Category: Canadian Bills

Posted on

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

Posted on

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

Posted on

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

Posted on

LPC Platform Includes Provision To Provide Legal Cover To Businesses Implementing Vaccine Passports

Included in the Liberal Party of Canada election platform on page 2 is a promise to indemnify businesses that exclude people based on not taking those experimental “vaccines”. That’s right, not only are the businesses being offered the subsidies they need, but Government will also run interference to keep these requirements from becoming a liability.

But don’t worry. It’s not about tyranny and eliminating your basic human rights. This is done all in the name of safety and security. What could possibly go wrong?

[Page 2] Proof of Vaccination
Canadians want to finish the fight against COVID-19. Millions of Canadians have rolled up their sleeves and gotten their vaccine shots, doing so to protect themselves, and their community. Across the country, thousands of business owners have demonstrated leadership to support vaccine rollout, and now many want to go further. Whether they are managing a multinational or a small coffee shop, business owners should have no doubt that putting the safety of workers, customers, or clients first is the right thing to do.
.
Proof of vaccination systems give people the confidence of knowing that others around them are fully vaccinated. They also help drive increased vaccination rates and give Canadians confidence that it’s safe to go to restaurants,
shops, and out into their communities.
.
A re-elected Liberal government will:
• Launch a $1 billion COVID-19 Proof of Vaccination Fund to support provinces and territories who implement a requirement for proof of vaccine credentials in their jurisdiction for non-essential businesses and public spaces.
• Table legislation to ensure that every business and organization that decides to require a proof of vaccination from employees and customers can do so without fear of a legal challenge.

Not only would the Government be economically subsidizing these “passports”, but they’d be running interference to make sure there was no legal remedy for people concerned with basic liberties. Before going any further, it is time to distinguish between 2 completely different ways medical devices and substances can be advanced.

(a) Approved: Health Canada has fully reviewed all the testing, and steps have been done, with the final determination that it can be used for the general population. At least in theory, there would be adequate long term testing to know what effects will happen years later.
(b) Interim Authorization: deemed to be “worth the risk” under the circumstances, doesn’t have to be fully tested. Allowed under Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act. Commonly referred to as an emergency use authorization.

If implemented, there would be no recourse for people who are denied entry (it doesn’t specify exemptions). Also, the indemnified manufacturers don’t seem to be an issue. Great way to implement medical segregation. The pressure to do this makes informed consent — REAL consent — a thing of the past. It seems that “my body, my choice” doesn’t extend to medical autonomy, unless it involves killing children.

One would think that there would be some real opposition to all of this Provincially and Municipally, but there isn’t. Even those who refuse vaccine passports only do so very tepidly.

Doug Ford is doing what he does best: stab the residents of Ontario in the back, again and again. He’s on board with all of this, as are these “conservative” Premiers.

Where are all the constitutional lawyers? Other than holding constant fundraisers, they don’t seem to actually be doing much.

Beyond physical and economic coercion, what else is in there? Since we are looking through the Liberal platform, this is hardly the only objectionable topic. A few points worth noting:

[Page 65] Protecting Canadians from Online Harms
Too many people in Canada are victims of hate speech, which is often amplified and spread on social media. Canadians want action and they want leadership that will put a stop to harmful online content and hold platforms
accountable.
A re-elected Liberal Government will:
• Introduce legislation within its first 100 days to combat serious forms of harmful online content, specifically hate speech, terrorist content, content that incites violence, child sexual abuse material and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. This would make sure that social media platforms and other online services are held accountable for the content that they host. Our legislation will recognize the importance of freedom of expression for all Canadians and will take a balanced and targeted approach to tackle extreme and harmful speech.
• Strengthen the Canada Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code to more effectively combat online hate.

[Page 66] Black Canadians Justice Strategy
Anti-Black racism and discrimination are a reality in Canada, and they are acutely felt in Canada’s policing and
criminal justice system. Black Canadians are significantly overrepresented in the federal prison system, accounting for 7.3% of the prison population when they represent only 3.5% of the greater population. The work of grassroots organizations like Black Lives Matters have raised their voices to bring global attention to this issue. Systemic racism, discrimination, and violence against Black Canadians will persist as long as inequality is not called out and addressed.
.
A re-elected Liberal government will:
• Develop a Black Canadians Justice Strategy to address anti-black racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system.

