Category: Canada

Posted on

Various Bonds, Enterprises, The World Bank Group Is Running

The World Bank tries to portray itself as an organization devoted to the welfare of humankind globally. However, the organization is involved in many bond schemes that most people are completely unaware of. It’s quite the lucrative side operation.

  • IBRD, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  • IDA, The International Development Association
  • IFC, The International Finance Corporation
  • MIGA, The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency
  • ICSID, The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Dispute

Partnering With Governments
Together, IBRD and IDA form the World Bank, which provides financing, policy advice, and technical assistance to governments of developing countries. IDA focuses on the world’s poorest countries, while IBRD assists middle-income and creditworthy poorer countries.
.
Partnering With The Private Sector
IFC, MIGA, and ICSID focus on strengthening the private sector in developing countries. Through these institutions, the World Bank Group provides financing, technical assistance, political risk insurance, and settlement of disputes to private enterprises, including financial institutions.
.
One World Bank Group
While our five institutions have their own country membership, governing boards, and articles of agreement, we work as one to serve our partner countries. Today’s development challenges can only be met if the private sector is part of the solution. But the public sector sets the groundwork to enable private investment and allow it to thrive. The complementary roles of our institutions give the World Bank Group a unique ability to connect global financial resources, knowledge, and innovative solutions to the needs of developing countries.

Most people don’t know this, but the World Bank is actually the partnership of 5 organizations. Strangely, an outside search of them reveals nothing about them, other than being part of the World Bank Group. A deep dive is needed into the inner workings of the World Bank, and is coming in a future article.

1. Types Of Bonds World Bank Involved With

Here are some of the programs the World Bank has been mixed up in. It’s quite the varied and lucrative enterprise. People can become very wealthy with these schemes, although, it’s dependent on others playing along.

  • Blockchain Bonds
  • Blue (Water) Bonds
  • Green Bonds
  • Pandemic Bonds
  • Social Bonds
  • Vaccine Bonds

2. World Bank & Blockchain Bonds

WASHINGTON/SYDNEY, August 23/24, 2018 – The World Bank launched bond-i (blockchain operated new debt instrument), the world’s first bond to be created, allocated, transferred and managed through its life cycle using distributed ledger technology. The two-year bond raised $110 million, marking the first time that investors have supported the World Bank’s development activities in a transaction that is fully managed using the blockchain technology.

The World Bank mandated Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) as arranger for the bond on August 10. The announcement was followed by a two-week consultation period with the market, with key investors indicating strong support for the issuance.

Investors in the bond include CBA, First State Super, NSW Treasury Corporation, Northern Trust, QBE, SAFA, and Treasury Corporation of Victoria. CBA and the World Bank will continue to welcome investor interest in the bond throughout its life cycle, and inquiries from other market participants in relation to the platform.

The bond is part of a broader strategic focus of the World Bank to harness the potential of disruptive technologies for development. In June 2017, the World Bank launched a Blockchain Innovation Lab to understand the impact of blockchain and other disruptive technologies in areas such as land administration, supply chain management, health, education, cross-border payments, and carbon market trading.

The World Bank Group started “blockchain bonds” in 2018. Rather than the more traditional methods, this would, as the name implies, use Blockchain technology as an alternative. The next round of bonds came in 2019.

3. World Bank & Blue (Water) Bonds

The Republic of Seychelles start the first sovereign “blue bond” in 2018. The Rockefeller Foundation, Standard Chartered Bank and Bank of New York Mellon helped with payments. The bonds themselves were placed with the private investors: Nuveen, Prudential and Calvert Impact Capital.

4. World Bank & Green/Climate Bonds

Climate Bonds, or “Green Bonds“, is yet another growing industry that the Rockefellers and other environmental groups are trying to pump up. This is an industry that is potentially worth $100 trillion or more. However, the money likely won’t be going where people think it will.

5. World Bank, PEFF & Pandemic Bonds

Washington, DC, June 28, 2017 – The World Bank (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) today launched specialized bonds aimed at providing financial support to the Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF), a facility created by the World Bank to channel surge funding to developing countries facing the risk of a pandemic.

This marks the first time that World Bank bonds are being used to finance efforts against infectious diseases, and the first time that pandemic risk in low-income countries is being transferred to the financial markets.

The PEF will provide more than $500 million to cover developing countries against the risk of pandemic outbreaks over the next five years, through a combination of bonds and derivatives priced today, a cash window, and future commitments from donor countries for additional coverage.

The transaction, that enables PEF to potentially save millions of lives, was oversubscribed by 200% reflecting an overwhelmingly positive reception from investors and a high level of confidence in the new World Bank sponsored instrument. With such strong demand, the World Bank was able to price the transaction well below the original guidance from the market. The total amount of risk transferred to the market through the bonds and derivatives is $425 million.

In June 2017, the World Bank started up “Pandemic Bonds“, which would be a sort of insurance policy against infectious diseases. Of course, one has to wonder how far ahead they saw in starting this.

The PEFF, or Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility, will determine if there is a pandemic, according to certain criteria. But early in 2020, the World Bank was accused of “waiting for people to die”, by refusing to pay out this money.

6. World Bank & Social Impact Bonds

In February 2019 “Social Impact Bonds” were started up. They are marketed as a sort of social investment driver, to improve the quality of live for people in the 3rd World, particularly women. They are also supposed to help with the financing of the UNSDA, or United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda.

7. World Bank, IFFM & Vaccine Bonds

This was addressed in the Planned-emic series. Instead of giving money directly to GAVI, there is a convoluted scheme that involves making pledges to IFFIm, the International Finance Facility for Immunizations. Those pledges are then used to generate bonds which are sold to the World Bank. The World Bank then re-sells those bonds on the open market. The money from sales goes to GAVI, who uses it to finance their vaccine agenda.

Note: IFFIm is actually financed by GAVI (who is financed by Gates), so there isn’t really any independence here.

Of course, these means that donor pledges end up costing much more than originally told, or it means only a portion of that money is put to use.

8. Some Thoughts On These Bonds

In early 2020, the President of Belarus claimed that the IMF (International Monetary Fund), and World Bank, offered him a bribe of almost $1 billion if he would impose pandemic measures on his country. He refused. While that seemed like an absurd conspiracy theory at the time, more and more questions need to be answered.

What are the IMF and World Bank up to, and are these bonds connected to their push for drastic (and forced) social changes?

While all of these projects have nice enough sounding names, a question keeps coming up: why is it necessary to use these bonds at all? Instead of selling, and reselling bonds, shouldn’t the money go directly to the people who will be impacted? After all, the average person doesn’t benefit from increased bond values, only the bond holders do.

It’s interesting that the Rockefeller Foundation is so supportive of all of this. After all, they drafted the Lockstep Narrative in 2010. They lay out in broad strokes how to force social change under the false pretense of a global health crisis.

Of course, companies that don’t play along with the agenda, such as “non-green” industries, will soon be forced out of business. The threats have been openly made for a long time now.

(1) 5 Organizations Make Up The World Bank
(2) World Bank Launches “Blockchain Bond” In 2018
(3) Second Round Of Blockchain Bonds In 2019
(4) Video Explaining Blockchain Implementation In New Bonds
(5) Seychelles Launches Blue Bonds In 2018
(6) Blue Bonds Partially Financed By Rockefeller Foundation
(7) Video Explaining Blue (Water) Bonds Concept
(8) Rockefeller Foundation Financing Green Bonds
(9) Founders And Partners Of Climate Bonds
(10) “Pandemic Bonds” Started in 2017 By World Bank Group
(11) Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility
(12) World Bank Won’t Pay Out Pandemic Bonds
(13) Video Explaining Pandemic Bonds Concept
(14) World Bank Launching Social Impact Bonds
(15) Lukashenko Claims IMF & World Bank Offered Bribe

Posted on

Bill C-21: Firearms Bill Adding “Transborder Criminality” To IRPA

This Bill redefines replica firearms, and brings Red Flag and Yellow Flag Laws onto Canadian gun owners, regardless of how law abiding these people may be. It also makes changes to IRPA, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Immigration & Refugee Protection Act
Canada Criminal Code
Text Of Bill C-21

1. Canada Immigration & Refugee Protection Act

Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
.
(2) The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is responsible for the administration of this Act as it relates to
(a) examinations at ports of entry;
(b) the enforcement of this Act, including arrest, detention and removal;
(c) the establishment of policies respecting the enforcement of this Act and inadmissibility on grounds of security, organized criminality or violating human or international rights; or
(d) declarations referred to in section 42.1.

Criminality
.
36(2) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for
.
(a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by way of indictment, or of two offences under any Act of Parliament not arising out of a single occurrence;
.
(b) having been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament, or of two offences not arising out of a single occurrence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute offences under an Act of Parliament;
.
(c) committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament; or
.
(d) committing, on entering Canada, an offence under an Act of Parliament prescribed by regulations.

Bill C-21 would add Section 36(2.1) or “transborder criminality” onto this section. Presumably this refers to things like weapons smuggling, but a more precise definition would be appreciation

[SERIOUS CRIMINALITY]
36(3) The following provisions govern subsections (1) and (2):
.
(a) an offence that may be prosecuted either summarily or by way of indictment is deemed to be an indictable offence, even if it has been prosecuted summarily;
.
(b) inadmissibility under subsections (1) and (2) may not be based on a conviction in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered and has not been revoked or ceased to have effect under the Criminal Records Act, or in respect of which there has been a final determination of an acquittal;
.
(c) the matters referred to in paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) and (2)(b) and (c) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of a permanent resident or foreign national who, after the prescribed period, satisfies the Minister that they have been rehabilitated or who is a member of a prescribed class that is deemed to have been rehabilitated;
.
(d) a determination of whether a permanent resident has committed an act described in paragraph (1)(c) must be based on a balance of probabilities; and
.
(e) inadmissibility under subsections (1) and (2) may not be based on an offence
.
(i) designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act,
.
(ii) for which the permanent resident or foreign national is found guilty under the Young Offenders Act, chapter Y-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, or
.
(iii) for which the permanent resident or foreign national received a youth sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

36(3)(b) is changed to include transborder criminality in grounds, if a person has been pardoned, or acquitted finally. Similarly, 36(3)(e) brings transborder criminality into consideration for young offenders. These are just a few quotes from IRPA, the Immigration & Refugee Protection Act.

2. Changes Bill C-21 Would Make To IRPA

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
44 Paragraph 4(2)‍(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is replaced by the following:

(c) the establishment of policies respecting the enforcement of this Act and inadmissibility on grounds of security, organized criminality, violating human or international rights or transborder criminality; or

45 (1) Paragraphs 36(1)‍(a) to (c) of the French version of the Act are replaced by the following:

a) être déclaré coupable au Canada d’une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans ou d’une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale pour laquelle un emprisonnement de plus de six mois est infligé;
.
b) être déclaré coupable, à l’extérieur du Canada, d’une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans;
.
c) commettre, à l’extérieur du Canada, une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.

(2) Paragraphs 36(2)‍(a) to (c) of the French version of the Act are replaced by the following:

a) être déclaré coupable au Canada d’une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation ou de deux infractions prévues sous le régime de toute loi fédérale qui ne découlent pas des mêmes faits;
.
b) être déclaré coupable, à l’extérieur du Canada, d’une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation ou de deux infractions qui ne découlent pas des mêmes faits et qui, commises au Canada, constitueraient des infractions sous le régime de toute loi fédérale;
.
c) commettre, à l’extérieur du Canada, une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation;

(3) Subsection 36(2) of the Act is amended by adding “or” at the end of paragraph (b), by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (c) and by repealing paragraph (d).

(4) Section 36 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

Transborder criminality
(2.‍1) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of transborder criminality for committing, on entering Canada, a prescribed offence under an Act of Parliament.

(5) The portion of subsection 36(3) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
Application

(3) The following provisions govern subsections (1) to (2.‍1):

(6) Paragraph 36(3)‍(b) of the English version of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) inadmissibility under subsections (1) to (2.‍1) may not be based on a conviction in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered and has not been revoked or ceased to have effect under the Criminal Records Act, or in respect of which there has been a final determination of an acquittal;

(7) The portion of paragraph 36(3)‍(e) of the English version of the Act before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following:

(e) inadmissibility under subsections (1) to (2.‍1) may not be based on an offence

46 Paragraph 37(1)‍(a) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

a) être membre d’une organisation dont il y a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu’elle se livre ou s’est livrée à des activités faisant partie d’un plan d’activités criminelles organisées par plusieurs personnes agissant de concert en vue de la perpétration d’une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation ou de la perpétration, hors du Canada, d’une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une telle infraction, ou se livrer à des activités faisant partie d’un tel plan;

47 Paragraph 55(3)‍(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) has reasonable grounds to suspect that the permanent resident or the foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality, criminality, transborder criminality or organized criminality.

48 Paragraph 58(1)‍(c) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(c) the Minister is taking necessary steps to inquire into a reasonable suspicion that they are inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality, criminality, transborder criminality or organized criminality;

49 Subsection 68(4) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Termination and cancellation
(4) If the Immigration Appeal Division has stayed a removal order against a permanent resident or a foreign national who was found inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality, criminality or transborder criminality, and they are convicted of another offence referred to in subsection 36(1), the stay is cancelled by operation of law and the appeal is terminated.

50 Paragraph 100(2)‍(b) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

b) il l’estime nécessaire, afin qu’il soit statué sur une accusation pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.

51 Paragraphs 101(2)‍(a) and (b) of the French version of the Act are replaced by the following:

a) une déclaration de culpabilité au Canada pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans;
b) une déclaration de culpabilité à l’extérieur du Canada pour une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.

52 Paragraph 103(1)‍(b) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

b) il l’estime nécessaire, afin qu’il soit statué sur une accusation pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.

53 Subsection 105(1) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

Sursis
105 (1) La Section de la protection des réfugiés ou la Section d’appel des réfugiés sursoit à l’étude de l’affaire si la personne est visée par un arrêté introductif d’instance pris au titre de l’article 15 de la Loi sur l’extradition pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement d’une durée maximale égale ou supérieure à dix ans tant qu’il n’a pas été statué en dernier ressort sur la demande d’extradition.

54 Paragraph 112(3)‍(b) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

b) il est interdit de territoire pour grande criminalité pour déclaration de culpabilité au Canada pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans ou pour toute déclaration de culpabilité à l’extérieur du Canada pour une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans;

55 (1) Subparagraph 113(e)‍(i) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(i) an applicant who is determined to be inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality with respect to a conviction in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years for which a term of imprisonment of less than two years — or no term of imprisonment — was imposed, and

(2) Subparagraph 113(e)‍(ii) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

(ii) celui qui est interdit de territoire pour grande criminalité pour déclaration de culpabilité à l’extérieur du Canada pour une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans, sauf s’il a été conclu qu’il est visé à la section F de l’article premier de la Convention sur les réfugiés.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations
58 The portion of section 19 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Transborder crime
19 For the purposes of subsection 36(2.‍1) of the Act, indictable offences under the following Acts of Parliament are prescribed:

It says that certain indictable offences under the following Acts are prescribed, but then it doesn’t list them. Is there an oversight here?

59 Paragraph 229(1)‍(d) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:
(d) a deportation order, if they are inadmissible under paragraph 36(2)‍(b) or (c) of the Act on grounds of criminality or under subsection 36(2.‍1) of the Act on grounds of transborder criminality;
60 Paragraph 230(3)‍(c) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:
(c) is inadmissible under subsection 36(1) of the Act on grounds of serious criminality, under subsection 36(2) of the Act on grounds of criminality or under subsection 36(2.‍1) of the Act on grounds of transborder criminality;

This Bill would add “transborder criminality” as a reason to prevent someone from entering Canada, to imprison, or to deport. While this sounds fine, some clarity would be appreciated.

3. IRPA Also Lets Inadmissibles In Legally

Temporary resident permit
.
24 (1) A foreign national who, in the opinion of an officer, is inadmissible or does not meet the requirements of this Act becomes a temporary resident if an officer is of the opinion that it is justified in the circumstances and issues a temporary resident permit, which may be cancelled at any time.

Public policy considerations
.
25.2 (1) The Minister may, in examining the circumstances concerning a foreign national who is inadmissible or who does not meet the requirements of this Act, grant that person permanent resident status or an exemption from any applicable criteria or obligations of this Act if the foreign national complies with any conditions imposed by the Minister and the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations.

As addressed here, here, here and here, there are at least 2 provisions in IRPA that allow people who are otherwise inadmissible to be LEGALLY let it. This happens daily.

4. Confusion Around Sentencing Range

Bill C-21 includes increasing the range of sentences for several gun crimes from a 10 year maximum, to a 14 year maximum. This is one of the truly reasonable sections of the legislation.

Replacement of “10” and “ten” with “14”
14 The Act is amended by replacing “10” and “ten” with “14” in the following provisions:
(a) paragraph 95(2)‍(a);
(b) paragraph 96(2)‍(a);
(c) the portion of subsection 99(2) before paragraph (a) and subsection 99(3);
(d) the portion of subsection 100(2) before paragraph (a) and subsection 100(3); and
(e) the portion of subsection 103(2) before paragraph (a) and subsection 103(2.‍1).

That being said, Bill C-22 (another piece before Parliament), seeks to eliminate the mandatory minimum sentences on many serious gun crimes. Overall, these are very strange, and somewhat conflicting portions.

Posted on

Bill C-21: Redefining Replica Firearms, Turning Them Into Prohibited Weapons

This Bill brings Red Flag and Yellow Flag Laws onto Canadian gun owners, regardless of how law abiding they may be. It also redefines what a “replica” is, and potentially causes more problems.

1. What Criminal Code Currently Says

replica firearm means any device that is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, a firearm, and that itself is not a firearm, but does not include any such device that is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, an antique firearm; (réplique)

The Criminal Code, under Section 84(1), already has a definition for a replica firearm, and it’s a pretty clear one. However, this would make changes to it regarding energy of the discharge, and speed.

2. Changes Bill C-21 Would Make To Code

1 (1) The definition replica firearm in subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:

replica firearm means any device that is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, a firearm that is designed or adapted to discharge a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.‍4 m per second and at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.‍7 Joules, and that itself is not a firearm, but does not include any such device that is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, an antique firearm; (réplique)

(2) Section 84 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3.‍1):

Certain firearms deemed to be prohibited devices
(3.‍2) For the purposes of sections 99 to 101, 103 to 107 and 117.‍03, a firearm is deemed to be a prohibited device if
(a) it is proved that the firearm is not designed or adapted to discharge a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.‍4 m per second or at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.‍7 Joules; and
(b) the firearm is designed or intended to exactly resemble, or to resemble with near precision, a firearm, other than an antique firearm, that is designed or adapted to discharge a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.‍4 m per second and at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.‍7 Joules.

From this new definition, could air guns, airsoft guns, paintball guns and pellet guns now be considered prohibited weapons? After all, many do “resemble” regular firearms.

By this new definition, many of those guns available for purchase by the general public might qualify. They aren’t designed for the same capacity as real ones. But “exactly resembling, or resembling with near precision” could be very subjective. It also raises the question of what kind of due diligence a person should do to ensure that their gun is not resembling (exactly, or with near precision), a prohibited weapon.

