Category: Canadian Bills

Posted on

Bill C-21: Introducing Red Flag Laws To Make It Easier To Grab Guns

Bill C-21, if implemented, will allow for private citizens to go before Courts, and ask A Judge to issue an Order to seize a person’s firearms. Note: it doesn’t appear that the person who is potentially subjected to such a restraint will have the opportunity to defend themselves.

1. Gun Rights Are Essential, Need Protecting

The freedoms of a society can be gauged by the laws and attitudes they have towards firearms. Governments, and other groups can push around an unarmed population much easier than those who can defend themselves. It’s not conspiratorial to wonder about those pushing for gun control. In fact, healthy skepticism is needed for a society to function.

2. What The Criminal Code Says Right Now

Discretionary prohibition order
.
110 (1) Where a person is convicted, or discharged under section 730, of
.
(a) an offence, other than an offence referred to in any of paragraphs 109(1)(a) to (c.1), in the commission of which violence against a person was used, threatened or attempted, or
.
(b) an offence that involves, or the subject-matter of which is, a firearm, a cross-bow, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or an explosive substance and, at the time of the offence, the person was not prohibited by any order made under this Act or any other Act of Parliament from possessing any such thing,
.
the court that sentences the person or directs that the person be discharged, as the case may be, shall, in addition to any other punishment that may be imposed for that offence or any other condition prescribed in the order of discharge, consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of the person or of any other person, to make an order prohibiting the person from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, and where the court decides that it is so desirable, the court shall so order.

Section 109 of the Criminal Code of Canada mandates prohibitions based on serious convictions, and 110 of the Code allows for weapons bans based on lesser crimes. But the key is CRIMINALS.

What is key here, is that it refers to people convicted of crimes, or discharged after a finding of guilt. There are also provisions which allow for accused people released on bail to have their firearm access suspended. That’s reasonable to most people.

However, this proposed addition to the Code would allow for (shorter) prohibitions based on reasonable suspicion, whatever that means. And while people are entitled to defend themselves in criminal cases, that doesn’t see to apply here.

3. What Bill C-21 Would Add To Criminal Code

4 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 110:
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.

Warrant to search and seize
(4) If a provincial court judge is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person who is subject to an order made under subsection (2) possesses, in a building, receptacle or place, any thing the possession of which is prohibited by the order, and that it is not desirable in the interests of the safety of the person, or of any other person, for the person to possess the thing, the judge may issue a warrant authorizing a peace officer to search the building, receptacle or place and seize any such thing, and every authorization, licence or registration certificate relating to any such thing, that is held by or in the possession of the person.

Search and seizure without warrant
(5) If, in respect of a person who is subject to an order made under subsection (2), a peace officer is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is not desirable, in the interests of the safety of the person, or of any other person, for the person to possess any thing the possession of which is prohibited by the order, the peace officer may, where the grounds for obtaining a warrant under subsection (4) exist but, by reason of a possible danger to the safety of the person or any other person, it would not be practicable to obtain a warrant, search for and seize any such thing, and any authorization, licence or registration certificate relating to any such thing, that is held by or in the possession of the person.

Return to provincial court judge or justice
(6) A peace officer who executes a warrant referred to in subsection (4) or who conducts a search without a warrant under subsection (5) shall immediately make a return to the provincial court judge who issued the warrant or, if no warrant was issued, to a justice who might otherwise have issued a warrant, showing
(a) in the case of an execution of a warrant, the things or documents, if any, seized and the date of execution of the warrant; and
(b) in the case of a search conducted without a warrant, the grounds on which it was concluded that the peace officer was entitled to conduct the search, and the things or documents, if any, seized.

Return of things and documents
(7) Any things or documents seized under subsection (4) or (5) from a person against whom an order has been made under subsection (2) shall be returned to the person and any things or documents surrendered by the person in accordance with the order shall be returned to the person
(a) if no date is fixed under subsection 110.‍2(1) for the hearing of an application made under subsection 111(1) in respect of the person, as soon as feasible after the expiry of the period specified in the order made against the person under subsection (2);
(b) if a date is fixed for the hearing but no order is made against the person under subsection 111(5), as soon as feasible after the final disposition of the application; or
(c) despite paragraphs (a) and (b), if the order made against the person under subsection (2) is revoked, as soon as feasible after the day on which it is revoked.

10 The Act is amended by adding the following after the heading before section 117.‍011:
.
Application for emergency limitations on access order
117.‍0101 (1) Any person may make an ex parte application to a provincial court judge for an order under this section if the person believes on reasonable grounds that
(a) the person against whom the order is sought cohabits with, or is an associate of, another person who is prohibited by any order made under this Act or any other Act of Parliament from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things; and
(b) the other person would or might have access to any such thing that is in the possession of the person against whom the order is sought.
Emergency limitations on access 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 in respect of the person against whom the order is sought, for a period not exceeding 30 days, as is specified in the order, beginning on the day on which the order is made, imposing any terms and conditions on the person’s use and possession of any thing referred to in subsection (1) that the judge considers appropriate.

https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/bill/C-21/first-reading#ID0ELAA

As it is written right now, any person will be able to file an application with the Court, to ask a person be removed of their guns, without the right to defend themselves at the start. It’s written up so that the person applying doesn’t have to fear for their safety, but can claim to fear for someone else. Of course, it’s unclear what standard (if any), would be applied to satisfy a Court.

Not only can these Applications be done without a person being able to defend themselves, but it appears that warrantless searches would be allowed. Of course, all of this is done in the name of public safety.

It’s not limited to getting an Order against a person — again, with no chance to defend themself. In addition, an Order can also be sought against the people who live with, or associate with, that person. So much for freedom of association.

To repeat, there is no requirement that the recipients of such Orders be charged or convicted of crimes. Simply having a Judge “believe reasonably” is sufficient. Certainly, it’s easier when only one side can be heard.

4. Recent Red Flag Laws In United States

Unfortunately, these types of laws are not limited to Canada, or to Liberals. Even in the United States, efforts to implement red-flag laws are growing. Here, then President Trump, a REPUBLICAN, supported taking the guns first. However, the full scale of that will be saved for another article.

Posted on

TSCE #9(G): Bit Of History – Bill C-30, Toews Gutting Internet Privacy Under Pretense Of Child Protection

On February 14, 2012, then-Public Safety Minister Vic Toews introduced Bill C-30 into the House of Commons. It would have forced internet providers to hand over customer data — without a warrant — to police during investigations. Even law abiding people had reason to be concerned, with just how broad and sweeping this Bill was. Anyhow, it didn’t get past 1st Reading.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

2. Content Of Bill C-30

Obligations Concerning Subscriber Information
Provision of subscriber information
16. (1) On written request by a person designated under subsection (3) that includes prescribed identifying information, every telecommunications service provider must provide the person with identifying information in the service provider’s possession or control respecting the name, address, telephone number and electronic mail address of any subscriber to any of the service provider’s telecommunications services and the Internet protocol address and local service provider identifier that are associated with the subscriber’s service and equipment.
.
Purpose of the request
(2) A designated person must ensure that he or she makes a request under subsection (1) only in performing, as the case may be, a duty or function
(a) of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service under the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act;
(b) of a police service, including any related to the enforcement of any laws of Canada, of a province or of a foreign jurisdiction; or
(c) of the Commissioner of Competition under the Competition Act.
.
Designated persons
(3) The Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Commissioner of Competition and the chief or head of a police service constituted under the laws of a province may designate for the purposes of this section any employee of his or her agency, or a class of such employees, whose duties are related to protecting national security or to law enforcement.
.
Limit on number of designated persons
(4) The number of persons designated under subsection (3) in respect of a particular agency may not exceed the greater of five and the number that is equal to five per cent of the total number of employees of that agency.
Delegation
(5) The Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service may delegate his or her power to designate persons under subsection (3) to, respectively, a member of a prescribed class of senior officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or a member of a prescribed class of senior officials of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Miscellaneous Provisions
Facility and service information
24. (1) A telecommunications service provider must, on the request of a police officer or of an employee of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service,
(a) provide the prescribed information relating to the service provider’s telecommunications facilities;
(b) indicate what telecommunications services the service provider offers to subscribers; and
(c) provide the name, address and telephone number of any telecommunications service providers from whom the service provider obtains or to whom the service provider provides telecommunications services, if the service provider has that information.

Persons engaged in interceptions
28. (1) A telecommunications service provider must, on the request of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, provide a list of the names of the persons who are employed by or carrying out work for the service provider who may assist in the interception of communications.

34. (1) An inspector may, for a purpose related to verifying compliance with this Act, enter any place owned by, or under the control of, any telecommunications service provider in which the inspector has reasonable grounds to believe there is any document, information, transmission apparatus, telecommunications facility or any other thing to which this Act applies.
.
Powers on entry
(2) The inspector may, for that purpose,
(a) examine any document, information or thing found in the place and open or cause to be opened any container or other thing;
(b) examine or test or cause to be tested any telecommunications facility or transmission apparatus or related equipment found in the place;
(c) use, or cause to be used, any computer system in the place to search and examine any information contained in or available to the system;
(d) reproduce, or cause to be reproduced, any information in the form of a printout, or other intelligible output, and remove the printout, or other output, for examination or copying; or
(e) use, or cause to be used, any copying equipment or means of telecommunication at the place.
.
Duty to assist
(3) The owner or person in charge of the place and every person in the place must give all assistance that is reasonably required to enable the inspector to perform their functions under this section and must provide any documents or information, and access to any data, that are reasonably required for that purpose.
.
Inspector may be accompanied
(4) The inspector may be accompanied by any other person that they believe is necessary to help them perform their functions under this section.

Entry onto private property
36. An inspector and any person accompanying them may enter private property — other than a dwelling-house — and pass through it in order to gain entry to a place referred to in subsection 34(1). For greater certainty, they are not liable for doing so.
.
Use of force
37. In executing a warrant to enter a dwelling-house, an inspector may use force only if the use of force has been specifically authorized in the warrant and they are accompanied by a peace officer.

Does this sound like it’s about protecting kids online? The CPC became notorious for gaslighting Canadians over privacy concerns with the line: “Either you’re with us, or you’re with the child pornographers”. Concerns over this Bill wasn’t just limited to criminals and child predators. Anyone with any expectation of privacy from internet providers should be alarmed.

Remember the days when “Conservatives” at least pretended care about personal freedoms, such as privacy and property rights?

Who’s to say that elements of this won’t be, (or haven’t already been), slipped into other pieces of legislation? If it were more arranged in a more piece-meal fashion, it could pass.

3. Backlash Felt Over Privacy Concerns

Following the predictable public outrage, Toews backed down almost immediately, saying he would entertain amendments to the Bill. At that time, the Conservative Party held a majority in Parliament, so they could have passed it if they wanted to. In the end, Bill C-30 didn’t get past First Reading, and died in that session of Parliament.

Posted on

Provincial Health Acts Are Really Just WHO-IHR Domestically Implemented

Bill C-12 is the 2005 Quarantine Act, passed by Canada’s Parliament. It was heavily based on presumed changes to the International Health Regulations that the World Health Organization imposed. However, the problem has filtered down to the Provinces as well.

Strangely, it was only the Bloc Quebecois who voted against this. All other parties supported this Bill.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the GREAT RESET. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. The International Health Regulations are legally binding. The Postmedia empire and the “independent” media are paid off, as are the fact-checkers. The virus was never isolated, PCR tests are a fraud, as are forced masks, social bubbles, and 2m distancing.

2. Important Links

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/HESA/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=981075
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/38-1/HESA/report-2/

(AB) https://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/P37.pdf
(SK) https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/laws/stat/ss-1994-c-p-37.1/11022/ss-1994-c-p-37.1.html
(MB) https://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/p210e.php
(ON) https://healthunit.org/wp-content/uploads/Health_Protection_and_Promotion_Act.pdf

3. Canada’s Quarantine Act Written By WHO

As mentioned earlier, the International Health Regulations (IHR), that the WHO issues are legally binding on all Member States. Countries are expected to follow the directives that are sent, even if they are very much against national self interest.

In declaring this “pandemic”, Trudeau activated the 2005 Quarantine Act, a piece of legislation that violates many basic rights in the name of “public health”. However, Bill C-12 was actually written by the World Health Organization. What this means is that the Bill was drafted in anticipation of changes to the 3rd Edition of the IHR, which remain legally binding today.

But what about the Provinces? What is the situation with their Public Health Acts? Turns out that many of the clauses from the Quarantine Act are included, almost word for word?

4. British Columbia Public Health Act

Preventive measure
16 (1) Preventive measures include the following:
(a) being treated or vaccinated;
(b) taking preventive medication;
(c) washing with, applying or ingesting a substance, or having a substance injected or inserted;
(d) undergoing disinfection and decontamination measures;
(e) wearing a type of clothing or other personal protective equipment, or changing, removing or altering clothing or personal protective equipment;
(f) using a type of equipment or implementing a process, or removing or altering equipment or processes.
.
(2) A person subject to a regulation requiring preventive measures must not be in a place or do a thing that is prohibited by the regulation until the person has
(a)taken preventive measures as set out in the regulation, or
(b)if permitted by the regulation, made an objection under subsection (4).

General emergency powers
Division 2 — Order of the Minister
Minister may order temporary quarantine facility
.
26 (1)The minister may by order designate a place as a quarantine facility if the minister reasonably believes that the temporary use of the place for the purposes of isolating or detaining infected persons is necessary to protect public health.
.
(2) A person who has control of a place designated as a quarantine facility must provide the place to the minister or a medical health officer.

Division 3 — Orders Respecting Infectious Agents and Hazardous Agents
When orders respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents may be made
27 (1) A medical health officer may issue an order under this Division only if the medical health officer reasonably believes that
(a) a person
(i) is an infected person, or
(ii) has custody or control of an infected person or an infected thing, and
(b) the order is necessary to protect public health.
.
(2) An order may be issued based on clinical findings or a person’s or thing’s circumstances or medical history, even if the person or thing has been examined and the examination did not reveal the presence of an infectious agent or a hazardous agent.

General powers respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents
.
28 (1) If the circumstances described in section 27 [when orders respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents may be made] apply, a medical health officer may order a person to do anything that the medical health officer reasonably believes is necessary for either or both of the following purposes:
(a) to determine whether an infectious agent or a hazardous agent exists, or likely exists;
(b) to prevent the transmission of an infectious agent or a hazardous agent.

(2 ) A medical health officer may, in respect of an infected thing,
(a) make any order, with any necessary modifications, that can be made under this Division as if the infected thing were an infected person, and
(b) direct the order to any person having custody or control of the infected thing.

Specific powers respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents
.
29 (1) An order may be made under this section only
(a) if the circumstances described in section 27 [when orders respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents may be made] apply, and
(b) for the purposes set out in section 28 (1) [general powers respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents].
.
(2) Without limiting section 28, a medical health officer may order a person to do one or more of the following:
.
(a) remain in a specified place, or not enter a place;
(b) avoid physical contact with, or being near, a person or thing;
(c) be under the supervision or care of a specified person;
(d) provide to the medical health officer or a specified person information, records, samples or other matters relevant to the person’s possible infection with an infectious agent or contamination with a hazardous agent, including information respecting persons who may have been exposed to an infectious agent or a hazardous agent by the person;
(e) be examined by a specified person, including
(i) going to a specified facility for examination, and
(ii) being examined before a particular date or according to a schedule;
(f) submit to diagnostic examination, including going to a specified facility or providing the results to a specified person;
(g) take preventive measures, including
(i) going to a specified facility for preventive measures,
(ii) complying with preventive measures set out in the order, specified by a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner, or both, and
(iii) beginning preventive measures before a particular date, and continuing until a particular date or event;
(h) provide evidence of complying with the order, including
(i) getting a certificate of compliance from a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner or specified person, and
(ii) providing to a medical health officer any relevant record;

(I ) take a prescribed action.
.
(3) For greater certainty, this section applies even if the person subject to the order is complying with all terms and conditions of a licence, a permit, an approval or another authorization issued under this or any other enactment.

54 (1) A health officer may, in an emergency, do one or more of the following:
(a) act in a shorter or longer time period than is otherwise required;
(b) not provide a notice that is otherwise required;
(c) do orally what must otherwise be done in writing;
(d) in respect of a licence or permit over which the health officer has authority under section 55 [acting outside designated terms during emergencies] or the regulations, suspend or vary the licence or permit without providing an opportunity to dispute the action;
(e) specify in an order a facility, place, person or procedure other than as required under section 63 [power to establish directives and standards], unless an order under that section specifies that the order applies in an emergency;
(f) omit from an order things that are otherwise required;
(g) serve an order in any manner;
(h) not reconsider an order under section 43 [reconsideration of orders], not review an order under section 44 [review of orders] or not reassess an order under section 45 [mandatory reassessment of orders];
(i) exempt an examiner from providing examination results to an examined person;
(j) conduct an inspection at any time, with or without a warrant, including of a private dwelling;
(k) collect, use or disclose information, including personal information,
(i) that could not otherwise be collected, used or disclosed, or
(ii) in a form or manner other than the form or manner required.

Under Section 54 the B.C. Public Health Act, during emergencies (or self-identified emergencies), Health Officers can have any place inspected at any time. A person can be examined, and the results of that exam withheld from him/her. Business can be shut down, without any recourse to challenge it. Health Officers can do things with oral only notice, or with no notice at all, and these privileges can be extended longer than need be.

Under Section 16 of the Act, a person can be ordered to be: vaccinated; medicated; ingest or insert something, and other invasive procedures. Section 26 of the Act allows the Health Minister to take any property and convert it into a quarantine facility. Sections 27 through 29 allows a Medical Health Officer – in this case, Bonnie Henry – virtual dictatorial powers over other people’s lives and livelihoods.

Worth clarifying, these “Health Officers” or “Medical Officers” are not elected by the public in any capacity. They cannot be voted out of their positions, regardless of the sentiments of the general population.
The Act of course is much, much longer than this. However, it is truly stunning just how much power unelected Health Officers are given over other people’s lives. And in B.C., all parties are apparently okay with handing over their duties.

Sure, the B.C. Public Health Act gives bureaucrats that power, but who wrote the Act in the first place? Who was responsible for handing over that power to begin with? This Act was written and voted on by MLAs (Members of Legislative Assembly), who are, in theory, accountable to voters.

A cynic might wonder if MLAs made this law in order to avoid making themselves accountable for decisions they make. Here at least, they can claim it’s not them, and that they are simply following the advice of health professionals.

It’s interesting that the B.C Health Act was assented to (made law) in 2008. The 3rd Edition of WHO’s International Health Regulations came into effect in 2005, and Canada’s 2005 Quarantine Act was heavily based on those IHR. The B.C. Act contains much of the same information and powers as the WHO/Federal documents, and it’s fair to assume that the content was derived from them.

Of course, this is hardly limited to B.C. Other Provinces have their own version of a Provincial Health Act, and they carry many of the same powers. This includes: Alberta , Saskatchewan , Manitoba , among others. What these Acts all have in common is they give broad, sweeping powers to bureaucrats who are not elected by the public, and who cannot be voted out. Looking at Alberta:

5. Alberta Public Health Act

Powers of Chief Medical Officer
.
14(1) The Chief Medical Officer
.
(a) shall, on behalf of the Minister, monitor the health of Albertans and make recommendations to the Minister and regional health authorities on measures to protect and promote the health of the public and to prevent disease and injury,
.
(b) shall act as a liaison between the Government and regional health authorities, medical officers of health and executive officers in the administration of this Act,
.
(c) shall monitor activities of regional health authorities, medical officers of health and executive officers in the administration of this Act, and
.
(d) may give directions to regional health authorities, medical officers of health and executive officers in the exercise of their powers and the carrying out of their responsibilities under this Act.

(2) Where the Chief Medical Officer is of the opinion that a medical officer of health or executive officer is not properly exercising powers or carrying out duties under this Act in respect of a matter, the Chief Medical Officer may assume the powers and duties of the medical officer of health or executive officer in respect of the matter and act in that person’s place.

Isolation, Quarantine and Special Measures
.
Isolation and quarantine
.
29(1) A medical officer of health who knows of or has reason to suspect the existence of a communicable disease or a public health emergency within the boundaries of the health region in which the medical officer of health has jurisdiction may initiate an investigation to determine whether any action is necessary to protect the public health.
(2) Where the investigation confirms the presence of a communicable disease, the medical officer of health
(a) shall carry out the measures that the medical officer of health is required by this Act and the regulations to carry out, and
(b) may do any or all of the following:
(i) take whatever steps the medical officer of health considers necessary
(A) to suppress the disease in those who may already have been infected with it,
(B) to protect those who have not already been exposed to the disease,
(C) to break the chain of transmission and prevent spread of the disease, and
(D) to remove the source of infection;
(ii) by order
(A) prohibit a person from attending a school,
(B) prohibit a person from engaging in the person’s occupation, or
(C) prohibit a person from having contact with other persons or any class of persons for any period and subject to any conditions that the medical officer of health considers appropriate, where the medical officer of health determines that the person’s engaging in that activity could transmit an infectious agent;
.
(iii) issue written orders for the decontamination or destruction of any bedding, clothing or other articles that
have been contaminated or that the medical officer of health reasonably suspects have been contaminated.
(2.1) Where the investigation confirms the existence of a public health emergency, the medical officer of health
(a) has all the same powers and duties in respect of the public health emergency as he or she has under subsection (2) in the case of a communicable disease, and
(b) may take whatever other steps are, in the medical officer of health’s opinion, necessary in order to lessen the impact of the public health emergency.

Sections 13 to 15 of Alberta’s Public Health Act outline how a Medical Health Officer is appointed, and the vast powers available to that person. In Alberta, that is currently Deena Hinshaw. Like Bonnie Henry, she is not elected, and cannot be held directly liable to the public for anything that she does.

Pages 25 through 31 of the most recent version of that Act relate to quarantine measures, epidemics, and how the average person’s rights can be suspended almost indefinitely under the pretense of “public safety”. It reads like the Provincial counterpart to the Quarantine Act, which of course, was dictated by the WHO.