[Page 70] Combatting Authoritarianism and Foreign Interference
With authoritarianism, geopolitical competition, and foreign interference on the rise, safeguarding Canada’s national and economic security requires strong action both at home and abroad. We will continue to implement domestic measures to protect Canadians and work closely with our friends, allies, and partners to respond to illegal and unacceptable behaviour by authoritarian states, including China, Russia, and Iran.
.
Specifically, a re-elected Liberal government will:
• Work with G7, NATO, and likeminded partners to develop and expand collective responses to arbitrary detention, economic coercion, cyber threats, foreign interference in democratic processes, and egregious violations of human rights, including through the use of sanctions, support for international institutions, and coordinated action to reinforce the rules of international trade.
• Review and modernize the Investment Canada Act and provide additional resources to support national security agencies in tracking, assessing, and mitigating economic security threats from foreign investment.
• Expand collaboration and information sharing with Canadian partners and across all levels of government with respect to addressing security risks in foreign research and investment partnerships.
• Introduce legislation to safeguard Canada’s critical infrastructure, including our 5G networks, to preserve the integrity and security of our telecommunications systems.
• Continue to work with international partners to hold Iran accountable for the illegal shootdown of PS752 and continue to provide support to the families and loved ones of the victims as they fight for justice and reparations. We will also continue to advance Canada’s Safer Skies Initiative, to prevent such tragic events in the future.
• Increase resources available to our national security agencies to counter foreign interference and to the RCMP to protect Canadians from unacceptable surveillance, harassment, and intimidation by foreign actors.

[Page 75] • Significantly increase the resources of the Canada Revenue Agency to combat aggressive tax planning
and tax avoidance that allows the wealthiest to avoid paying the taxes they owe. This will increase CRA’s resources by up to $1 billion per year in order to close Canada’s tax gap.
• Modernize the general anti-avoidance rule regime in order to focus on economic substance and restrict the ability of federally regulated entities, including financial institutions such as banks and insurance companies, to use tiered structures as a form of corporate tax planning that flows Canadian-derived profit through entities in low-tax jurisdictions in order to reduce taxes back in Canada.
• Work with our international partners to implement a global minimum tax so that the biggest companies in the world are not able to escape the taxes they owe here in Canada.

As with most things, the devil’s in the details. It would be interesting to know what exactly counts as “hate”. It’s likely to be written in such a broad and vague way as to be applied however the politics demands it.

Regarding the overrepresentation in Canadian jails, that could easily be explained by the crime rates, or is that racist to discuss? And who exactly is committing those high rates of violence against blacks?

It’s rather sickening to claim to oppose authoritarianism and human rights abroad, while turning a blind eye to the same sort of thing happening locally.

There’s also large sections on climate change, and the rainbow lobby. Beyond that, gender is woven into pretty much everything. However, that’s to be expected from Trudeau these days.

Of course, this is just a tiny portion of what’s in the platform. Granted, politicians lie all the time, but a lot of these they would actually implement.

(1) https://liberal.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/292/2021/09/Platform-Forward-For-Everyone.pdf
(2) Liberal Election Campaign Platform
(3) Section 30.1 Canada Food & Drug Act
(4) September 2020 Interim Order From Patty Hajdu
(5) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(6) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(7) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
(8) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf
(9) https://twitter.com/fordnation/status/1433172901101019137
(10) Testing Product Insert AstraZeneca Interim Authorization
(11) Testing Product Insert Janssen Interim Authorization
(12) Testing Product Insert Moderna Interim Authorization
(13) Testing Product Insert Pfizer Interim Authorization

Posted on

B.C. Health Care (Consent) And Care Facility (Admissions) Act Of 1996

With the looming vaccine passports in B.C. (and elsewhere), a good piece of legislation to know is the B.C. Health Care (Consent) And Care Facility (Admissions) Act Of 1996. It doesn’t really require much commentary, as the quoted passages are pretty self explanatory.

Part 2 — Consent to Health Care
.
Consent rights
4 Every adult who is capable of giving or refusing consent to health care has
(a) the right to give consent or to refuse consent on any grounds, including moral or religious grounds, even if the refusal will result in death,
(b) the right to select a particular form of available health care on any grounds, including moral or religious grounds,
(c) the right to revoke consent,
(d) the right to expect that a decision to give, refuse or revoke consent will be respected, and
(e) the right to be involved to the greatest degree possible in all case planning and decision making.

General rule — consent needed
5 (1) A health care provider must not provide any health care to an adult without the adult’s consent except under sections 11 to 15.
.
(2) A health care provider must not seek a decision about whether to give or refuse substitute consent to health care under section 11, 14 or 15 unless he or she has made every reasonable effort to obtain a decision from the adult.

Elements of consent
.
6 An adult consents to health care if
(a) the consent relates to the proposed health care,
(b) the consent is given voluntarily,
(c) the consent is not obtained by fraud or misrepresentation,
(d) the adult is capable of making a decision about whether to give or refuse consent to the proposed health care,
(e) the health care provider gives the adult the information a reasonable person would require to understand the proposed health care and to make a decision, including information about
(i) the condition for which the health care is proposed,
(ii) the nature of the proposed health care,
(iii) the risks and benefits of the proposed health care that a reasonable person would expect to be told about, and
(iv) alternative courses of health care, and
(f) the adult has an opportunity to ask questions and receive answers about the proposed health care.

How incapability is determined
7 When deciding whether an adult is incapable of giving, refusing or revoking consent to health care, a health care provider must base the decision on whether or not the adult demonstrates that he or she understands
(a) the information given by the health care provider under section 6 (e), and
(b) that the information applies to the situation of the adult for whom the health care is proposed.

No emergency health care contrary to wishes
12.1 A health care provider must not provide health care under section 12 if the health care provider has reasonable grounds to believe that the person, while capable and after attaining 19 years of age, expressed an instruction or wish applicable to the circumstances to refuse consent to the health care.

However, depending on how malicious the higher ups may be, there are sections that could be twisted and perverted to force certain types of health care. That being said, the whole issue of consent seems pretty clear cut.

Threatening someone’s livelihood, finances, or general freedoms in order to obtain consent amounts to coercion. And that is exactly what forced “vaccines” and tests do. And yes, this has been brought up many times, but these aren’t even approved by Health Canada. They have interim authorization. Considering the emergency declaration was cancelled in Ontario and B.C., this should actually be illegal.

Also check out the Ontario Health Care Consent Act of 1996. So-called medical professionals aren’t allowed to do anything to you if you don’t give voluntary and informed consent.

(1) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96181_01#part2
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/ontario-health-care-consent-act-of-1996-fyi-for-vaccines-or-tests/
(3) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(4) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(5) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
(6) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf
(7) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-27/page-9.html#docCont
(8) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drugs-vaccines-treatments/interim-order-import-sale-advertising-drugs.html#a2.3

Posted on

Bill C-36: Red Flag Laws In The Name Of Preemptively Combatting Hate Speech

Bill C-36 has been introduced into the House of Commons. It would be fair to describe portions of this as a “red flag” law. People can be subjected to Court restrictions simply based on the suspicion that they may engage in hate speech or hate propaganda.

Welcome to the Pre-Crime Unit, and the Minority Report

Fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime
810.‍012 (1) A person may, with the Attorney General’s consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit
(a) an offence under section 318 or subsection 319(1) or (2);
(b) an offence under subsection 430(4.‍1); or
(c) an offence motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other similar factor.
Appearances

(2) The provincial court judge who receives an information under subsection (1) may cause the parties to appear before a provincial court judge.

Adjudication
(3) If the provincial court judge before whom the parties appear is satisfied by the evidence adduced that the informant has reasonable grounds for the fear, the judge may order that the defendant enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of not more than 12 months.

Duration extended
(4) However, if the provincial court judge is also satisfied that the defendant was convicted previously of any offence referred to in subsection (1), the judge may order that the defendant enter into the recognizance for a period of not more than two years.

Refusal to enter into recognizance
(5) The provincial court judge may commit the defendant to prison for a term of not more than 12 months if the defendant fails or refuses to enter into the recognizance.

Conditions in recognizance
(6) The provincial court judge may add any reasonable conditions to the recognizance that the judge considers desirable to secure the good conduct of the defendant, including conditions that
(a) require the defendant to wear an electronic monitoring device, if the Attorney General makes that request;
(b) require the defendant to return to and remain at their place of residence at specified times;
(c) require the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, except in accordance with a medical prescription, of alcohol or of any other intoxicating substance;
(d) require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation on the demand of a peace officer, a probation officer or someone designated under paragraph 810.‍3(2)‍(a) to make a demand, at the place and time and on the day specified by the person making the demand, if that person has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant has breached a condition of the recognizance that requires them to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance;
(e) require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation at regular intervals that are specified, in a notice in Form 51 served on the defendant, by a probation officer or a person designated under paragraph 810.‍3(2)‍(b) to specify them, if a condition of the recognizance requires the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance; or
(f) prohibit the defendant from communicating, directly or indirectly, with any person identified in the recognizance, or refrain from going to any place specified in the recognizance, except in accordance with the conditions specified in the recognizance that the judge considers necessary.

Conditions — firearms
(7) The provincial court judge shall consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the defendant’s safety or that of any other person, to prohibit the defendant from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all of those things. If the judge decides that it is desirable to do so, the judge shall add that condition to the recognizance and specify the period during which it applies.

Surrender, etc.
(8) If the provincial court judge adds a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall specify in the recognizance how the things referred to in that subsection that are in the defendant’s possession shall be surrendered, disposed of, detained, stored or dealt with and how the authorizations, licences and registration certificates that are held by the defendant shall be surrendered.

Reasons
(9) If the provincial court judge does not add a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall include in the record a statement of the reasons for not adding it.

Variance of conditions
(10) A provincial court judge may, on application of the informant, the Attorney General or the defendant, vary the conditions fixed in the recognizance.

Other provisions to apply
(11) Subsections 810(4) and (5) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to recognizances made under this section.

-A person can be ordered to appear before a Provincial Court
-A Judge can order a person to enter into a Recognizance for 12 months
-That Recognizance can last for 24 months if there is a prior conviction
-A person can be jailed for 12 months for refusing a Recognizance
-A person can be ordered to wear an electronic monitoring device
-A person can be subjected to a curfew
-A person can be ordered to abstain from alcohol
-A person can be subjected to drug/alcohol testing
-That drug/testing can be ordered at regular intervals
-A person can be subjected to a no contact order (of 3rd parties)
-A person can be prohibited from going to certain places
-A person may be subjected to other conditions

Keep in mind, all of these conditions can be imposed, simply because of the SUSPICION that a hate crime will be committed, or hate propaganda will be distributed.

Not only is the Canadian Criminal Code to be amended, but the Canadian Human Rights Code will be as well, to implement fines and cessation orders. There doesn’t seem to be real standard for what counts as hate speech.

Canadian Human Rights Act
Amendments to the Act
2013, c. 37, s. 1
12 Section 4 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:
Orders regarding discriminatory practices
4 A discriminatory practice, as described in sections 5 to 14.‍1, may be the subject of a complaint under Part III and anyone found to be engaging or to have engaged in a discriminatory practice may be made subject to an order as provided for in section 53 or 53.‍1.
.
13 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 12:
Communication of hate speech
.
13 (1) It is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Continuous communication
.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person who communicates or causes to be communicated hate speech continues to do so for as long as the hate speech remains public and the person can remove or block access to it.

Complaint substantiated — section 13
53.‍1 If at the conclusion of an inquiry the member or panel conducting the inquiry finds that a complaint relating to a discriminatory practice described in section 13 is substantiated, the member or panel may make one or more of only the following orders against the person found to be engaging or to have engaged in the discriminatory practice:
(a) an order to cease the discriminatory practice and take measures, in consultation with the Commission on the general purposes of the measures, to redress the practice or to prevent the same or a similar practice from recurring;
(b) an order to pay compensation of not more than $20,000 to any victim personally identified in the communication that constituted the discriminatory practice, for any pain and suffering that the victim experienced as a result of that discriminatory practice, so long as that person created or developed, in whole or in part, the hate speech indicated in the complaint;
(c) an order to pay a penalty of not more than $50,000 to the Receiver General if the member or panel considers it appropriate having regard to the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the discriminatory practice, the wilfulness or intent of the person who is engaging or has engaged in the discriminatory practice, any prior discriminatory practices that the person has engaged in and the person’s ability to pay the penalty.
Award of costs
53.‍2 A member or panel conducting an inquiry into a complaint filed on the basis of section 13 may award costs for abuse of process in relation to the inquiry.

According to the revisions in the Act, “hate speech” will be ongoing as long as the material is available publicly, and could be removed. A person can also be ordered to be $20,000 to each victim, and $50,000 to the panel itself.

Problem with all of this, “hate speech” is disturbingly vague. It could be applied subjectively, depending on the politics of the parties involved.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=11452710
(2) https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/bill/C-36/first-reading
(3) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-69.html#docCont
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-91.html#h-122977