Since these aren’t standard firearms there’s no way to get a license to own them, unless that’s coming next. Is this a way to ban other types of “guns”, or is this just poor wording?

Posted on

Bill C-21: Yellow Flag Laws To Temporarily (Or Indefinitely) Suspend A Gun License

Red Flag Laws were covered previously. Bill C-21, would also allow for a Chief Firearms Officer to suspend or revoke the license of a person based on “reasonable grounds”. However, the wording is vague, and a reasonable interpretation is that a suspension could be renewed indefinitely. It also calls into question the due process options the person would have.

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 Firearms Act Currently Says On This

Refusal to Issue and Revocation
Marginal note: Licences and authorizations
.
68 A chief firearms officer shall refuse to issue a licence if the applicant is not eligible to hold one and may refuse to issue an authorization to carry or authorization to transport for any good and sufficient reason.

Marginal note: Registration certificates
.
69 The Registrar may refuse to issue a registration certificate, authorization to export or authorization to import for any good and sufficient reason including, in the case of an application for a registration certificate, where the applicant is not eligible to hold a registration certificate.

Marginal note: Revocation of licence or authorization
.
70 (1) A chief firearms officer may revoke a licence, an authorization to carry or an authorization to transport for any good and sufficient reason including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(a) where the holder of the licence or authorization
(i) is no longer or never was eligible to hold the licence or authorization,
(ii) contravenes any condition attached to the licence or authorization, or
(iii) has been convicted or discharged under section 730 of the Criminal Code of an offence referred to in paragraph 5(2)(a); or
(b) where, in the case of a business, a person who stands in a prescribed relationship to the business has been convicted or discharged under section 730 of the Criminal Code of any such offence.

Marginal note: Registrar
.
(2) The Registrar may revoke an authorization to export or authorization to import for any good and sufficient reason.

Previous Version
Marginal note: Revocation of registration certificate
.
71 (1) The Registrar
.
(a) may revoke a registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm for any good and sufficient reason; and
.
(b) shall revoke a registration certificate for a firearm held by an individual where the Registrar is informed by a chief firearms officer under section 67 that the firearm is not being used for a purpose described in section 28.

Marginal note: Automatic revocation of registration certificate
.
(2) A registration certificate for a prohibited firearm referred to in subsection 12(3) (pre-August 1, 1992 converted automatic firearms) is automatically revoked on the change of any alteration in the prohibited firearm that was described in the application for the registration certificate.

Marginal note:Notice of refusal to issue or revocation
.
72 (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), if a chief firearms officer decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a licence or authorization to transport or the Registrar decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a registration certificate, authorization to export or authorization to import, the chief firearms officer or Registrar shall give notice of the decision in the prescribed form to the applicant for or holder of the licence, registration certificate or authorization.

Marginal note: When notice not required
.
(1.1) Notice under subsection (1) need not be given in any of the following circumstances:
.
(a) if the holder has requested that the licence, registration certificate or authorization be revoked; or
.
(b) if the revocation is incidental to the issuance of a new licence, registration certificate or authorization.

Marginal note: Material to accompany notice
.
(2) A notice given under subsection (1) must include reasons for the decision disclosing the nature of the information relied on for the decision and must be accompanied by a copy of sections 74 to 81.

Marginal note: Non-disclosure of information
.
(3) A chief firearms officer or the Registrar need not disclose any information the disclosure of which could, in the opinion of the chief firearms officer or the Registrar, endanger the safety of any person.

Marginal note: Disposal of firearms
.
(4) A notice given under subsection (1) in respect of a licence must specify a reasonable period during which the applicant for or holder of the licence may deliver to a peace officer or a firearms officer or a chief firearms officer or otherwise lawfully dispose of any firearm, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition that the applicant for or holder of the licence possesses and during which sections 91, 92 and 94 of the Criminal Code do not apply to the applicant or holder.

Marginal note: Disposal of firearms — registration certificate
.
(5) A notice given under subsection (1) in respect of a registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm must specify a reasonable period during which the applicant for or holder of the registration certificate may deliver to a peace officer or a firearms officer or a chief firearms officer or otherwise lawfully dispose of the firearm to which the registration certificate relates and during which sections 91, 92 and 94 of the Criminal Code do not apply to the applicant or holder.

Marginal note: Reference
.
(6) If the applicant for or holder of the licence or registration certificate refers the refusal to issue it or revocation of it to a provincial court judge under section 74, the reasonable period of time does not begin until after the reference is finally disposed of.

The Chief Firearms Officer or the Registrar already have significant powers in the Firearms Act to suspend or revoke licenses and authorizations for “any good and sufficient” reason”. Of course, this is very vague, and open to interpretation.

There is also the option to refuse to disclose information that could “endanger a person”. In practice, this can mean the person who made such a complaint to get the gun seizure would not have to be confronted by the person they accuse.

This Bill will go even further, and allow for 30 day suspensions of licences. Of course, nothing says that a suspension can’t be renewed — or another one handed out — 30 days later.

3. What Bill C-21 Would Change To Firearms Act

28 The heading before section 68 of the Act is replaced by the following:

Refusal to Issue, Suspension and Revocation

29 Section 68 of the Act is replaced by the following:

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

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

30 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 69:

Suspension
69.‍1 (1) If a chief firearms officer has reasonable grounds to suspect, on the basis of information that they have collected or received from any person, that the holder of a licence is no longer eligible to hold the licence, they may suspend, in respect of a licence, the holder’s authorization to use, acquire and import firearms for a period of up to 30 days.
.
Notice
(2) A chief firearms officer shall give notice in writing of the suspension to the holder of the licence. The notice shall include reasons for the decision, the nature of the information relied on for the decision, the period of the suspension and a copy of this section and sections 69.‍2 and 70.
.
Non-disclosure of information
(3) A chief firearms officer need not disclose any information the disclosure of which could, in their opinion, endanger the safety of any person.
.
Termination of suspension
(4) A chief firearms officer shall terminate the suspension at the expiry of the period referred to in subsection (2) or, if they are satisfied that the grounds for the suspension no longer exist, at any time before the expiry of that period. The chief firearms officer shall give notice in writing of the termination of the suspension to the holder of the licence.

Prohibition on use, acquisition and importation
69.‍2 The holder of a licence shall not use, acquire or import firearms while their authorizations to do so are suspended under subsection 69.‍1(1).

31 (1) The portion of subsection 70(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Revocation of licence or authorization
70 (1) A chief firearms officer may revoke a licence, an authorization to carry referred to in paragraph 20(b) or an authorization to transport — and the Commissioner may revoke an authorization to carry referred to in paragraph 20(a) — for any good and sufficient reason including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(2) Subsection 70(1) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (a) and by adding the following after paragraph (a):
(a.‍1) where the holder of the licence uses, acquires or imports a firearm while their authorizations to do so are suspended under subsection 69.‍1(1); or

32 Section 71 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

Automatic revocation of registration certificate
(3) A registration certificate for a handgun is automatically revoked on the failure of the holder to provide to a chief firearms officer, during the 180 day period referred to in subsection 58.‍01(2), the information required to update the registration certificate for that handgun.

33 Subsection 72(6) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Reference
(6) If the applicant for or holder of a licence or registration certificate refers the refusal to issue it or revocation of it to a provincial court judge under section 74 they shall, within 30 days after referring the matter, deliver to a peace officer or otherwise lawfully dispose of any firearm that they possess. Sections 91, 92 and 94 of the Criminal Code do not apply to the applicant or holder during that time.

Order — return of firearm
(7) If the decision of the chief firearms officer or the Registrar is confirmed, the judge shall, if a firearm was delivered to a peace officer under subsection (6), order the return of the firearm to the applicant for or holder of the licence or registration certificate, in order for the applicant or holder to lawfully dispose of it.

A Chief Firearms Officer can revoke a license for any “good and sufficient” reason. The information can come from anyone, and there is no requirement that the person be named, if done for safety reasons. In short, there is no real right to confront the accuser.

A license can be suspended for 30 days. However, it doesn’t look like there is anything that would prevent necessarily the suspension from being renewed.

While this portion of Bill C-21 is pretty bad, a lot of these rules were already on the books. This just seems to make it easier to issue a 30 day suspension without a real investigation.

4. Challenging Case In Provincial Court

74(2) Limitation period
.
(2) An applicant or holder may only refer a matter to a provincial court judge under subsection (1) within thirty days after receiving notice of the decision of the chief firearms officer, Registrar or provincial minister under section 29, 67 or 72 or within such further time as is allowed by a provincial court judge, whether before or after the expiration of those thirty days.

75(3) Burden of proof
.
(3) At the hearing of the reference, the burden of proof is on the applicant or holder to satisfy the provincial court judge that the refusal to issue or revocation of the licence, registration certificate or authorization, the decision or the refusal to approve or revocation of the approval was not justified.
.
Marginal note: Where hearing may proceed ex parte
.
(4) A provincial court judge may proceed ex parte to hear and determine a reference in the absence of the applicant or holder in the same circumstances as those in which a summary conviction court may, under Part XXVII of the Criminal Code, proceed with a trial in the absence of the defendant.

A few things to point out when challenging this is court:

First, there is a 30 day time limit to initiate the proceedings. While the Court “may” allow an extension for applications filed after that, they don’t have to, and there is no guarantee they will. So, be aware of this.

Second, the burden is on the Applicant to prove that the revocation or refusal to issue is unjust. The Firearms Officer doesn’t have to prove anything.

Third, in limited cases, the Judge can proceed ex-parte, which means “without the Parties”. In practice, this will mean the person who applied may not be able to attend.

An overall impression: while this 30 day suspension is certainly bad news, the Firearms Act was already pretty stacked against the rights of gun owners. This certainly doesn’t help.

Posted on

Conservatives Whine About Sexual Assault During Quarantine, Not The Forced Quarantines Themselves

This is a new level of moral relativity. Apparently, authorities detaining people for 14 days under the false pretense of public safety is okay. The forcible confinement is not the issue. Nor is the nasal rape that comes in the form of PCR tests. However, the entire experience is suddenly a human rights violation if a sexual assault is committed during that time.

1. Rempel Supports House Arrest In Principle

https://twitter.com/GregMcLeanYYC/status/1358115105683066881

This is from February 6, 2021. At the 28 second mark, Michelle Rempel-Garner explicitly states that everyone (presuming her party included), supports the idea of forcing people into their homes for 14 days at a time.

In her usual “Canada last” ways, she does ask for exemptions for Temporary Foreign Workers from quarantine, at a time when unemployment in Canada is still extremely high.

To reiterate, the “Official Opposition” doesn’t have a problem with imprisoning people. Their complaints are limited to some of the details of implementing such policies.

2. Fake Outrage Over Assault In Quarantine

https://twitter.com/MichelleRempel/status/1365032919866118147

On February 25, Rempel pretended to be outraged that people coming into Canada were being forced into quarantine against their will, and not knowing where they are going. Keep in mind, on February 6, she was okay with this, according to her own statement.

Does any of this mean that Conservatives now have a problem with this sort of confinement? Keep in mind, it would be illegal in any other circumstances. No. Instead, all that is asked is for a review, and to do a better job of vetting the guards holding them prisoner.

“The Liberal government must take action now. We call for the Liberals to suspend the hotel quarantine requirement until they have put measures in place to ensure the safety of Canadians and institute a system for verifying at-home quarantine that doesn’t involve security agents who have not been properly vetted. During this necessary pause, the federal government should continue with on-arrival testing and the 14-day at-home quarantine for all international travelers to protect the public health of Canadians.”

Even in her statement, there is no principled objection to the quarantine camps themselves (or internment camps). There is no objection to forcing people into house arrest. In fact, they seem content to re-establish these detention centers once better screening methods are in place.

The National Post mentioned that there was a call to suspend the program, which is not the same thing as cancelling it altogether.

3. Vaccine Agenda: They’re All In It Together

(See 1:30 mark in this, or original video). Trudeau claims that “normalcy will not return without a vaccine that is widely available, and that could be a very long way off”.

https://twitter.com/erinotoole/status/1356966419934683138

This is Erin O’Toole, the leader of the so-called “Conservative” Party of Canada, which claims to be the main opposition to Trudeau. Problem is: they don’t actually oppose anything ideologically. They whine about vaccines and tests not arriving fast enough, but don’t object on moral or ethical grounds.

There’s no way to describe this other than as a dog and pony show. These “leaders” are just going through the motions.

Posted on

CV #10(C): Active Federal Pharma Lobbying Registrations, Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

According to the Federal Lobbying Registry, there are 69 ACTIVE registrations that are flagged under the search word of “vaccine”. This includes multiple registrations from the same company, and a few irrelevant hits. Lobbyists aren’t cheap, and there is considerable money tied up in all of this.

Also, what exactly is going on with that proposed vaccine injury compensation program?

1. No Details In Vaccine Injury Program

News release
December 10, 2020 – Ottawa, ON – Public Health Agency of Canada
.
We as Canadians pride ourselves on our commitment to each other. By getting vaccinated, we protect one another and our way of life. Vaccines are safe, effective and one of the best ways to prevent serious illness like COVID-19.

Vaccines are only approved in Canada after thorough and independent review of the scientific evidence. They are also closely monitored once on the market and can quickly be removed from market if safety concerns are identified. Notwithstanding the rigour of clinical trials and excellence in vaccine delivery, a small number of Canadians may experience an adverse event following immunization, caused by vaccines or their administration.

Like any medication, vaccines can cause side effects and reactions. After being vaccinated, it’s common to have mild and harmless side effects — this is the body’s natural response, as it’s working to build immunity against a disease. However, it is also possible for someone to have a serious adverse reaction to a vaccine. The chances of this are extremely rare — less than one in a million — and we have a duty to help if this occurs.

It is for this reason that the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) is implementing a pan-Canadian no-fault vaccine injury support program for all Health Canada approved vaccines, in collaboration with provinces and territories. Building on the model in place in Québec for over 30 years, the program will ensure that all Canadians have to have fair access to support in the rare event that they experience an adverse reaction to a vaccine. This program will also bring Canada in line with its G7 counterparts with similar programs, and ensure the country remains competitive in accessing new vaccines as they become available.

Quick facts
Serious adverse reactions to vaccines are extremely rare. They happen less than one time in a million.

It was announced on December 10, 2020, that a vaccine injury program would be launched in cooperation with the Provinces. That was 2 1/2 months ago, and no details have emerged. Considering that mass vaccination is going on NOW, this is pretty urgent.

In “collaboration with the Provinces” implies that they will have to go along with it as well. If history is any indictation, Federal-Provincial talks go very slowly.

While it’s claimed that vaccines undergo serious testing PRIOR to their approval, that isn’t really the case. Details will be provided in the next section.

2. Vaccines Approved While Still In Testing

Interim orders
.
30.1 (1) The Minister may make an interim order that contains any provision that may be contained in a regulation made under this Act if the Minister believes that immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk, direct or indirect, to health, safety or the environment.

People naturally assume that a medical product (such as a vaccine), is thoroughly tested prior to being approved. Actually, the Section 30.1 of the Food & Drug Act allows the Health Minister to sign an Interim Order and approve almost anything. And yes, such an Order was signed by Patty Hajdu.

3. Active Lobbying Registrations On “Vaccines”

COMPANY LOBBYIST/POSITION/FIRM
AstraZeneca Canada Inc. Jane Chung, President
Bayer, Inc. *Sheamus Murphy, Counsel Public Affairs Inc.
Bayer, Inc. *David Murray, Counsel Public Affairs Inc.
Best Medicines Coalition *William Dempster, 3Sixty Public Affairs Inc.
Best Medicines Coalition Paulette Eddy, Consultant
Best Medicines Coalition Jay Strauss, Consultant
Biotecanada Andrew Casey, President & CEO
Canadian Animal Health Institute Kevin Bosch, Hill+Knowlton Strategies
Canadian Medical Association E. Ann Collins
Canadian Medical Association Timothy Smith, Chief Executive Officer
Canadian Pharmacists Association Annette Robinson, Director
Canadian Pharmacists Association Glen Doucet, Chief Executive Officer
Entos Pharmaceuticals Farid, Faroud, Global Public Affairs Inc.
Entos Pharmaceuticals Conor Mahoney, Global Public Affairs Inc.
Entos Pharmaceuticals *Andrew Retfalvi, Global Public Affairs Inc.
Entos Pharmaceuticals Jay Strauss, Consultant
Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance Ashton Arsenault, Crestview Strategy
Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance Jason Clark, Crestview Strategy
GlaxoSmithKline Faris El-Refaie, President
GlaxoSmithKline Inc. *Bridget Howe, Counsel Public Affairs Inc.
GlaxoSmithKline Inc. *Sheamus Murphy, Counsel Public Affairs Inc.
GlaxoSmithKline Inc. *Ben Parsons, Counsel Public Affairs Inc.
GlaxoSmithKline Inc. *Amber Ruddy, Counsel Public Affairs Inc.
Immune Biosolutions Frédéric Leduc, Président
Innovative Medicines Canada Andrew Balfour, Rubicon Strategy Inc.
Innovative Medicines Canada Pamela Fralick, President
Intervac Int’l Vaccine Centre *Douglas Richardson, McKercher LLP
Janssen Inc. (Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson Jorge Bartolome, President
Malaika Vaccine idee Inyangudor, Wellington Advocacy
Medicago Inc. Ashton Arsenault, Crestview Strategy
Medicago Inc. Jason Clark, Crestview Strategy
Medicago Inc. Danielle Peters, Magnet Strategy Group
Medicago Inc. Patricia Sibal, Crestview Strategy
Merck Canada Inc. Anna Van Acker, President
Moderna Therapeutics Paul Monlezun, Public Affairs Advisors
National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada David Valentin, Liaison Strategies
Particle Vaccine Canada Ltd. *Dylan McGuinty, Director
*Pfizer Canada ULC Cole C. Pinnow, President
PlantEXT Inc. *Andre Albinati, Earnscliffe Strategy Group
PlantEXT Inc. *Charles Bird, Earnscliffe Strategy Group
PlantEXT Inc. Craig Robinson, Earnscliffe Strategy Group
Sanofi Pasteur Limited Fabien Marino, Vice President
Sanofi Pasteur Limited *David Angus, Capital Hill Group
University of Saskatchewan *Douglas Richardson, McKercher LLP
*University of Saskatchewan Peter Stoicheff, President and Vice-Chancellor
Variation Biotechnologies, Inc. Francisco Diaz-Mitoma, Consultant
Vaxil Biotherapeutics Lester Scheininger, Barrister and Solicitor
Zebra Technologies *Adria Minsky, Cumberland Strategies
Zebra Technologies Alec Newton, Cumberland Strategies
  • means person has held public office, or organization has former public office holders currently on staff.

4. GSK Lobbyists Worked In Public Offices

The 4 lobbyists registered to advocate on behalf of GSK, (GlaxoSmithKline), have all held public office in some capacity. But don’t worry, they are probably neutral actors here, and nothing improper will happen.

5. Other Lobbyists Worked In Public Offices

Of course, Crestview Strategy, Ashton Arsenault, Zakery Blais & Jason Clark have all been addressed in previous pieces. Please check them out for more information.

This might also be a good time to bring up the people that have Doug Ford’s attention, Bill 160, Alberta and Quebec lobbying as well.

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress