Bill C-21: Reintroduced Legislation To Whittle Away Gun Rights

Bill C-21 was introduced in the last session of Parliament, but died when there was an election called. However, it’s been reintroduced, with some changes and new content. The changes primarily impact the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act.

It was recently announced, and covered by CPAC, that imports of handguns would be stopped by August 19, 2022. This was done by a regulatory change, without any democratic mandate or process. Seems that Ottawa doesn’t want to wait or take that chance.

Of course, the “temporary” measure announced on August 5th would be effectively made permanent if and when Bill C-21 is ever passed.

None of this ever addresses the elephant in the room: most serious crimes with firearms involve illegal guns, whereas this Bill primarily targets law abiding citizens. It’s almost as if there was some coordinated effort to disarm the population.

1. Adding “Red Flag” Laws To Canadian Criminal Code

Application for emergency prohibition order
110.‍1 (1) Any person may make an ex parte application to a provincial court judge for an order prohibiting another person from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, if the person believes on reasonable grounds that it is not desirable in the interests of the safety of the person against whom the order is sought or of any other person that the person against whom the order is sought should possess any such thing.

Emergency prohibition order
(2) If, at the conclusion of a hearing of an application made under subsection (1), the provincial court judge is satisfied that the circumstances referred to in that subsection exist and that an order should be made without delay to ensure the immediate protection of any person, the judge shall make an order prohibiting the person against whom the order is sought from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, for a period not exceeding 30 days, as is specified in the order, beginning on the day on which the order is made.

Service of order
(3) A copy of the order shall be served on the person to whom the order is addressed in the manner that the provincial court judge directs or in accordance with the rules of court.

Sections 109 and 110 of the Criminal Code call for people to be subjected to weapons prohibitions following convictions for certain offences. The proposed amendments would allow ordinary citizens to file an application to have another person’s guns seized.

The hearings would generally be ex-parte, or without the participation of the other side. That doesn’t really seem consistent with due process, or fairness.

There is a provision in the Bill to remove firearms if a protection order is issued against someone for domestic violence and/or stalking. However, that’s always been a remedy.

2. Adding “Yellow Flag” Laws, Halt/Suspend Certificates

Refusal to issue — chief firearms officer
68 Insertion start(1)Insertion end A chief firearms officer shall refuse to issue a licence if the applicant is not eligible to hold one and may refuse to issue an authorization to carry referred to in paragraph 20(b) or authorization to transport for any good and sufficient reason.

Refusal to issue — Commissioner
Start of inserted block
(2) The Commissioner may refuse to issue an authorization to carry referred to in paragraph 20(a) for any good and sufficient reason.

34 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 69:
Suspension
.
69.‍1 (1) If a chief firearms officer has reasonable grounds to suspect, on the basis of information that they have collected or received from any person, that the holder of a licence is no longer eligible to hold the licence, they may suspend, in respect of that licence, the holder’s authorization to use, acquire and import firearms for a period of up to 30 days.

Revocation of licence or authorization
70 (1) A chief firearms officer may revoke a licence, an authorization to carry referred to in paragraph 20(b)Insertion end or an authorization to transport — Insertion startand the Commissioner may revoke an authorization to carry referred to in paragraph 20(a)Insertion end — for any good and sufficient reason including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

A firearms officer can refuse to issue a permit “for any good and sufficient reason”. However, it’s not defined what a good and sufficient reason is This would make it almost entirely discretionary, and open to abuse. A license can also be suspended on those same grounds.

3. Prohibiting Any Sales Or Transfers Of Hundguns

Authorization to transfer prohibited or restricted firearms
.
23.2 (1) A person may transfer a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm if, at the time of the transfer,
(a) the transferee holds a licence authorizing the transferee to acquire and possess that kind of firearm;
(b) the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee is not authorized to acquire and possess that kind of firearm;
(c) the transferor informs the Registrar of the transfer;
(d) if the transferee is an individual, the transferor informs a chief firearms officer of the transfer and obtains the authorization of the chief firearms officer for the transfer;
(e) a new registration certificate for the firearm is issued in accordance with this Act; and
(f) the prescribed conditions are met.

27 On being informed of a proposed transfer of a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm under section 23.2, a chief firearms officer shall
(a) verify
(i) whether the transferee or individual holds a licence,
(ii) whether the transferee or individual is still eligible to hold that licence, and
(iii) whether the licence authorizes the transferee or individual to acquire that kind of firearm or to acquire prohibited weapons, prohibited devices, ammunition or prohibited ammunition, as the case may be;
.
(b) in the case of a proposed transfer of a restricted firearm or a handgun referred to in subsection 12(6.1) (pre-December 1, 1998 handguns), verify the purpose for which the transferee or individual wishes to acquire the restricted firearm or handgun and determine whether the particular restricted firearm or handgun is appropriate for that purpose;

These are Sections 23.2 and 27 of the Canada Firearms Act. It specifies the steps and actions needed to transfer a restricted or prohibited firearm from one party to another. Pretty straightforward. Bill C-21 would add an extra clause to that

[Section 23.2]
(d.‍1) if the transferee is an individual and the firearm is a handgun, the individual is referred to in section 97.‍1;

[Section 27]
(iv) if the proposed transfer is in respect of a handgun, whether the transferee is an individual referred to in section 97.‍1;

If a handgun is to be transferred to an individual, this would be referred to another portion of the Firearms Act. Section 97 allows the Governor in Council to restrict such sales or transfers.

4. Expanding Definition Of “Replica” Firearm

1 (1) The definition replica firearm in subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:
replica firearm means any device that is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, a firearm that is designed or adapted to discharge a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.‍4 m per second and at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.‍7 Joules, and that itself is not a firearm, but does not include any such device that is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, an antique firearm;

Changes to the criminal code would list that a replica firearm that can fire a projectile at a certain speed )(or with a certain amount of energy) can be prohibited. This could include things like paintball guns, which have valid recreational uses. Problem is, “exactly resemble” is subjective.

5. Other Thoughts On The Matter

There are a few small points which seem beneficial, such as making it harder for foreigners to enter Canada if they have convictions for certain firearms offences. But overall, that doesn’t offset the erosion of rights that’s being done with this legislation.

Another section would create a new criminal offence for altering the capacity of a magazine (allowing it to hold more bullets than allowed). While it sounds fine on the surface, someone with an illegal or stolen gun wouldn’t care about such things.

These measures do little to target crime. Instead, they restrict the rights of people to legally possess and use guns. Strange how that always seems to be the group of people these Bills hit.

Do read the entire Bill, as this critique is not exhaustive. It would be impractical for the Government to simply ban guns right away — though many would like to. Instead, introducing these measures bit by bit seems to be the way forward.

(1) https://www.cpac.ca/episode?id=38406422-ecdb-494b-8439-a1fbdeaf4e28
(2) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-11.6/FullText.html
(3) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/index.html
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/ottawa-to-ban-handgun-imports-august-19th-using-regulatory-measure/
(5) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/43-2/c-21
(6) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/bill/C-21/first-reading
(7) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-21
(8) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-21/first-reading

Holocaust Denial Now Punishable By Prison Time In Canada

It’s something that has been discussed in this country for years: the proposal of making Holocaust denial a criminal offence.

It was buried in Bill C-19, Division 21, Section 332. This wasn’t a stand alone Bill, but rather, slipped into a budget. Most likely, very few people know about it.

332 (1) Section 319 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
Willful promotion of antisemitism
(2.‍1) Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) Subsections 319(4) to (6) of the Act are replaced by the following:
Defences — subsection (2.‍1)
(3.‍1) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.‍1)
(a) if they establish that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, they expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds they believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, they intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of antisemitism toward Jews.

Forfeiture
(4) If a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), (2) or (2.‍1) or section 318, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Exemption from seizure of communication facilities
(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to subsection (1), (2) or (2.‍1) or section 318.

Consent
(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) or (2.‍1) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

(3) Subsection 319(7) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:
Holocaust means the planned and deliberate state-sponsored persecution and annihilation of European Jewry by the Nazis and their collaborators from 1933 to 1945; (Holocauste)

Would “Conservatives” oppose this on free speech grounds? Would they fight for the principle that even controversial speech must be protected? Will they object to it being slipped into a budget? Not exactly.

Kevin Waugh, a “Conservative”, introduced Bill C-250, a Private Member’s Bill, that would do basically the same thing. Interestingly, Waugh’s lacked some safeguards that Bill C-19 had, such as remedies to prevent prosecution.

It’s unclear why this was introduced twice in the House of Commons. Perhaps Waugh’s Private Bill was a backup plan in case Schedule 21 got removed from the budget.

Both versions have the provision that consent from the Attorney General is required for a prosecution. While this may be seen as a check, it opens the possibility of politically selected cases.

Where’s Pierre Poilievre on this free speech issue? Where’s Maxime Bernier?

Remember the flack Iqra Khalid caught for M-103? That was a Motion simply to “study” Islamophobia, and she has heckled for a long time afterwards. She never proposed putting anyone in prison.

For what it’s worth, Senator Paula Simons was willing to speak out on this. However, she’s very much in the minority when it comes to addressing the subject.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-19
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-19/third-reading
(4) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-250
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/kevin-waugh(89084)
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=521753
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=111&regId=917368&blnk=1
(8) https://twitter.com/Paulatics/status/1537078472820006915
(9) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/simons-paula/interventions/581135/47#hID
(10) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iNiV2uAsQg&feature=youtu.be

M-44: Parliament Votes To Accelerate TFW/Student-To-PR Pipeline

Motion M-44 has recently passed. The House of Commons voted to demand that the Trudeau Government come up with new ways to accelerate the transition of “temporary” foreign workers and international students into Permanent Residents.

The legislation was advanced by Liberal Randeep Sarai. This isn’t at all surprising, considering the largest group coming to Canada in recent years has been Indians.

The final vote was 324-0. This means each Member of Parliament who voted did so in favour of this Motion, regardless of partisan affiliation. Every single “Conservative” voted in favour of speeding up demographic replacement by supporting this.

Even worse: they condemn the truthful description of what’s happening as racist conspiracy theories.

It’s interesting that there’s no hurry by Federal politicians to get rid of masks or vaccine passports. However, all of Parliament agreed that there should be a plan within the next 4 months to expand and speed up pathways to creating more Permanent Residents.

MOTION TEXT
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should develop and publicly release within 120 days following the adoption of this motion a comprehensive plan to expand the economic immigration stream to allow workers of all skill levels to meet the full range of labour needs and pathways to permanent residency for temporary foreign workers, including international students, with significant Canadian work experience in sectors with persistent labour shortages, and such plan should incorporate the following elements:
.
(a) amending eligibility criteria under economic immigration programs to give more weight to significant in-Canada work experience and expand the eligible occupational categories and work experience at various skills levels;
.
(b) examining evidence and data gathered from recent programs such as Temporary Resident to Permanent Resident Pathway, Atlantic Immigration Program (AIP), Rural and Northern Immigration Program (RNIP), and Agri-Food Pilot, and Provincial Nominee Process (PNP);
.
(c) incorporating data on labour market and skills shortages to align policy on immigrant-selection with persistent labour gaps;
.
(d) assessing ways to increase geographic distribution of immigration and encourage immigrant retention in smaller communities, as well as increase Francophone immigration outside Quebec;
.
(e) identifying mechanisms for ensuring flexibility in immigration-selection tools to react quicker to changes in labour market needs and regional economic priorities; and
.
(f) specifically considering occupations and essential sectors that are underrepresented in current economic immigration programs, such as health services, caregivers, agriculture, manufacturing, service industry, trades, and transportation.

What specific sectors will be targeted? Included are: health services, caregivers, agriculture, manufacturing, service industry, trades, and transportation. Of course, it’s much easier to support a family if they are living in a country with a much lower cost of living.

Sure, one could argue that it’s just to demand a plan. However, Trudeau is extremely accommodating when it comes to finding new ways to bring people into Canada.

Another development saw the Government extend the work visas for graduates get extended by 18 months. Now, students who complete a diploma or degree are typically eligible for a 3 year open work visa (via the Post Graduate Work Program). For those involved, it effectively makes those permits 4 1/2 years. It’s unclear if this is just a one-off.

In 2020, the Government quietly made changes to allow people on student visas to work an unlimited amount of hours — while still in school. This policy existed to ensure that students were in fact focused on studying, and not just using it as a backdoor work permit. See page 12 of 2021 Report. Guess we’ll see if it ever goes back.

It seems unlikely that the average Canadian has any idea just how many students and “temporary” workers come to Canada. This should demonstrate the trend, at least for recent years.

Year Stu TFWP IMP Total
2003 61,293 82,151 143,444

2004 56,536 90,668 147,204

2005 57,476 99,146 156,622

2006 61,703 112,658 174,361

2007 64,636 165,198 229,834

2008 79,509 192,519 272,028

2009 85,140 178,478 263,618

2010 96,157 182,276 278,433

2011 98,383 190,842 289,225

2012 104,810 213,573 318,383

2013 111,865 221,310 333,175

2014 127,698 95,086 197,924 420,078

2015 219,143 73,016 175,967 468,126

2016 265,111 78,402 207,829 551,342

2017 317,328 78,788 224,033 620,149

2018 356,876 84,229 255,034 696,139

2019 402,427 98,310 306,797 807,534

2020 256,740 84,609 242,130 583,452

Stu = Student Visa
TFWP = Temporary Foreign Worker Program
IMP = International Mobility Program

Data for this table was compiled from the Annual Immigration Reports to Parliament, from 2004 through 2021. These cover the years 2003 to 2020. Keep in mind, this is just what’s on the books.

How many of them actually stay? It’s hard to say. Either the Government doesn’t keep data on this this, or they do, but just don’t make it easily available.

