the Alberta Act, Section 6-8 of the Saskatchewan Act, and Section 117 Federally all serve the same purpose. They allow firearms “rights” to be gutted by regulation changes, and without democratic debate or mandate.

Section 16 states that a municipality or police force must abide by these regulations before entering into any agreement with the Canadian Government, or accepting any funding.

Section 17 gives the Crown, the Minister, the Chief Firearms Officer, a firearms officer, a member of a firearms compensation committee or any employee of the Crown protection against legal action.

Section 18 goes through another (albeit shorter) list of regulatory changes that the Lieutenant Governor in Council can make. Again, no vote in Parliament would be needed for this.

(a) prescribing enactments of Canada for the purposes of section 1(g)(ii);
(b) prescribing other responsibilities of the Chief Firearms Officer for the purposes of section 3(j);
(c) prescribing matters for the purposes of section 5(1)(b);
(d) prescribing requirements that must be met for the purposes of section 16;
(e) respecting the collection, use and disclosure of information, including personal information, for the purposes of this Act and the regulations;
(f) respecting the confidentiality of information collected under or for the purposes of this Act and the regulations;
(g) respecting the exemption from the application of all or any provision of this Act or the regulations of
(i) any person or class of persons, and
(ii) any firearm, ammunition, accessory or part or class of firearms, ammunition, accessories or parts;
(h) varying the application of all or any provision of this Act or the regulations to
(i) any person or class of persons, and
(ii) any firearm, ammunition, accessory or part or class of firearms, ammunition, accessories or parts;
(i) defining, for the purposes of this Act, any word or phrase used but not defined in this Act;
(j) respecting any other matter or thing that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act.

As with both the Federal and Saskatchewan Acts, there’s a clause (j) that allows for pretty much anything else that’s “considered necessary”, but without defining what that is.

About (e), what are the limits of “respecting the collection, use and disclosure of information, including personal information, for the purposes of this Act and the regulations”? That’s also undefined. Again, all of this can be changed without a vote in the Legislature.

(g) leaves open the possibility of declaring entire classes of firearms to be prohibited.

An observation: the Alberta and Saskatchewan Acts are written with wording that is nearly identical in many cases. Perhaps the same people wrote both documents.

This is yet another Bill that sounds great when it’s announced, but that really needs to be carefully read by constituents.

(1) https://www.assembly.ab.ca/assembly-business/
(2) https://www.assembly.ab.ca/assembly-business/bills/bill?billinfoid=11997&from=bills
(3) https://docs.assembly.ab.ca/LADDAR_files/docs/bills/bill/legislature_30/session_4/20221129_bill-008.pdf
(4) Alberta Firearms Act Full Text
(5) https://twitter.com/ABDanielleSmith/status/1634596199130083328
(6) https://twitter.com/shandro/status/1634364239338151936
(7) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=39208&lang=en
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/canada-firearms-act-and-other-backdoored-legislation/
(9) https://canucklaw.ca/saskatchewan-firearms-act-bill-117-backdoored-and-worthless/

Posted on

Saskatchewan Firearms Act, Bill 117, Backdoored And Worthless

Saskatchewan Premier, Scott Moe, is making a big deal out of Bill 117, the Saskatchewan Firearms Act. It was introduced last December and has now passed Second Reading, with N.D.P. support. This is hailed as a way to protect gun owners from Ottawa. But, are things as they appear to be?

Keep in mind, Moe is the same monster who brought lockdowns, business closures, mask mandates and vaccine passports to Saskatchewan. This was less than 2 years ago. Remember how he decided the time for patience was over? Remember how Discount Bond Villain wanted to make things “less comfortable” for the unvaccinated?

Is this the person we should trust with our freedoms?

Moe is trying to portray himself as a hero of the people, saying Saskatchewan will not help in any way to enforce the gun grab from the May 2020 Order In Council. The stated purpose of this new Firearms Act is to create a separate system from Ottawa, one that can’t be abused.

Of course, any legislation in Saskatchewan can be viewed online at any time. While not exhaustive, here are some of the major points to consider.

Read the full text to ensure nothing is taken out of context:

3-1 explains what this really is. Saskatchewan is essentially setting up an additional firearms license, just a Saskatchewan version. If a person: (a) has a valid PAL/RPAL; and (b) is a Saskatchewan resident, they are deemed to have a Provincial license.

3-2(1) states that a firearms license will be revoked upon conviction of a number of criminal offenses.

3-3 through 3-12 list activities that are prohibited such as unauthorized possession, use, pointing of a firearm, illicit transport, import or export. These are already Criminal Code violations, and illegal anyway.

3-16 outlines the penalties for Section 3 violations, which can be up to 6 months in jail, and fines of $5,000 (individual) and up to $20,000 (for a corporation).

3-17 and 3-18 get into “alternative measures” for violations, and this could be considered parallel to diversion programs offered in Criminal Court. Resolutions include paying fees and taking classes.

Section 4 covers seizure agents, and the requirements to become one. It also gets into the rules and responsibilities once a person becomes an agent. The fact that it’s so detailed can make one wonder how broadly Saskatchewan will be seizing residents’ firearms.

5-3 through 5-6 specify that guns which are seized for enforcing laws, “fair market value” is to be provided. Note: it doesn’t prevent guns from being seized, but just imposes some minimal level of compensation.

5-7(2) prevents residents from commencing any form of litigation against members of this Firearms Compensation Committee. It’s an indemnification clause.

5-8 makes mandatory forensic and ballistic testing for firearms that are seized for criminal history. It’s written as “forensic and ballistic”, suggesting that there may be several different tests that are performed.

5-9 provides the option of forensic and ballistic testing when weapons are seized for other reasons.

5-10 gives the firearm owner the results of any forensic and ballistic testing that has been performed. Nice to see a bit of transparency added in there.

5-11 delays the destruction or deactivation of any firearm until the owner has received notice under 5-10.

6-1 is a way to both limit the cooperation that local police officers or municipalities have with the Government of Canada, as well as accepting financing. Presumably, this is how the “defunding” aspect will work.

6-2(1) gives the Minister broad powers to authorize people to commence investigations to ensure the Act is complied with

6-2(2) defines the scope at which authorized persons may investigate others. And 6-2(2)(d) is rather vague, stating:

(d) any property or assets of or things owned, acquired or alienated in whole or in part by the person being investigated or by any person acting on behalf of or as agent for the person being investigated.

6-2(3) states that the person(s) being investigated have to provide answers, meaning that this isn’t optional.

6-4 gives the Provincial Courts explicit authority to issue search warrants.

6-5 makes it mandatory to generate copies of documents examined during investigation.

6-6(1) list the penalties for obstruction, which can be up to 6 months in jail, and fines of $5,000 (individual) and up to $20,000 (for a corporation).

And, in case you believe you’ve been wronged in some way….

Immunity
6-7 No action or proceeding lies or shall be commenced against the Crown, the minister, the chief firearms officer, a firearms officer, the commissioner or any employee of the Crown if that person is acting pursuant to the authority of this Act or the regulations for anything in good faith done, caused or permitted or authorized to be done, attempted to be done or omitted to be done by that person or by any of those persons pursuant to or in the exercise or supposed exercise of any power conferred by this Act or the regulations or in the carrying out or supposed carrying out of any responsibility imposed by this Act or the regulations.

All too common in most legislation is a provision to indemnify the institution, and any actors involved. How would one ever prove bad faith?

Now we get to the worst part:

Regulations
6-8 The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations:
(a) defining, enlarging or restricting the meaning of any word or expression used in this Act but not defined in this Act;
(b) exempting any person or class of persons from this Act or any provisions of this Act;
(c) prescribing offences for the purposes of subsection 3-2(1);
(d) prescribing persons or classes of persons for the purposes of subsection3-3(2);
(e) prescribing the form of an order for the purposes of section 3-18;
(f) for the purposes of section 4-1:
(i) prescribing any law as a specified law; and
(ii) exempting any law as a specified law;
(g) excluding any person or class of person from the definition of a seizure agent for the purposes of subsection 4-1(2);
(h) for the purposes of Part 4:
(i) respecting the issuing, renewing, amending, suspending and cancelling of licences;
(ii) respecting information to be provided to the minister by a licensee or an applicant for a licence;
(iii) requiring the payment of fees for the issuance or renewal of licences and prescribing amounts and terms of payment;
(iv) prescribing a code of ethical conduct for persons licensed pursuant to that Part;
(v) prescribing any additional standards, qualifications and training required to obtain a licence;
(vi) respecting the keeping of records and data, including the protection of privacy;
(vii) prescribing any new terms and conditions of a licence;
(i) prescribing additional factors for the purposes of subsection 5-6(1);
(j) prescribing requirements for the forensic and ballistic testing of the firearm for the purposes of subsection 5-9(3);
(k) prescribing requirements for an approved testing facility for the purposes of section 5-12;
(l) prescribing any matter or thing required or authorized by this Act to be prescribed in the regulations;
(m) respecting any other matter or thing that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers necessary to carry out the intent of this Act.

That last part, (m) means that virtually anything else can be changed as well. The importance of this cannot be understated.

This is what it means to be “backdoored”: virtually anything in the Saskatchewan Firearms Act can be changed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, without democratic debate. This is very similar to Section 117 of the Canada Firearms Act

As per the earlier comment, it’s interesting (or perhaps a coincidence), that it’s Saskatchewan Bill 117. This is because Section 117 of the Federal version is what allows the Governor in Council to make unilateral changes.

Regarding Section 68(h)(vi), and the phrase: “respecting the keeping of records and data, including the protection of privacy”, one can’t help but wonder if this could be the basis of a backdoor gun registry.

If there is something positive in Bill 117, it seems that at least gun owners would need to be paid fair price for their weapons once they’re confiscated.

(1) https://twitter.com/PremierScottMoe/status/1643423488168931330
(2) https://www.legassembly.sk.ca/
(3) https://www.legassembly.sk.ca/legislative-business/bills/
(4) https://www.legassembly.sk.ca/media/1398/progress-of-bills.pdf
(5) Saskatchewan Legislature Progress Of Bills
(6) Saskatchewan Firearms Act 2022
(7) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=39208&lang=en
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/canada-firearms-act-and-other-backdoored-legislation/
(9) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-11.6/FullText.html

Posted on

Ontario Private Member’s Bill 94: Creating “Community Safety Zones” By Eliminating Dissent

New Democrat M.P.P. Kristyn Wong-Tam, the Critic for the Attorney General, Small Business and 2SLGBTQI Issues, has introduced Bill 94, Keeping 2SLGBTQI+ Communities Safe Act, 2023. This would apply throughout the Province of Ontario, if passed and implemented.

This could be expensive, with violations of this resulting in fines up to $25,000.

Looking through Wong-Tam’s Twitter account, it’s full of social justice content, and she comes across as a Communist. Not surprising, given her party affiliation.

Granted, the N.D.P. is in opposition, and has no real power in Parliament. However, that’s no guarantee that it won’t be passed eventually. Now, what’s in the Bill?

2 No person shall, within 100 metres of the boundary of a property where a 2SLGBTQI+ community safety zone is located, perform an act of intimidation, including,
.
(a) causing a disturbance within the meaning of the Criminal Code (Canada);
(b) distributing hate propaganda within the meaning of the Criminal Code (Canada);
(c) uttering threats or making offensive remarks, either verbally or in writing, with respect to matters of social orientation or gender roles; or
(d) engaging in a protest or demonstration for the purpose of furthering the objectives of homophobia and transphobia.

The Bill would give the Attorney General of Ontario the power to declare any place a “community safety zone”, for a period of time. Of course, the time limits are not defined, nor are the sizes or locations of these zones.

The Attorney General would have the power to go to the courts in order to get an injunction against any person who might violate these. Now, that raises the concern that these would be politically motivated.

The term “community safety zone” is also undefined, and open to interpretation.

No effect on peaceful protests, etc.
5 For greater certainty, nothing in this Act prevents peaceful protests or demonstrations.

Now, on the surface, it appears like there is a safety mechanism to protect free speech and free expression. However, this is rather misleading.

By claiming that the content of a protest or demonstration is offensive, it can be shut down. Similarly, legitimate concerns can be smeared as homophobic or transphobic. Moreover, mere offence is enough to shut down public discourse, and that can be weaponized.

And what about things like child drag shows? Would the public be banned from protesting those, under the guise of safety and tolerance? What about transitioning children into the opposite sex?

The Bill also calls for a 2SLGBTQI+ Safety Advisory Committee to be created. Financial support to implement recommendations is included, which means it will cost taxpayers.

Again, this legislation could very well go nowhere, but nothing is assured.

(1) https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-43/session-1/bill-94
(2) https://www.ola.org/sites/default/files/node-files/bill/document/pdf/2023/2023-04/b094_e.pdf
(3) https://twitter.com/kristynwongtam
(4) https://twitter.com/kristynwongtam/status/1643303503979241483
(5) https://twitter.com/kristynwongtam/status/1643328070940499969

Posted on

Program To Let Visitors Apply For Work Permits Extended Until At Least 2025

This concerns a recent announcement that’s worth revisiting. A 2020 policy that gave work visas to foreign visitors has been extended for at least another 24 months.

In August 2020, with a “global pandemic” supposedly underway, Ottawa made changes that went largely under the radar. Foreigners on visitor visas would be able to get work in Canada without first having to leave the country.

The stated reasons never made any sense.

Change intended to benefit employers who are still facing difficulties finding workers
August 24, 2020 —Ottawa— Visitors who are currently in Canada and have a valid job offer will be able to apply for an employer-specific work permit and, if approved, receive the permit without having to leave the country, thanks to a new public policy announced today by the Honourable Marco E.L. Mendicino, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

This temporary policy change takes effect immediately and will benefit employers in Canada who continue to face difficulties finding the workers they need, as well as temporary residents who would like to contribute their labour and skills to Canada’s recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the pandemic, temporary residents who remained in Canada were encouraged to maintain valid legal status. With air travel limited around the world, some visitors to Canada have been unable to leave, while some foreign workers had to change their status to visitor because their work permit was expiring and they didn’t have a job offer to be able to apply for a new work permit. Some employers in Canada have also faced ongoing labour and skills shortages throughout this period, including those who provide important goods and services that Canadians rely on.

This is the requirement that there be a labour market impact assessment (LIMA) performed. And that would make the visitor a Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW) if they took the position.

Of course, the obvious questions have to be asked:

(a) Why were there a large amount of foreign visitors in Canada in August 2020 if a “pandemic” had been declared several months earlier?

(b) How were there huge labour shortages if Governments were ordering entire industries to be closed in the name of safety?

(c) If these shortages existed, why were all kinds of financial supports in place to keep Canadians from working? CERB comes to mind.

(d) Why are there all these TFW positions available if people are being forced out of work in the name of public safety?

The program was then extended in March 2021, even as there were still lockdowns and “circuit breaker” shutdowns of various industries in this country. It was stated that over 1,000 people had thus far taken advantage of this. However, it didn’t give any estimate as to how many over 1,000 that was.

Remember, the Fall of 2021 is when the vaccine passports hit.

It wasn’t just visitors who are needed to work. In October 2022, Ottawa scrapped a rule that limited international students to working 20 hours per week when classes were ongoing. The IRCC also admits that nearly 100% of applications to extend study permits are granted.

A further update in November 2022 meant that visitors had to remain in Canada (and couldn’t leave) while their applications were being processed.

A month ago, in February 2023, it was extended yet again. It’s now set to expire at the end of February 2025, assuming further changes don’t happen. The stated reason is to cope with labour shortages due to rapid economic expansion.

To summarize:

  • Canada had severe labour shortages in 2020, even as businesses were ordered to close, due to the so-called global pandemic. We had to let anyone and everyone get permission to work.
  • These shortages continued into the Spring of 2021, again, despite continued shutdowns that were mandated by the Government.
  • International students — who were normally capped at working 20 hours per week — suddenly are eligible to work as much as they want
  • We needed workers so badly, that in 2022, a policy change meant that people applying for a work permit under this program weren’t allowed to leave while it was being processed.
  • Canada still has severe labour shortages in 2023, despite letting in over a million people — at least officially — in the previous year.

It’s worth pointing out that there doesn’t seem to be any limit on the number of people who can apply. The LIMA requirement still seems to be in place.

Ever get the feeling that the “official numbers” are way off?

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2020/08/new-temporary-public-policy-will-allow-visitors-to-apply-for-a-work-permit-without-having-to-leave-canada.html
(2) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/notices/extension-public-policy-visitors-apply-work-permits.html
(3) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2022/10/international-students-to-help-address-canadas-labour-shortage.html
(4) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/updates/2022-visitors-apply-work-permit.html
(5) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/notices/visit-to-work.html