Pages 39 through 51 cover Section 52 of the Alberta Public Health Act. It gives sweeping powers to unelected bureaucrats in the name of safety. The content of that Section reads almost beat for beat identical to that of the Quarantine Act. Moving on to Saskatchewan, we get this piece of legislation:

6. Saskatchewan Public Health Act

CONTROL OF EPIDEMICS Orders
.
45(1) The minister may make an order described in subsection (2) if the minister believes, on reasonable grounds, that:
.
(a) a serious public health threat exists in Saskatchewan; and (b) the requirements set out in the order are necessary to decrease or eliminate the serious public health threat. (2) An order pursuant to this section may: (a) direct the closing of a public place;
.
(b) restrict travel to or from a specified area of Saskatchewan;
.
(c) prohibit public gatherings in a specified area of Saskatchewan;
.
(d) in the case of a serious public health threat that is a communicable disease, require any person who is not known to be protected against the communicable disease:
(i) to be immunized or given prophylaxis where the disease is one for which immunization or prophylaxis is available; or
(ii) to be excluded from school until the danger of infection is past where the person is a pupil;
.
(e) establish temporary hospitals;
.
(f) require a local authority, a medical health officer or a public health officer to investigate matters relating to the serious public health threat and report to the minister the results of the investigation;
.
(g) require any person who, in the opinion of the minister or medical health officer, is likely to have information that is necessary to decrease or eliminate the serious public health threat to disclose that information to the minister or a medical health officer;
.
(h) authorize public health officers, peace officers or prescribed persons to confiscate substances or other materials found in any place, premises or vehicle, if those substances or materials are suspected by the public health officer, peace officer or prescribed person of causing or contributing to a serious public health threat or packages, containers or devices containing or suspected of containing any of those substances or materials;
.
(i) in the case of a serious public health threat that is a communicable disease, require any person to be isolated from other persons until a medical health officer is satisfied that isolation is no longer necessary to decrease or eliminate the transmission of a communicable disease.

Preventive detention order
45.1(1) If a person fails to comply with an order pursuant to clause 45(2)(i) and a medical health officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person is endangering the lives, safety or health of the public because the person is or probably is infected with, or has been or might have been exposed to, a communicable disease, the medical health officer may detain the person for a period not exceeding the prescribed period of transmissibility of the disease.

(2) A person detained by a medical health officer pursuant to subsection (1) may request a review of his or her detention by application to the Court of Queen’s Bench served on the minister, and the court may make any order with respect to the detention or the release of the person that the court considers appropriate, having regard to the danger to the lives, safety or health of the public.

In similar fashion, Saskatchewan has their own Public Health Act, which has undergone several revisions since the 1990s. It allows for freedoms and liberties to be suspended on even the vaguest suspicion that a person may have an infectious disease. It also allows for property to be seized, and people to be detained.

Things like public gatherings, and freedom of citizens to travel can also be suspended indefinitely under the guise of safety.

Note: as with all of these cases, it’s not the politicians doing the dirty work. It’s the various “experts” who call themselves Chief Medical Officers (or similar titles). This provides cover to elected officials, who want to stamp out civil rights, but don’t want to get their own hands dirty in the process. Now, about Manitoba:

7. Manitoba Public Health Act

PART 6
PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY
Public health emergency
67(1) The chief public health officer may take one or more of the special measures described in subsection (2) if he or she reasonably believes that
(a) a serious and immediate threat to public health exists because of an epidemic or threatened epidemic of a communicable disease; and
(b) the threat to public health cannot be prevented, reduced or eliminated without taking special measures.

Special measures
67(2) The chief public health officer may take the following special measures in the circumstances set out in subsection (1):
(a) issue directions, for the purpose of managing the threat, to a regional health authority, health corporation, health care organization, operator of a laboratory, operator of a licensed emergency medical response system, health professional or health care provider, including directions about
(i) identifying and managing cases,
(ii) controlling infection,
(iii) managing hospitals and other health care facilities and emergency medical response services, and
(iv) managing and distributing equipment and supplies;
(a.1) issue an order prohibiting or restricting persons from travelling to, from or within a specified area, or requiring persons who are doing so to take specified actions;
(b) order the owner, occupant or person who appears to be in charge of any place or premises to deliver up possession of it to the minister for use as a temporary isolation or quarantine facility;
(c) order a public place or premises to be closed;
(d) order persons not to assemble in a public gathering in a specified area;
(d.1) order persons to take specified measures to prevent the spread of a communicable disease, including persons who arrive in Manitoba from another province, territory or country;
(e) order a person who the chief public health officer reasonably believes is not protected against a communicable disease to do one or both of the following:
(i) be immunized, or take any other preventive measures,
(ii) refrain from any activity or employment that poses a significant risk of infection, until the chief public health officer considers the risk of infection no longer exists;
(f) order an employer to exclude from a place of employment any person subject to an order under subclause (e)(ii).

Manitoba’s Public Health Act allows the Chief Medical Officer, and the operatives, to effectively suspend basic civil rights indefinitely. Of course this is “for your safety”, the ever present excuse. Basic liberties such as free association, freedom to peacefully assemble, and freedom to earn a livelihood can be stopped.

Note: the Act was assented to on June 13, 2006, a year after the Federal Quarantine Act, and the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations were implemented. The obvious implication is that this Act is just Manitoba enacting its own version.

Section 10 of the Act mandates that a Chief Medical Officer be named. Currently, that is Brent Roussin. In November, he caused a scandal when he openly admitted that public health orders don’t apply to public officials. Not leading by example.

8. Ontario Health Protection & Promotion Act

PART VI.1 PROVINCIAL PUBLIC HEALTH POWERS
.
Chief Medical Officer of Health may act where risk to health
.
77.1 (1) If the Chief Medical Officer of Health is of the opinion that a situation exists anywhere in Ontario that constitutes or may constitute a risk to the health of any persons, he or she may investigate the situation and take such action as he or she considers appropriate to prevent, eliminate or decrease the risk. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.
.
Same (2) For the purpose of subsection
.
(1), the Chief Medical Officer of Health,
.
(a) may exercise anywhere in Ontario,
(i) any of the powers of a board of health, including the power to appoint a medical officer of health or an associate medical officer of health, and (ii) any of the powers of a medical officer of health; and
.
(b) may direct a person whose services are engaged by a board of health to do, anywhere in Ontario, whether within or outside the health unit served by the board of health, any act,
(i) that the person has power to do under this Act, or
(ii) that the medical officer of health for the health unit served by the board of health has authority to direct the person to do within the health unit. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.
.
Authority and duty of person directed to act
(3) If the Chief Medical Officer of Health gives a direction under clause (2) (b) to a person whose services are engaged by a board of health, (a) the person has authority to act, anywhere in Ontario, whether within or outside the health unit served by the board of health, to the same extent as if the direction had been given by the medical officer of health of the board of health and the act had been done in the health unit; and (b) the person shall carry out the direction as soon as practicable. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15. Section 22 powers
.
(4) For the purpose of the exercise by the Chief Medical Officer of Health under subsection (2) of the powers of a medical officer of health, a reference in section 22 to a communicable disease shall be deemed to be a reference to an infectious disease. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15. Application to judge where risk to health 77.2 (1) If the Chief Medical Officer of Health is of the opinion that a situation exists anywhere in Ontario that constitutes or may constitute a risk to the health of any persons, he or she may apply to a judge of the Superior Court of Justice for an order under subsection (2). 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.

Possession of premises for temporary isolation facility
.
77.4 (1) The Minister, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (3), by order may require the occupier of any premises to deliver possession of all or any specified part of the premises to the Minister to be used as a temporary isolation facility or as part of a temporary isolation facility. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.
.
Extension
(2) An order under subsection (1) shall set out an expiry date for the order that is not more than 12 months after the day of its making and the Minister may extend the order for a further period of not more than 12 months. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.
.
Grounds for order
(3) The Minister may make an order under subsection (1) where the Chief Medical Officer of Health certifies in writing to the Minister that, (a) there exists or there is an immediate risk of an outbreak of a communicable disease anywhere in Ontario; and (b) the premises are needed for use as a temporary isolation facility or as part of a temporary isolation facility in respect of the communicable disease. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.

Ontario has the 2007 Health Protection and Promotion Act. The wording and powers are very similar to other Provinces, and to the Federal Quarantine Act. The timing is also suspicious, given that this was implemented soon after the 2005 International Health Regulations and the Federal legislation.

In Ontario, the Chief Medical Officer is David Williams, and the Deputy Medical Officer is Barbara Yaffe. As with the other so-called experts, these people are not elected, and have no real accountability to the public. Both have made very interesting statements about how dangerous this “pandemic” really is. More on them later.

9. These Acts Strip Away Basic Rights

At no time is there a requirement for there to be PROOF of a public health emergency to act on these powers. These Chief Medical Officers can simply claim that they “reasonably believe”, and that is sufficient.

Provincially and Federally, politicians write laws that allow unelected bureaucrats almost free reign to impose whatever measures they want. Of course, they don’t write content of the laws, but follow the instructions of a supra-national body that is accountable to no one.

This only covers 5 Provinces, however, they all have similar laws. If there is time, a Part II will be published to cover the others.

Posted on

TSCE #14(D): Hypocrisy On Politicians Condemning Chinese Human Rights Abuses

While Canadians’ lives and livelihoods are destroyed by Governments using the false narrative of a “global pandemic”, Conservatives take the time to virtue signal about their disgust with China. While it’s abhorrent what goes on there, human rights abuses locally are ignored.

The ironically named “Official Opposition” complains about forced sterilization and genocide in China. However they support mass vaccination of Canadians, even though it may cause something similar.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

2. Parliamentary Petitions: February 5, 2020

https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20210205/-1/34651

Seriously, how many of these petitions are needed to signal how evil China is? This is just grandstanding at this point. 9 were introduced in just one day of Parliament.

Now, even though all of these motions are excessive, it’s possible that politicians will strongly condemn the abuses that have happened in Canada and abroad this last year, right? Surely, they are outraged about the loss of freedom and opportunities that Canadians have suffered through no fault of their own. Well, it’s not so simple.

3. Bill S-240: Travelling To Obtain Organs

February 26, 2019 — House Committee

February 27, 2019 — House Committee

Bill S-240 would make it a crime for Canadians to go abroad to purchase or obtain organs for transplant, if there was a lack of consent. Specifically, this is designed at cutting down organ trafficking, and stopping the financial incentives for doing this.

Surely, politicians this committed to combatting human rights abuses must also want that applied at home, right? They would want their own citizens to have their rights protected, and be free victimization, correct? As it turns out, that is not really the case.

4. CPC Silence Canadian Human Rights Abuses

MOTION TEXT
That the Standing Committee on Health be instructed to undertake a study on the emergency situation facing Canadians in light of the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that this study evaluate, review and examine any issues relevant to this situation, such as, but not limited to:
.
(a) rapid and at-home testing approvals and procurement process and schedule, and protocol for distribution;
.
(b) vaccine development and approvals process, procurement schedules, and protocol for distribution;
.
(c) federal public health guidelines and the data being used to inform them for greater clarity on efficacy;
.
(d) current long-term care facility COVID-19 protocols as they pertain solely to federal jurisdiction;
.
(e) the availability of therapeutics and treatment devices for Canadians diagnosed with COVID-19;
.
(f) the early warning system, Global Public Health Intelligence Network (GPHIN);
.
(g) the government’s progress in evaluating pre- and post-arrival rapid testing for travellers;
.
(h) the availability of paid sick leave for those in need, including quarantine and voluntary isolation;
.
(i) the adequacy of health transfer payments to the provinces, in light of the COVID-19 crisis;
.
(j) the impact of the government’s use of World Heath Organization (WHO) advice in early 2020 to delay the closure of borders and delay in the recommendation of wearing of masks on the spread of COVID-19 in Canada;
.
(k) the Public Health Agency of Canada’s communication strategy regarding COVID-19;
.
(l) the development, efficacy and use of data related to the government’s COVID Alert application;
.
(m) Canada’s level of preparedness to respond to another pandemic;
.
(n) the availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) in Canada and a review of Canada’s emergency stockpile of PPE between 2015 and present;
.
(o) the government’s contact tracing protocol, including options considered, technology, timelines and resources;
.
(p) the government’s consideration of and decision not to invoke the federal Emergencies Act;

That Motion was voted on in the the House of Commons on October 26, 2020. Notice that at no time is any concern shown for the people (Canadians) whose human rights have been abused under this false pretense of a viral pandemic.

No question about the validity of the virus isolation itself. Do public health officials even know what they are looking for?

No question about the extremely high false positive rates of the RT-PCR test. Sure, they may not work at all, but let’s get them out faster.

No question about the bogus and fraudulent modelling, used by opportunistic people to generate fear and coerce compliance.

No question about the serious possibility of data and privacy breaches from this “contact tracing” system.

No question is raise “why” Canada is part of the WHO, when its dictates are legally binding on Canada. No issue with the erosion of national sovereignty.

Even on quarantine itself, the Conservatives seem to have no problem with this happening. The only concern raised is one of paid leave.

No mention (even outside of Parliament), of tyrants like Doug Ford, Brian Pallister and Francois Legault imposing draconian measures on their residents.

No concern for the people who have died — unnecessarily — in large part because hospital and preventative medical care has been delayed or cancelled.

No concern for the deteriorating mental health of Canadians, the suicides, the loneliness and isolation, all caused by perpetuating this hoax.

Politicians feign outrage at people being unable to practice their religion in China, but shutting down religious institutions is fine when done within Canada.

4. Infanticide Okay If Applied Equally

How’s this for mental gymnastics? Abortion — or infanticide — is not banned because it is immoral, or ethically reprehensible. That said, as long as all babies are free to be aborted (and not because of their sex), there’s nothing wrong with it in the eyes of “conservatives”. Private Member’s Bill C-233 would have done exactly that.

Mass murder is okay, as long as it’s done without any consideration of race or sex. Equal opportunity chance for death. Sounds pretty communist.

5. FIPA Treaty With China Wasn’t A Problem

China may have a long history of human rights abuses. But that apparently is no reason not to sign a 31 year treaty with them, FIPA, one which erodes Canadian sovereignty.

6. Selective Concern For Human Rights

What about the Reserves in Canada? What about the Indian Act, which is itself removing people’s rights to autonomy and self-governance? What about lack of clean water and health care available?

What about Canadian military veterans who aren’t having their benefits agreements honoured, despite risking their lives for the country?

What about a growing amount of Canadians who live in poverty, or the working poor? What about children growing up that way?

What about ensuring that Canadians have basic rights during this so-called “pandemic”? Offering to implement the same agenda isn’t really opposition.

It’s sickening to see such level of virtue signaling under the guise of “human rights” over in China, when there seems to be no concern for it back home.

Posted on

Bill C-12/C-232; Net Zero 2050; OTPP; Green Bonds & Pension Funds

Bill C-12 has been introduced in the House of Commons. It is to force Canada to formally adopt the “Net Zero Emissions by 2050” environmental agenda. A lot more is going on than simply this legislation. Bill C-232 is a Private Member’s Bill concerning the “Climate Emergency Action Framework”.

1. What’s In Bills C-232/C-12?

Climate Emergency Action Framework
Climate emergency action framework
4 (1) The Minister must, in consultation with Indigenous peoples and civil society, develop and implement a climate emergency action framework to achieve the objectives of the Convention on Climate Change respecting the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The framework must include measures to
(a) ensure that Canada meets, at a minimum, the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets set for 2030 under the Convention on Climate Change;
(b) ensure a transition towards a green economy by, among other means, increasing employment in green energy, infrastructure and housing; and
(c) ensure the economic well-being, public health and protection of the natural environment of Canada.

SUMMARY
This enactment requires that national targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada be set, with the objective of attaining net-zero emissions by 2050. The targets are to be set by the Minister of the Environment for 2030, 2035, 2040 and 2045.
In order to promote transparency and accountability in relation to meeting those targets, the enactment also
(a) requires that an emissions reduction plan, a progress report and an assessment report with respect to each target be tabled in each House of Parliament;
(b) provides for public participation;
(c) establishes an advisory body to provide the Minister of the Environment with advice with respect to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 and matters that are referred to it by the Minister;
(d) requires the Minister of Finance to prepare an annual report respecting key measures that the federal public administration has taken to manage its financial risks and opportunities related to climate change; and
(e) requires the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to, at least once every 5 years, examine and report on the Government of Canada’s implementation of measures aimed at mitigating climate change.

Bill C-232, the Climate Emergency Action Framework, would entrench further Canada’s obligations to Agenda 2030, which was signed in 2015 by Stephen Harper. Wasn’t that supposed to be non-binding?

Bill C-12 is the so-called Net Zero by 2050. Not only will it shut down entire sectors of the economy, the Finance Minister will be required to consider the impacts of climate change in all future reports.

2. Conservatives Support Climate Change Hoax

We know while in Paris, despite often criticizing the former Harper government, ultimately the Liberal government adopted those same targets it said would be a minimum. Of course, we all know today the Liberal government has massively failed to reach that so-called minimum. In fact, some reports suggest the Liberal government may be off the target by 123 million tonnes.
.
Obviously that is why we are here today debating this bill and why last week it was Bill C-12. Bill C-12 was quite fascinating from a political perspective. It literally kicks the can so far down the road that it will be up to future governments, and ultimately the government of the day in 2050, to deal with it. How do we get there? There is no road map, no solutions and no costs or penalties for failure. There is more of the same, more promises to do better down the road. They promise.
.
However, that is enough about Bill C-12.
.
Bill C-232 proposes that, at a minimum, Canada meet the 2030 targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions set under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
.
Much like Bill C-12, this bill does not say anything at all about how this will actually be done. The underlying promise of every federal government to date has been a return to the targets set by Mr. Chrétien in 1993. It is easy to make promises about targets, but not as easy to meet them.
.
To be frank, I do not think that we will need both Bill C-232 and Bill C-12 going forward. One of them will be enough. To end the suspense, I will be clear and say that I already support Bill C-12. I will not support Bill C-232 as it now stands, and I will explain why.

This pattern is extremely common among “Conservative” politicians, both Federally and Provincially. They will argue ad nauseum of minor details of implementation, to give the illusion of opposition. They pretend to fight, although, in the end, they support the same policies.

Think that Conservatives will revive the oil & gas sector, if they ever regained power? Nope, they are fully committed to letting industries like that die off.

3. Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, Net Zero

January 21, 2021
.
TORONTO, ON – Building on over a decade of climate change efforts, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board (Ontario Teachers’) today announced its commitment to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. This is a meaningful decision that advances Ontario Teachers’ mission to deliver retirement security for its members, while creating a positive impact for its partners and the communities where it operates.

“As a global pension plan, we will leverage our scale and influence to transition to a low-carbon economy and create a sustainable climate future,” said Jo Taylor, President and CEO. “With coordinated action net zero by 2050 is an ambitious but achievable goal. We are committed to playing our part alongside other organizations and governments around the world to effect significant, positive change.”

Climate change is one of the greatest challenges faced by society and businesses today. The effects of global warming, from rising sea levels and devastating floods to disrupted weather patterns and destructive storms, are clear and wide-ranging.

“While the transition to the low-carbon economy presents many challenges, it also presents many opportunities to earn the returns we need to pay our members’ pensions while more broadly benefiting society and the environment,” said Ziad Hindo, Chief Investment Officer.

The OTTP, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, announced a few days ago that it would be adopting the “Net Zero” initiative. Contributions will now be funneled through environmental causes that are virtuous. In short, this is a way to monetize the eco-push.

Not only will carbon taxes be funneled to various U.N. groups, but it seems that their pensions will be as well. It would be interesting to know if the members ever voted on this.

4. Investment Plans And Environmentalism

Kevin Uebelein
Chief Executive Officer
Alberta Investment Management Corporation

Gordon J. Fyfe
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Investment Officer
British Columbia Investment Management Corporation

Charles Emond
President and Chief Executive Officer
Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec

Mark Machin
President and Chief Executive Offier
Canada Pension Plan Investment Board

Jeff Wendling
President and Chief Executive Officer
Chief Investment Officer
Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan

Blake Hutcheson
President and CEO
Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System

Jo Taylor
President and Chief Executive Officer
Ontario Teachers Pension Plan

Neil Cunningham
President and Chief Executive Officer
Public Sector Pension Investment Board

CEO-Statement-CEO-Signatures-EN-Nov25-2020

The heads of 8 asset management/pension funds have recently signed a pledge to insert the climate change agenda into their investment decisions.

5. Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance

23 September 2019: An alliance of the world’s largest pension funds and insurers committed to achieve carbon-neutral investment portfolios by 2050. Participating pension funds and insurers launched the UN-convened ‘Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance’ at the UN Secretary-General’s Climate Action Summit.

Allianz, Caisse des Dépôts, La Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ), Folksam Group, Pension Danmark and Swiss Re initiated the Alliance at the beginning of 2019. Alecta, AMF, CalPERS, Nordea Life and Pension, Storebrand and Zurich have now joined as founding members. The Alliance brings together pension funds and insurers that are responsible for directing over USD 2.4 trillion in investments. These asset owners represent some of the largest pools of capital in the world and typically have highly diversified investment portfolios that are exposed to all sectors of the global economy.

Some 13 organizations — insurers and pension funds — representing some $2.4 trillion in assets banded together to found this group. It’s only expected to grow in numbers and overall value. That is, of course, until the eco-bubble bursts.

6. UN Principles For Responsible Investment

The UN-convened Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance commissioned the Institute for Sustainable Futures (ISF) at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) to apply their One Earth Climate model to sectors as defined by sector classification schemes commonly used in finance, with the aim to develop sectoral pathways to net zero by 2050 with carbon emissions (scope 1-2) and energy intensity and carbon intensity (scope 1-2) milestones in 5-year intervals for agreed high emitting sectors.

UNPRI is trying to embed the climate change agenda into all major business and pension related decisions. Recent decisions include eliminating investments for coal, and phasing out oil & gas.

7. Merging ESG Factors And Credit Risk

We, the undersigned, recognise that environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors can affect borrowers’ cash flows and the likelihood that they will default on their debt obligations. ESG factors are therefore important elements in assessing the creditworthiness of borrowers. For corporates, concerns such as stranded assets linked to climate change, labour relations challenges or lack of transparency around accounting practices can cause unexpected losses, expenditure, inefficiencies, litigation, regulatory pressure and reputational impacts.

Typically, a person’s or company’s credit risk was determined by their payment history, and ability to pay off future debts. Now, the ESG factors will be considered as well.

8. UN Environment Program, Commitments

New York, 23 September, 2019 – In one of the boldest actions yet by the world’s largest investors to decarbonize the global economy, an alliance of the world’s largest pension funds and insurers – responsible for directing more than US$ 2.4 trillion in investments – has today committed to carbon-neutral investment portfolios by 2050.

This commitment by the newly launched, United Nations-convened Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance was announced today at the UN Secretary-General’s Climate Action Summit, which brought together governments, companies and civil society to strengthen commitments and accelerate the implementation of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.

The Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance is an example of investors stepping up to protect people and planet with the knowledge that companies that transform their businesses to deliver a low carbon economy will benefit most from the opportunities presented by climate change.

In the Fall of 2019, the UN Environment Programme announced this effort to transition into a low Carbon economy. Already, trillions of dollars were available for the change in investment strategy.

What to wonder what will happen to those oil & gas workers in Western Canada who have been put out of work because of political ideology. Doesn’t look like those jobs are coming back.

9. CPP Investment Board, Green Bonds

Green Bonds started off as a novelty over a decade ago. Now, they are seen as a legitimate item to invest in. It’s difficult to see to what degree this move is altruism, and what is opportunism.

But in any event, organizations like CPPIB have made the business decision that certain industries are not worth investing in. As this pattern grows, and access to capital drops, more businesses will have to downsize or shut down.

10. Low-Carbon Transition Not Voluntary

Will this “transition” be voluntary? Will people and companies be free to make their own decisions when it comes to embracing (or rejecting) the green agenda? Not really. People like Mark Carney, now head of U.N. Climate Action & Finance, have made overt threats: play ball or go bankrupt.

(1) Bill C-12: Net Zero Emissions By 2050, First Reading
(2) Bill C-232: Climate Emergency Action Framework
(3) Bill C-262: Income Tax Changes On Carbon Capture
(4) MP Dan Albas On Bills C-12/C-232
(5) Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Pledges 2050 Net Zero
(6) Pledge Of 8 Canadian Companies’ CEOs
(7) IISD On: Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance
(8) UN Principles For Responsible Investing, Net Zero
(9) UNPRI: No More Investments in Coal Industry
(10) UNPRI On Phasing Out Oil & Gas Industry
(11) UNPRI: ESG Now Part Of Credit Worthiness
(12) UN Environment Programme On Net Zero Movement
(13) Canada Pension Plan Investments

Posted on

Bill C-11: Digital Charter Implementation Act Of Canada

Remember that proposed Digital Charter from 2019, in response to a shooting in New Zealand? Well, it’s finally come to Canada. Also, this sounds silly, but is DCIA a euphamism for “Dee CIA”?

1. Free Speech Is Under Constant Threat

Check here for the series free speech. It’s a crucial topic, and is typically intertwined with other categories. Topic include: hate speech laws, Digital Cooperation; the IGF, or Internet Governance Forum; ex-Liberal Candidate Richard Lee; the Digital Charter; Dominic LeBlanc’s proposal. There is also collusion, done by UNESCO, more UNESCO, Facebook, Google, and Twitter lobbying.

2. The Media Is Not Loyal To The Public

Truth is essential in society, but the situation in Canada is worse than people imagine. In Canada (and elsewhere), the mainstream media and fact-checkers are subsidized, though they deny it. Post Media controls most outlets in Canada, and many “independents” have ties to Koch/Atlas. Real investigative journalism is needed, and some pointers are provided.

3. Important Links

The Christchurch Call
Fact Sheet: Digital Charter Implementation Act
https://archive.is/0QioZ
Bill C-10: CRTC Amending Broadcast Act
Bill C-11 Introduced As HoC Legislation (November 2020)
Office Of The Lobbying Commissioner Of Canada
Mastercard’s Lobbying Information
Visa Canada’s Lobbying Information
American Express Canada’s Lobbying Information
PayPal’s Lobbying Information
GlaxoSmithKline’s Lobbying Information

4. Digital Charter Bait-And-Switch

Originally, the proposed “Digital Charter” was formed as part of the Christchurch Call, in response to a mass shooting in New Zealand on March 15, 2019. This was promoted as fighting violent extremism. However, the DC Implementation Act seems to be much more broadly applied.

5. Pitching The Digital Charter Implementation Act

What does the Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020 mean for me?
.
[A] Meaningful consent: Modernized consent rules would ensure that individuals have the plain-language information they need to make meaningful choices about the use of their personal information.
.
[B] Data mobility: To further improve their control, individuals would have the right to direct the transfer of their personal information from one organization to another. For example, individuals could direct their bank to share their personal information with another financial institution.
.
[C] Disposal of personal information and withdrawal of consent: The accessibility of information online makes it hard for individuals to control their online identity. The legislation would allow individuals to request that organizations dispose of personal information and, in most cases, permit individuals to withdraw consent for the use of their information.
.
[D] Algorithmic transparency: The CPPA contains new transparency requirements that apply to automated decision-making systems like algorithms and artificial intelligence. Businesses would have to be transparent about how they use such systems to make significant predictions, recommendations or decisions about individuals. Individuals would also have the right to request that businesses explain how a prediction, recommendation or decision was made by an automated decision-making system and explain how the information was obtained.
.
[E] De-identified information: The practice of removing direct identifiers (such as a name) from personal information is becoming increasingly common, but the rules that govern how this information is then used are not clear. The legislation will clarify that this information must be protected and that it can be used without an individual’s consent only under certain circumstances.

All of these items sound perfectly reasonable on the surface. Who WOULDN’T want greater privacy and transparency? Reading a bit further on the webpage, it becomes a bit concerning.

Simplifying consent: In the digital economy, the use of personal information is often core to the delivery of a product or service, and consumers can reasonably expect that their information will be used for this purpose. Currently, organizations are required to seek consent for such uses, making privacy policies longer and less accessible and creating burden. The legislation would remove the burden of having to obtain consent when that consent does not provide any meaningful privacy protection.

Data for good: Greater data sharing and access between the public and private sectors can help to solve some of our most important challenges in fields such as public health, infrastructure and environmental protection. The legislation would allow businesses to disclose de-identified data to public entities (under certain circumstances) for socially beneficial purposes.

Recognition of codes of practice and certification systems: To help organizations understand their obligations under the CPPA and demonstrate compliance, the legislation would allow organizations to ask the Privacy Commissioner to approve codes of practice and certification systems that set out rules for how the CPPA applies in certain activities, sectors or business models.

So the requirement to obtain consent can be removed if the consent “would not provide any meaningful privacy protection”? What standards would be applied to determine if it’s meaningful? Or would it all be subjective?

Greater sharing of data between public and private sectors? Such as what? Bank records? Health information? Political beliefs? And coupled with watering down the need for consent, that’s unsettling.

It would allow also allow for private organizations to contact the Privacy Commissioner and ask to have certain practices permitted. Interesting.

6. Digital Charter IA Guts Privacy

Exceptions to Requirement for Consent
Business Operations
Business activities
18 (1) An organization may collect or use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if the collection or use is made for a business activity described in subsection (2) and
(a) a reasonable person would expect such a collection or use for that activity; and
(b) the personal information is not collected or used for the purpose of influencing the individual’s behaviour or decisions.
,
List of activities
(2) Subject to the regulations, the following activities are business activities for the purpose of subsection (1):
(a) an activity that is necessary to provide or deliver a product or service that the individual has requested from the organization;
(b) an activity that is carried out in the exercise of due diligence to prevent or reduce the organization’s commercial risk;
(c) an activity that is necessary for the organization’s information, system or network security;
(d) an activity that is necessary for the safety of a product or service that the organization provides or delivers;
(e) an activity in the course of which obtaining the individual’s consent would be impracticable because the organization does not have a direct relationship with the individual; and
(f) any other prescribed activity.
.
Transfer to service provider
19 An organization may transfer an individual’s personal information to a service provider without their knowledge or consent.
.
De-identification of personal information
20 An organization may use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to de-identify the information.
.
Research and development
21 An organization may use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent for the organization’s internal research and development purposes, if the information is de-identified before it is used.

Think that’s bad? It’s about to get even worse. More exceptions to the requirement for consent are written into Bill C-11. It’s like the Do-Not-Call lists about 15-20 years ago. Is there anything that doesn’t make the list of exceptions?

Information produced in employment, business or profession
23 An organization may collect, use or disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if it was produced by the individual in the course of their employment, business or profession and the collection, use or disclosure is consistent with the purposes for which the information was produced.
.
Employment relationship — federal work, undertaking or business
24 An organization that operates a federal, work or business may collect, use or disclose an individual’s personal information without their consent if
(a) the collection, use or disclosure is necessary to establish, manage or terminate an employment relationship between the organization and the individual in connection with the operation of a federal work, undertaking or business; and
(b) the organization has informed the individual that the personal information will be or may be collected, used or disclosed for those purposes.
.
Disclosure to lawyer or notary
25 An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to a lawyer or, in Quebec, a lawyer or notary, who is representing the organization.

How is any of this fighting violent extremism?

An organization can share a person’s personal information –without their knowledge or consent — if they deem it necessary for their business functions. They can also share the data of 3rd parties, if they don’t have a direct business relationship with that person.

Organizations can provide (sell?) data to research and marketing firms, with the caveat being that items that would identify a person must be removed. However, even with that, people can be re-identified from partial profiles.

Employers and Governments can also share a person’s private information without their knowledge or consent if it’s regarded as needed in their business operations. What else?

Statistical or scholarly study or research
35 An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if
(a) the disclosure is made for statistical purposes or for scholarly study or research purposes and those purposes cannot be achieved without disclosing the information;
(b) it is impracticable to obtain consent; and
(c) the organization informs the Commissioner of the disclosure before the information is disclosed.
.
Records of historic or archival importance
36 An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to an institution whose functions include the conservation of records of historic or archival importance, if the disclosure is made for the purpose of such conservation.
.
Disclosure after period of time
37 An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent after the earlier of
(a) 100 years after the record containing the information was created, and
(b) 20 years after the death of the individual.
.
Journalistic, artistic or literary purposes
38 An organization may collect an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if the collection is solely for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes.
.
Socially beneficial purposes
39 (1) An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if
(a) the personal information is de-identified before the disclosure is made;
(b) the disclosure is made to
(i) a government institution or part of a government institution in Canada,
(ii) a health care institution, post-secondary educational institution or public library in Canada,
(iii) any organization that is mandated, under a federal or provincial law or by contract with a government institution or part of a government institution in Canada, to carry out a socially beneficial purpose, or
(iv) any other prescribed entity; and
(c) the disclosure is made for a socially beneficial purpose.
.
Definition of socially beneficial purpose
(2) For the purpose of this section, socially beneficial purpose means a purpose related to health, the provision or improvement of public amenities or infrastructure, the protection of the environment or any other prescribed purpose.

As long as it’s claimed that the information was needed for research, historical work, some vaguely-defined social benefit, personal information can be disclosed without the person’s knowledge or consent. They do mention stripping the information from details that would lead to the identity of the person, but it’s still easy to reestablish who it was.

“Impractical to obtain consent” refers to companies disclosing person data not of THEIR customers, but the customers of other people. In fact, an obvious loophole is not to do any of this yourself, but simply to partner with another organization who can do the dirty work.

And after 20 years after a person’s death, information can be disclosed anyway. No reason or pretense is needed to pretend to justify it.

Now we get to disclosures to Government Institutions. Presumably, this was the original content considered with the Digital Charter.

7. DCIA: Disclosure To Government Institutions

Disclosures to Government Institutions
.
Administering law
43 An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to a government institution or part of a government institution that has made a request for the information, identified its lawful authority to obtain the information and indicated that the disclosure is requested for the purpose of administering federal or provincial law.
.
Law enforcement — request of government institution
44 An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to a government institution or part of a government institution that has made a request for the information, identified its lawful authority to obtain the information and indicated that the disclosure is requested for the purpose of enforcing federal or provincial law or law of a foreign jurisdiction, carrying out an investigation relating to the enforcement of any such law or gathering intelligence for the purpose of enforcing any such law.
.
Contravention of law — initiative of organization
45 An organization may on its own initiative disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to a government institution or a part of a government institution if the organization has reasonable grounds to believe that the information relates to a contravention of federal or provincial law or law of a foreign jurisdiction that has been, is being or is about to be committed.
.
Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act
46 An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to the government institution referred to in section 7 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act as required by that section.
.
Request by government institution — national security, defence or international affairs
47 (1) An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to a government institution or part of a government institution that has made a request for the information, identified its lawful authority to obtain the information and indicated that it suspects that the information relates to national security, the defence of Canada or the conduct of international affairs.
Collection
(2) An organization may collect an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent for the purpose of making a disclosure under subsection (1).
Use
(3) An organization may use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if it was collected under subsection (2).
.
Initiative of organization — national security, defence or international affairs
48 (1) An organization may on its own initiative disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to a government institution or a part of a government institution if the organization suspects that the information relates to national security, the defence of Canada or the conduct of international affairs.
Collection
(2) An organization may collect an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent for the purpose of making a disclosure under subsection (1).
Use
(3) An organization may use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if it was collected under subsection (2).

The Government may collect personal information without your knowledge or consent if it believes (or claims to believe), that it’s done for a legitimate purpose, or may help with the investigation of Government affairs.

Furthermore, institutions can, on their own free will, simply choose to hand over personal information without knowledge or consent. All that is required is a vague standard that they believe a crime has been, or is about to be committed.

Getting back to the topic of the Christchurch Call: the original purpose of the proposed Digital Charter was to combat online extremism, before violence broke out. Under this Bill, can Governments simply seize data, or can companies just provide it on a whim? Could having incorrect opinions be viewed as a public security risk?

Could telling the truth about the Covid-19 hoax be grounds for detaining or de-platforming people, under the guise of “public health and safety”?

8. Lobbying Registry Search: “Digital Charter”

Entering “Digital Charter” into the Lobbing Registry website flags 84 hits: 80 registrations, and 4 communications reports. Let’s take a look into that.

The 4 communications were with Facebook Canada, and took place between April 15, 2020, and December 17, 2020. They involved: Facebook, the Prime Minister’s Office and the Policy Advisor on Canada’s Digital Charter.

Small aside: Official Opposition Leader, Erin O’Toole. was a lobbyist for Facebook when he worked for the law firm, Heenan Blaikie. Could explain why he’s silent on this issue.

9. More “Digital Charter” In Lobbying Registry

Want to do banking of rely on credit for your business or personal life? It may become much harder if these institutions refuse to associate with you, for whatever reason.

10. GlaxoSmithKline, “Digital Charter” Lobbying

Seems pretty strange that GSK (GlaxoSmithKline), is involved in discussions concerning the Digital Charter. On the surface, it also looks like a conflict of interest.

11. What’s Really Going On Here?

The idea of a “Digital Charter” was shoved onto the Canadian public, under the pretense that it would be used to stop violent and unstable people from committing serious crimes. Instead, it seems like an open invitation to throw out privacy protections altogether.

It’s quite stunning the reasons and ways that personal information can be shared “without knowledge or consent” of the people involved. Far from ensuring privacy protections, it codifies the right to share others’ data. The reasons for doing so are also (intentionally?) defined in very vague ways. This ensures that loopholes will always exist.