About the change from 2013 to 2014: the Harper Government got a lot of flack for flooding Canada with TFWs. The solution they came up with was not to reduce the number of them. Instead, they broke up the program into different areas to better conceal what was happening. This has been addressed elsewhere on this site.

Simply beyond pumping up the people who are getting PR status, the Canadian Parliament has also been holding hearings since February on the topic of boosting the number of international students coming in the first place.

More people coming + more staying = faster rate of change

The lie has been heavily promoted that it’s only 300,000 or 400,000 people coming to Canada per year. It’s not. Whether it’s ignorance or malice, very few report the truth, including those in alternative media. Here’s a recent review of the numbers in Canada. It’s shocking, or at least it should be.

While politicians here facilitate open borders, it’s worth mentioning that over 4.2 million babies have been aborted since 1970. Then of course, they’re feminism and the globohomo agenda doing a number on birth rates. The solution then becomes to bring more people over, to compensate for a declining population.

Are things starting to make sense now?

A little self promotion: Borderless Canada is still available online. Learn about what’s been going on in this country. Virtually all issues can be directly tied to immigration and border security, and it’s not racist to discuss hard truths.

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/89339/motions/11528727
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/randeep-sarai(89339)
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/44/1/85
(4) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/CIMM/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=11473703
(5) https://kitchener.citynews.ca/national-news/federal-government-will-let-international-graduates-stay-in-canada-another-18-months-5291183
(6) https://www.cp24.com/news/tory-leadership-candidate-pierre-poilievre-denounces-white-replacement-theory-1.5906421

2004.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2005.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2006.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2007.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2008.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2009.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2010.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2011.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2012.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2013.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2014.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2015.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2016.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2017.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2018.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2019.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2020.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2021.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament

Private Member’s Bill C-250: Prison Time For Holocaust Denial

A Private Member’s Bill, Bill C-250, is circulating in the House of Commons. If passed, it would make Holocaust denial (or downplaying the Holocaust), punishable by up to 2 years in prison. There is also a provision included that would allow for the forfeiture of assets if they were used in the commission.

This appears to apply to public forums, and not in private conversations.

Criminal Code
1 (1) Section 319 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
Willful promotion of antisemitism
(2.‍1) Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) The portion of subsection 319(3) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) or (2.‍1)
(3) Subsections 319(4) to (6) of the Act are replaced by the following:

Forfeiture
(4) If a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1), (2) or (2.‍1) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Exemption from seizure of communication facilities
(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with any modifications that end the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1), (2) or (2.‍1) of this section.

Consent
(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) or (2.‍1) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

(4) Subsection 319(7) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:
Holocaust means the planned and deliberate state-sponsored persecution and annihilation of European Jewry by the Nazis and their collaborators from 1933 to 1945; (Holocauste)

The Bill was introduced by Saskatchewan Conservative MP Kevin Waugh. It will be interesting to see what happens. Historically, Private Member’s Bills typically don’t go anywhere. It’s quite rare to see one that actually receives Royal Assent.

There is also the procedural issue that any prosecution (under the Bill’s current form), would need approval from the Attorney General.

It seems that Waugh has been contacted recently by CIJA. Clamping down on “hate speech” is very high up on their national agenda. They also focus on internet regulation more broadly.

The CPC also proudly brags about this:

Ottawa, ON — Today, Kevin Waugh, Conservative Member of Parliament for Saskatoon-Grasswood, introduced his Private Members’ Bill, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (prohibition – promotion of antisemitism).

Conservatives are committed to ending the scourge of antisemitism in Canada and we believe all Canadians should feel safe and welcome in our communities.

From early 1941 until spring 1945, six million Jewish children, women, and men were murdered in a state-sponsored genocide we now remember as the Holocaust. Holocaust distortion, denial, and antisemitism must be confronted with the strongest opposition and condemnation.

This legislation would make Holocaust denial, one of the main indicators of antisemitism and radicalization, illegal in Canada.

“Ignorance fuels intolerance so we must continue to teach the truths of the past,” said Waugh. “Education is the safeguard of history. We must face history with courage and boldly call out and confront intolerance wherever it exists. Passage of this bill protects the truth.”

Strange that a party that claims to support free speech also is in favour of jailing people for having the wrong viewpoints. (Archive here)

We’ll have to see how things progress in the near future.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-250
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/kevin-waugh(89084)
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=521753
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=111&regId=917368&blnk=1
(5) https://www.conservative.ca/mp-waugh-introduces-legislation-to-prohibit-holocaust-denial/
(6) https://archive.ph/fCnNn

Health Canada Initially Created For Population Control Measures

Health Canada has had several names since its inception in 1919. Despite how innocuous its name and mandate sounds, this organization had an initial purpose: population control. It’s been previously covered how PHAC was an artificial creation from the World Health Organization to serve a global order.

Few people know this, but the Department of Health was formed with the same goal in mind.

In January 2004, the WHO put out an edict that all Member States were to create an “outpost” for public health. Consequently, the Government of Paul Martin created PHAC, the Public Health Agency of Canada, out of nothing in that year. In late 2004 and into 2005, hearings went on for Bill C-12, the Quarantine Act. This was really just domestic implementation of the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations. The Provinces have their own laws which are based on this. The PHAC Act was introduced in 2006 by Stephen Harper shortly after taking power.

(a) International Health Regulations are legally binding on Member States.
(b) 2005 Quarantine Act was, in reality, written by WHO
(c) Public Health Agency Of Canada is a branch of WHO, and not Canadian

Again, this should be a review for most readers, but it’s still worth bringing up. The bigger picture is quite scary when it’s all laid out.

PHAC’s purpose is to use the pretense of public health as a means to control the local populations. Thing is: Health Canada (in its previous iterations) was formed for the same purpose.

1. Timeline Of Major Events In Public Health

  • 1837: William White publishes book — Evils Of Quarantine Laws
  • 1851: First International Sanitary Conference, Paris
  • 1859: Second International Sanitary Conference, Paris
  • 1866: Third International Sanitary Conference, Constantinople
  • 1874: Fourth International Sanitary Conference, Vienna
  • 1881: Fifth International Sanitary Conference, Washington
  • 1885: Sixth International Sanitary Conference, Rome
  • 1892: Seventh International Sanitary Conference, Venice
  • 1983: Eighth International Sanitary Conference, Dresden
  • 1894: Ninth International Sanitary Conference, Paris
  • 1897: Tenth International Sanitary Conference, Venice
  • 1903: Eleventh International Sanitary Conference : Paris, 1903
  • 1906: Revised Statutes Of Canada In 1906 Publication
  • 1907: Founding of the Office international d’Hygiene publique
  • 1911-1912: Twelfth International Sanitary Conference, Paris
  • 1912: Canadian Public Health Association Incorporated
  • 1919: Bill 37, Canada forms the Department of Health
  • 1926: Thirteenth International Sanitary Conference, Paris
  • 1928: Bill 205, Canada’s DOH becomes Department of Pensions and National Health
  • 1938: Fourteenth International Sanitary Conference, Paris
  • 1944: Bill C-149, Canada’s DPNH becomes Department of National Health and Welfare
  • 1946: Canada joins World Health Organization, agrees to Constitution
  • 1951: International Sanitation Regulations take effect from WHO
  • 1959: “Privileges And Immunities” granted to all WHO Officials
  • 1969: International Health Regulations (1st Ed.) replace Sanitation Regulations
  • 1984: Bill C-3, Health Canada Act passed
  • 1993: Department of National Health and Welfare becomes Health Canada
  • 1995: 2nd Edition of WHO International Health Regulations
  • 2001: DARK WINTER pandemic simulation plays out
  • 2004: WHO issues edict all Members to have “public health outpost”
  • 2004: PHAC, Public Health Agency of Canada, created by Order In Council
  • 2004: Bill C-12, hearings on Quarantine Act in Parliament
  • 2005: 3rd Edition of WHO International Health Regulations
  • 2005: ATLANTIC STORM pandemic simulation plays out
  • 2006: PHAC Act introduced by Harper Government
  • 2010: Rockefeller paper released, includes infamous LOCKSTEP SCENARIO
  • 2010: Theresa Tam stars in movie about fictional outbreak
  • 2017: SPARS Pandemic Scenario plays out
  • 2018: CLADE X pandemic simulation plays out
  • 2019: EVENT 201 pandemic simulation plays out

A book by William White titled “The Evils of Quarantine Laws” is still available today. In fact, it can be purchased on Amazon. In that book, White pushed his case that contagions did not actually exist, and that these quarantine laws were pushed for other purposes.

The pdf version is nearly 200 pages, but it’s well worth a read. It goes into considerable depth about how a pseudo-science is pushed on the public under the guises of protection.

2. International Sanitary Conferences: 1851 to 1938

Going back to 1851, there were over a dozen International Sanitary Conferences held in the West. Canada (then a British Colony) would have been subjected to whatever measures the U.K. wanted. The measures sounded innocuous enough, and claimed the purpose of trying to prevent international spread of disease. The archive is also available.

The stated reasons including establishing global standards of health in order to prevent the transmission and spreading of cholera, among other diseases. Sounds pretty familiar with what’s going on now, doesn’t it?

3. Revised Statutes Of Canada In 1906

Even back in 1906, Canada had a Quarantine Act on the books. Although heavily promoted as a way to manage international trade and immigration, those same principles can be used to restrict people domestically.

What’s going on today globally isn’t anything new, at least conceptually. Instead, it’s the scale of which that is novel.

The Medical Officer of Health isn’t a new concept either. Ages ago, there were still “experts” who had almost dictatorial powers to implement laws and regulations. After all, if Kings didn’t know what was going on, they would have to trust the thinking to other people.

4. Founding of the Office International d’Hygiene Publique In 1907

The Welcome Collection in the U.K. published the document for the creation of an International Office of Public Health. As a Colony at the time, Canada would presumably have been subjected to the same laws and regulations.

That said, the information is still available on the Canadian Government’s site. Over a century ago, our “leaders” signed us up to be regulated and controlled by public health experts.

5. Canadian Public Health Association Created In 1910

Ongoing programs:
.
Providing an effective liaison and network both nationally and internationally in collaboration with various disciplines, agencies and organizations; Encouraging and facilitating measures for disease prevention, health promotion and protection and healthy public policy; Initiating, encouraging and participating in research directed at the fields of disease prevention, health promotion and healthy public policy; Providing an effective liaison and partnership with CPHA’s Provincial and Territorial Public Health Associations; Acting in partnership with a range of disciplines including health, environment, agriculture, transportation, other health-oriented groups and individuals in developing and expressing a public health viewpoint on personal and community health issues; Designing, developing and implementing public health policies, programs and activities; Facilitating the development of public health goals for Canada; Identifying public health issues and advocating for policy change; Identifying literacy as a major factor in achieving equitable access to health services.

The Canadian Public Health Association was created in 1910, and incorporated in 1912. It became a charity in 1975. In its most recent C.R.A. filings, approximately 60% of the CPHA’s financing came from the Government.

Although the page has since been altered, the main financial support of the CPHA comes from drug companies like Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca. That shouldn’t be the least bit surprising to anyone at this point.

CPHA is involved in advocating for national and international health policies, including the restriction of people’s movements. It presumably is quite influential regarding Health Canada. At the time of writing this, there are several Provincial counterparts, all advocating for much the same thing. More on that in later pieces.

6. Department Of Health Created In 1919, Bill 37

[Section 4a]
Cooperation with the provincial, territorial and other health authorities with a view towards to coordination of the efforts proposed or being made for preserving and improving public health

Section 4f referred to enforcement of rules made by the International Joint Committee.

Bill 37 came into effect in 1919, after the First World War. Supposedly, the driving force behind this was the Spanish influenza, and the need to protect global public health.

Interestingly, it references the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, Volume 2. Even back then, there were Quarantine Acts on the books in order to restrict the movement of people. Of course, these were “supposed” to only apply to sick people.

Worth noting is that the League of Nations, the predecessor to the United Nations, also placed a heavy focus on public health. Many associate it with attempts to prevent wars between countries. In reality, there was a lot more to it.

7. Department of Pensions and National Health, 1928, Bill 205

In 1928, there was a change in name to the Department of Pensions and National Health. This came with the introduction of Bill 205. However, the purposes regarding public health remained much the same.

8. Department of National Health and Welfare Created In 1944, Bill 149

There was another change of name in 1994, courtesy of Bill 149. This time it became the Department of National Health and Welfare. Keep in mind, this was in the latter stages of the Second World War, and the beginnings of the new world order forming. The groundwork for the United Nations and World Health Organization had already been laid out.

9. WHO Membership Means Submitting To THEIR Constitution

After the defeat of the Axis powers, the World was supposed to embrace freedom and human rights, but then this happened.

Article 21
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt regulations concerning:
(a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease;
(b) nomenclatures with respect to diseases, causes of death and public health practices;
(c) standards with respect to diagnostic procedures for international use;
(d) standards with respect to the safety, purity and potency of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce;
(e) advertising and labelling of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce.

Article 22
Regulations adopted pursuant to Article 21 shall come into force for all Members after due notice has been given of their adoption by the Health Assembly except for such Members as may notify the Director-General of rejection or reservations within the period stated in the notice.

In 1946, Canada signed a Treaty endorsing the Constitution of the World Health Organization, and agreeing to be bound by it.

Article 21(a) of the WHO’s Constitution explicitly gives it authority over Member States over issues such as quarantine, or medical martial law. WHO also (largely) gets to decide what diagnostic standards and equipment are considered suitable.

Since Canada never opted out, Article 22 means that we must live with this.

In 1951, the International Sanitation Regulations came into effect, which was really the first agreement which gave the World Health Organization power to dictate Member actions under the guise of “public health”. But at least people would be held responsible if something happened, right?

10. World Health Organization Gives Itself/Officials Immunity

WHA12.41 Convention on the Privileges and immunities of the Specialized Agencies: Specification of Categories of Officials under Section 18 of Article VI of the Convention
The Twelfth World Health Assembly,
.
Considering Section 18 of Article VI of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies which requires that each specialized agency will specify the categories of officials to which the provisions of that Article and Article VIII shall apply; and Considering the practice hitherto followed by the World Health Organization under which, in implementing the terms of Section 18 of the Convention, due account has been taken of the provisions of resolution 76 (I) of the General Assembly of the United Nations,
.
1. CONFIRMS this practice; and
2. APPROVES the granting of the privileges and immunities referred to in Articles VI and VIII of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies to all officials of the World Health Organization, with the exception of those who are recruited locally and are assigned to hourly rates.
Eleventh plenary meeting, 28 May 1959 (section 3 of the fourth report of the Committee)

https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/88834
ihr.convention.on.immunities.privileges

Even back in 1959, the World Health Organization saw that its members should enjoy full legal immunity for itself, and its agents. Of course, member states seemed happy to go along with it. Looking through the records though, it seems unclear if Canada has specifically signed on.

The International Sanitation Regulations were replaced by the International Health Regulations (first edition) in 1969. Canada signed on and it became binding in 1971. The second version of WHO-IHR came out in 1995, and the third was released in 2005.

The information from this point on has been extensively covered on this site.

Most people are aware that the scope of Health Canada has grown considerably in recent decades. It has encompassed more and more things, resulting in less of a focus on public health measures. PHAC would soon pick up the slack.

11. Public Health Groups Are Registered “Charities” In Canada

Think the problem of drug money is limited to Health Canada, or the Public Health Agency of Canada? It’s not, and we will get more into the finances later. The list of “charities” includes groups that have the power to impose medical tyranny.

  • Alberta Health Services (AB)
  • Central Regional Integrated Health Authority (NL)
  • Eastern Regional Integrated Health Authority (NL)
  • Fraser Health Authority (BC)
  • Hay River Health & Social Services Authority (NT)
  • Interlake-Eastern Regional Health Authority (MB)
  • Interior Health Authority (BC)
  • Labrador-Grenfell Regional Integrated Health Authority (NL)
  • Nisga’a Valley Health Authority (BC)
  • Northern Regional Health Authority (MB)
  • Northern Regional Health Authority (BC)
  • Nova Scotia Health Authority (NS)
  • Provincial Health Services Authority (BC)
  • Regional Health Authority A (NB)
  • Regional Health Authority B (NB)
  • Saskatchewan Health Authority (SK)
  • Souris Health Auxiliary of Assinibione Regional Health Authority Inc. (MB)
  • Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (BC)
  • Vancouver Island Health Authority (BC)
  • Weeneebayko Area Health Authority (ON)
  • Winnipeg Regional Health Authority (MB)

However, there are also a number of other suspicious groups that need to be looked at. Although they may not have the power to mandate martial law, they do influence policies. Now, who would donate to such groups, unless it’s done for the purposes of writing the laws? Or to ensure that solutions involve pharmaceuticals?

  • Alberta Public Health Association
  • BCCDC Foundation For Population And Public Health
  • Canadian Foundation For Pharmacy
  • Canadian Pharmaceutical Sciences Foundation
  • Canadian Public Health Association
  • Ontario Public Health Association
  • Pharmacists Without Borders Canada
  • Public Health Association of British Columbia
  • Seenso Institute for Public Health
  • Shoppers Drug Mart Life Foundation

This is just some of the groups that are registered as charities. Why be structured this way? Probably since it means that private donations are subsidized by the public via tax refunds.

A serious question: given all of the “health organizations” (and this is just a partial list), accepting private donations, does this likely impact how Health Canada does business?

12. Binding Global “Pandemic Management” Treaty Proposed

This was addressed in March 2021. Countries across the world are world are apparently open to the idea of a legally binding globally authority to manage alleged crises. Essentially, national sovereignty would be secondary to the International Health Regulations.

13. Final Thoughts On This Subject

The Department of Health (1919) was founded under the guise of managing the Spanish flu through restrictive measures. It’s original creation isn’t at all what many believe. But over time, the organization came to encompass many more functions.

The reality is that countries don’t have sovereignty over their own affairs. Using the cloak of “infection control”, people have their rights and freedoms stripped away all the time. Many so-called Health Authorities are actually structured as charities and receive private donations.

What companies would donate to health authorities which are implementing mandatory vaccination policies? Wild idea, but perhaps businesses that would profit from these dicatates are contributing.

The Public Health Agency of Canada has essentially taken over that role since it came into existence in 2004. However, Health Canada does still advocate for much the same policies. The International Health Regulations (and prior Sanitation Regulations) are legally binding on Member States.

Now, the influence and money from the pharmaceutical industry cannot be ignored. The cash is rampant, and will be the subject of a Part II, coming later.

(1) https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/culture/clmhc-hsmbc/res/information-backgrounder/espagnole-spanish
(2) Evils Of Quarantine Laws
(3) https://www.amazon.com/-/es/William-White/dp/1231197994
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-6/20021231/P1TT3xt3.html
(5) https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/health-canada
(6) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/index.aspx
(7) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103984&t=637793587893732877
(8) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103990&t=637793587893576566
(9) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103997&t=637793622744842730
(10) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=105025&t=637793622744842730
(11) https://www.jstor.org/stable/41975722
(12) https://parl.canadiana.ca/browse/eng/c/bills/13-2
(13) https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.bills_HOC_1302_1/554?r=0&s=1
(14) https://parl.canadiana.ca/browse/eng/c/bills/16-2
(15) https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.bills_HOC_1602_1/778?r=0&s=1
(16) https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.bills_HOC_1905_1/7?r=0&s=1
(17) https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.bills_HOC_1905_1/542?r=0&s=1
(18) https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.HOC_32_2_C2_C9/427?r=0&s=1
(19) https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.bills_HOC_1602_1/778?r=0&s=1
(20) https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/62873/14549_eng.pdf
(21) The scientific background Of International Sanitary Conferences
(22) https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/128165/EB9_35_eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
(23) 1951 International Sanitation Regulations
(24) https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/pdf/b22419743
(25) 1907 Creation Of International Public Health
(26) https://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf
(27) https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/88834
(28) ihr.convention.on.immunities.privileges
(29) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/bscSrch
(30) https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/op-ed—covid-19-shows-why-united-action-is-needed-for-more-robust-international-health-architecture

Bill C-11: Parliamentary Hearing On Facial Recognition Technology (May 10, 2021)

This was from a May 10, 2021 Parliamentary Committee Meeting on Bill C-11, and facial recognition. In some sense this hearing is academic, as Parliament was was dissolved over the summer. Nevertheless, it’s entirely possible that it will be brought back once the new session starts.

Also, as this so-called “pandemic” drags on, and resistance builds, will facial recognition become the norm at protests? Will this be a way to identify and target peaceful demonstrators?

Another point: while law enforcement or Canadian intelligence may be barred from using this facial recognition, will they simply outsource it to private companies? A possible argument would be that the police aren’t actually violating privacy laws, but just taking advantage of others that do.

THE WORLD’S LARGEST FACIAL NETWORK
Clearview AI provides law enforcement agencies with greater insight and lead generation through the use of our investigative platform. Our platform includes the largest known database of 10+ billion facial images sourced from public-only web sources, including news media, mugshot websites, public social media, and many other open sources.
.
Agencies that use our platform can expect to receive high-quality leads with fewer resources expended. These leads, when supported by other evidence, can help accurately and rapidly identify suspects, persons of interest, and victims to help solve and prevent crimes.

HOW DOES CLEARVIEW AI’S FACIAL SEARCH TECHNOLOGY WORK?
Clearview AI provides law enforcement agencies with investigative opportunities through the use of our research tool. Our platform includes the largest known database of 10+ billion facial images sourced from public-only web sources, including news media, mugshot websites, public social media, and many other open sources.

Clearview is called out by name in the House of Commons meeting. It’s quite interesting. Remember those pictures with your college buddies from 10-15 years ago on Facebook? Guess what, those may have been copied, real names attached, and used as reference points in the near future.

Of course, some private companies have already been using this type of technology for years. It’s not exactly revolutionary at this point. Last October, the story about Cadillac Fairview using this without people’s knowledge or consent in Ontario was broken

Anyhow, this story will need to be followed up on. In the meantime, it’s pretty chilling to see how accepting and tolerant public officials have become about its use.

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/ETHI/meeting-34/evidence
(2) May 10 Facial Recognition Parliamentary Hearing
(3) https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20210510/-1/35421?Language=English&Stream=Video
(4) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/432/ETHI/Evidence/EV11321905/ETHIEV34-E.PDF
(5) https://www.clearview.ai
(6) https://www.clearview.ai/law-enforcement
(7) https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2020/10/29/cadillac-fairview-broke-privacy-laws-by-using-facial-recognition-technology-at-malls-investigators-conclude.html

%d bloggers like this: