TSCE #11(C): Bill C-6, Banning Conversion Therapy As Act Of “Tolerance”

The latest form of tolerance: prohibiting legitimate discussion, advertising, or efforts to help people deal with a serious illness. It seems to be vaguely worded on purpose. Should minors really be making decisions about life altering changes to their bodies?

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

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

2. Important Links

Bill C-6 Introduced Into House Of Commons
December 1, 2020 Hearing Testimony
Canada Criminal Code: Corrupting Morals

3. Vote On October 28, 2020

  • Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher)
  • Mr. Tom Kmiec(Calgary Shepard)
  • Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot)
  • Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands)
  • Mr. Derek Sloan (Hastings—Lennox and Addington)
  • Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock)
  • Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River)

Bill C-6 passed Second Reading in October 2020. Only 7 MPs, all Conservatives, voted against this Bill. The final tally was 305-7, and it wasn’t even close. Just think: 15 years ago, Conservatives were willing to vote to conserve marriage. Now, they cuck like Liberals.

4. Conversion Therapy Lumped In W/Child Porn

Warrant of seizure
164 (1) A judge may issue a warrant authorizing seizure of copies of a recording, a publication, a representation or any written material, if the judge is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that
(a) the recording, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is a voyeuristic recording;
(b) the recording, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is an intimate image;
(c) the publication, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is obscene, within the meaning of subsection 163(8);
(d) the representation, written material or recording, copies of which are kept in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is child pornography as defined in section 163.1;
(e) the representation, written material or recording, copies of which are kept in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is an advertisement of sexual services; or
(f) the representation, written material or recording, copies of which are kept in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is an advertisement for conversion therapy.

Section 164:
Owner and maker may appear
(3) The owner and the maker of the matter seized under subsection (1), and alleged to be obscene, child pornography, a voyeuristic recording, an intimate image, an advertisement of sexual services or an advertisement for conversion therapy, may appear and be represented in the proceedings to oppose the making of an order for the forfeiture of the matter.
Order of forfeiture
(4) If the court is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the publication, representation, written material or recording referred to in subsection (1) is obscene, child pornography, a voyeuristic recording, an intimate image, an advertisement of sexual services or an advertisement for conversion therapy, it may make an order declaring the matter forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which the proceedings take place, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.
Disposal of matter
(5) If the court is not satisfied that the publication, representation, written material or recording referred to in subsection (1) is obscene, child pornography, a voyeuristic recording, an intimate image, an advertisement of sexual services or an advertisement for conversion therapy, it shall order that the matter be restored to the person from whom it was seized without delay after the time for final appeal has expired.

Some new sections will also be added entirely. Offering, coercing, forcing, and even advertising conversion therapy will now go against the criminal code.

Forced conversion therapy
320.‍102 Everyone who knowingly causes a person to undergo conversion therapy without the person’s consent is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Causing child to undergo conversion therapy
320.‍103 (1) Everyone who knowingly causes a person who is under the age of 18 years to undergo conversion therapy is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Mistake of age
(2) It is not a defence to a charge under subsection (1) that the accused believed that the person was 18 years of age or older, unless the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain the person’s age.
Advertising conversion therapy
320.‍104 Everyone who knowingly promotes or advertises an offer to provide conversion therapy is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Material benefit from conversion therapy
320.‍105 Everyone who receives a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained or derived directly or indirectly from the provision of conversion therapy, is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

There is also a provision to make it a crime to go abroad to engage in conversion therapy.

Advertising material or services related to conversion therapy will now be treated much along the lines of child pornography or voyeuristic material. Advertising, promoting, or receiving material is also prohibited.

Interestingly, selling pornography (or other degenerate material) is fine if everyone is over 18 years old. In other words, financially benefiting from porn is okay. However, that doesn’t seem to apply at all to conversion therapy.

4. Clips From Parliamentary Hearings

A huge point to be made: sexual orientation and gender identity are not the same thing, and cannot be used interchangeably. Also, the definition and wording is pretty bad. Perhaps these “exploratory” conversations can only be had with people who already agree. The potential for long term harm, including suicides, seems downplayed.

5. Conservatives Capitulate Once Again

So much for standing on principle. The only concern seems to be with the wording of the bill, not the overall intent. Guess we’ll have to see what ultimately happens, but it doesn’t look promising.

In 2005, Conservatives, 30% Liberals, Voted To “Conserve” Marriage

In 2005, almost the entire Conservative Party Caucus, and over 1/4 of the Liberal Party Caucus voted to conserve marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. Taking such a stand would be completely unthinkable in today’s climate.

1. Understanding Our Real History

CLICK HERE, for #1: UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Indian Act of Canada, wards of the Crown.
CLICK HERE, for #3: UNESCO’s land grabs as “heritage sites”.

2. Why Cover This Particular Topic?

If anything, this marks a point where the globohomo movement really took off in Canada. Instead of being a small group out on its own, this was the beginning of lawfare in order to force itself on the public at large. Certainly there had been lobbying and court challenges before, but this seems to be a turning point.

The court challenges started in 2003, and it ended with Bill C-38 in 2005. For the full text of Bill C-38.

To accept this (and other “changes”) as part of our heritage to rewrite history. These changes — always done incrementally — are done to subvert and undermine what the country is.

3. Preceding Challenges In Provincial Courts

  • June 10, 2003: Ontario
  • July 8, 2003: British Columbia
  • March 19, 2004: Quebec
  • July 14, 2004: Yukon
  • September 16, 2004: Manitoba
  • September 24, 2004: Nova Scotia
  • November 5, 2004: Saskatchewan
  • December 21, 2004: Newfoundland and Labrador
  • June 23, 2005: New Brunswick
  • Source: Wikipedia

    There is more to the story than just Bill C-38. Starting in 2003, there were a series of Provincial Court challenges (each successful). In some sense, this made the Federal Bill a mere formality.

    4. Harper Made No Real Effort To Reverse

    After winning power in 2006, the Harper Government made a very half hearted attempt to pass a motion to reopen the debate on marriage. But it was obvious that it was just going through the motions to appease supporters.

    5. Modern Conservatism In Canada

    There is a vast difference between accepting a group, and openly promoting their agenda. Difficult to imagine these cucks standing up to “conserve” anything now. At this point, modern conservative parties need to be allowed to die so new options can come forward.

    If a bill was introduced to restore the traditional definition of marriage, there is not a liberal politician in Canada who would support it. Very few conservatives would, and they would receive backlash for doing so.

    P.S. It’s not just “conservatives” in Canada who pander to the gay mafia. It’s happening elsewhere as well.

    Guest Post: Question Regarding Recent Antifa/BLM Riots In The US, By Blaise Vanne

    (One of the many, MANY examples of Black Lives Matter harassing innocent bystanders. This was aired by Sky New Australia — of a DC restaurant — and shown August 25)

    1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

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

    Even when slavery is brought up, it is solely in the context of Whites oppressing and enslaving others. The rest of slavery’s history is never discussed This would destroy the narrative that Whites owe everyone else reparations, and shatter the idea that Whites should forever feel guilt over distant ancestors.

    2. Contribution By Blaise Vanne

    Since whites are disproportionately incarcerated more than Asians, do Asians, many of who have been here since the 1800s, then owe whites reparations? Should Democrats, who have caused the black underclass in their leftist cities, be the ones who pay? Can we count the $15 to 22 trillion already spent in the War on Poverty towards this figure (and where we now have MORE poverty than when we started) towards reparations? Will the Learjet leftists in Hollyweird be forced to open up their zillion room mansions to house inner city blacks (think far left Tom Hanks’ 14,500 sq. foot mega mansion in Pacific Hts, bought for $36mm in 2020), or will their self-serving pandering be more than enough? Will Nancy Pelosi’s highly protected (by men with GUNS) mega- mansion in Pacific Hts, San Francisco take in squatters? Will you ask multimillionaire Bernie Sanders to open up one of his three houses, such as the $600k one with 500’ of Lake Champlain lakefront? Reparations up to $14 trillion were suggested to Bret Baier by black zillionaire BET president Bob Johnson, but given that black Harvard prof Henry Louis Gates says 388,000 Africans landed on N. American shores, total, while in contrast Dr. Robert Davis of Ohio State says up to 1.25 million Europeans were taken as slaves by Muslims to their lands during roughly same period (3 times as many!), with their corsairs even reaching as far as Iceland, does that mean Muslims owe white Europeans $42 trillion (3x as much)? Can someone tell me where to sign up? Just asking. I could sure use the “free” dough.

    Also, will white descendants of indentured servants get some reparations, or should descendants of blacks who owned other blacks as slaves owe reparations, such as Anthony Johnson (c. 1600 – 1670), a black Angolan who was one of the earlier slave owners legally recognized by the Colony of Virginia courts. Do we owe Russia money (the word “Slav” as in “Slavic language” derives from the same root as our word for slave (from late 13c., “a person who is the chattel or property of another,” from Old French esclave (13c.), in turn derived from Medieval Latin Sclavus “slave” – so used in this secondary sense because of the many Slavs sold into slavery by conquering peoples.), or perhaps the Irish, for by the 1630’s, Ireland was the primary source of slaves in the English slave trade. In fact, a 1637 a census showed that 69% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves. Even Scientific American has questioned why the Irish surnames have such a strong presence in places such as Montserrat, Jamaica, St. Kitts, etc. Once Iceland gets paid for its citizens taken as slaves to Muslim North Africa and Turkey, does Iceland then owe Ireland money, in that perhaps half the population genetically speaking was Irish slaves, taken by Vikings? Oh yes, I forgot: Muslims also took many English as slaves, with perhaps 3 – 5,000 in Algiers alone. And of course, the Romans had almost everyone has slaves, many from Germanic tribes, so they must owe everyone?

    Finally, if we are looking at systemic discrimination, any word from your founders in Black Lives Matter, Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi, re. their roots in the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, which is a descendant of the Maoist inspired New Communist Movement. The reason I ask is The Black Book of Communism, published by Harvard Univ. Press, says that various flavours of communism and leftism murdered around 100 million people last century. Since Antifa seems to be concerned about “oppression,” they just may want to look at that.

    Oh yes, I almost forgot! Could Antifa also advise why your allies in the US are now destroying statues of leading anti-slavery statues, including defacing Lincoln himself, as well as Matthias Baldwin, who fiercely fought against slavery 30 years before the Civil War (in which MILLIONS died to end slavery), John Greeleaf, a prominent Quaker pacifist/anti-abolitionist? Anyhow, I thought “Hate had no home here” – or do your friends in your Tripartite Pact have special exemptions?

    Antifa… Looking forward to your answers. Or not.

    Heritage #3: Annexation Makes UNESCO Sites World’s 2nd Largest “Country”

    1. Understanding Our History

    (A) https://canucklaw.ca/un-declaration-on-rights-of-indigenous-peoples-bc-and-feds/
    (B) https://canucklaw.ca/the-indian-act-of-canada/

    2. Important Links

    (1) https://whc.unesco.org/en/faq/23
    (2) https://en.unesco.org/covid19/cultureresponse/monitoring-world-heritage-site-closures
    (3) https://unesco.org.uk/national-value
    (4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area
    (5) https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/
    (6) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/UN.new_.development.financing.2012.178pages.pdf
    (7) http://www.clubdeparis.org/en/communications/page/debt-swap
    (8) Debt for Nature Swaps _ UNDP (1)
    (9) https://www.cov.com/en/news-and-insights/news/2004/08/covington-advises-on-debt-for-nature-swap-to-protect-unesco-world-heritage-site
    (10) https://canucklaw.ca/ccs-14-uns-new-development-financing-the-bait-and-switch/

    3. Who Actually Owns UNESCO Sites?

    Who owns a site once it’s inscribed on the World Heritage List?
    The site is the property of the country on whose territory it is located, but it is considered in the interest of the international community to protect the site for future generations. Its protection and preservation becomes a concern of the international World Heritage community as a whole.

    An interesting explanation. So the host nation owns it, but is not allowed to do anything with it unless approved by the international community. Perhaps it’s like renting an apartment: it’s your space, but the interest of the landlord.

    4. How Many UNESCO Sites Are There?

    This includes the closure of natural and cultural World Heritage sites in the 167 countries they are located in. Please consider the following when reviewing the map:
    The World Heritage Convention has been ratified by 193 States Parties but only 167 countries have properties on UNESCO’s World Heritage List;
    The List includes a total of 1,121 natural, cultural and mixed World Heritage sites;
    In some countries with federal systems there may be a different approach for certain areas within the country;
    For some types of sites such as city centres, urban ensembles or agricultural landscapes access may be still possible to certain public areas of the sites, while other parts of the site may be closed, including site museums, visitor centres, religious or emblematic buildings;
    For some countries, sites are being re-opened, such as in China;
    While sites are closed, monitoring activities by site management may continue, especially for natural sites, including by anti-poaching units, monitoring by satellite images or drones and emergency interventions, for example in case of fires.

    According to UNESCO, there are 1,121 UNESCO sites across the world. Now, it must be asked how big they are collectively.

    5. How Large Are UNESCO Sites In Total?

    The research demonstrates that UNESCO designations deliver the UK’s commitment to creating a more sustainable, peaceful and equitable future at a local, national and international level. It provides governments, stakeholders, communities, designations and the public an opportunity to understand the contribution a global network covering 12% of the UK, or 10 million km2 globally (equivalent to the size of Canada) makes.

    According to UNESCO UK, 12% of Britain is considered a UNESCO heritage site. In total, approximately the area of Canada is formed by these different sites.

    Rank Country, Region Area (square km)
    1 Russia 17,098,246
    n/a Antarctica 14,000,000
    2 Canada 9,984,670
    3 China 9,596,961
    4 United States 9,833,517
    5 Brazil 8,515,767
    6 Australia 7,692,024
    7 India 3,287,263

    According to Wikipedia, the national land areas are distributed as such. If UNESCO heritage sites were combined, those 10 million square kilometers would actually make it the second largest mass, after Russia. Keep in mind, that while the countries still “own” the heritage sites, they are considered to be the interest of the international community.

    6. Canada’s Various UNESCO Heritage Sites

    Year Site
    1978 Nahanni National Park
    1978 L’Anse aux Meadows National Historic Site
    1979 Dinosaur Provincial Park
    1979/92/94 Tatshenshini-Alsek
    1981 SGang Gwaay
    1981 Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump
    1983 Wood Buffalo National Park
    1984/1990 Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks
    1985 Historic District of Old Québec
    1987 Gros Morne National Park
    1995 Old Town Lunenburg
    1995 Waterton Glacier International Peace Park
    1999 Miguasha National Park
    2007 Rideau Canal
    2008 Joggins Fossil Cliffs
    2012 Landscape of Grand Pré
    2013 Red Bay Basque Whaling Station
    2016 Mistaken Point
    2019 Writing-on-Stone / Áísínai’pi

    Over the last 50 years Canada has piece-by-piece been giving away parts of itself to UNESCO as “heritage sites”. And again, while it’s stated that we still own the property, it’s considered to be in the interest of the so-called global community. In reality, we don’t have control over them.

    7. UN Debt-Land Conversion Mechanism: Usury


    (Page 88, 56 in document)
    Debt-for-nature swaps Debt conversion first emerged, in the guise of debt-for-nature swaps, during the 1980s debt crisis, following an opinion article by Thomas Lovejoy, then Executive Vice-President of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), in the New York Times in 1984. Lovejoy argued that a developing country’s external debt could be reduced (also providing tax relief to participating creditor banks) in exchange for the country’s taking measures to address environmental challenges. Estimates based on Sheikh (2010) and Buckley, ed. (2011) suggest that between $1.1 billion and $1.5 billion of debt has been exchanged through debt-for-nature swaps since the mid–1980s, although it is not possible to assess how much of this constitutes IDF, for the reasons discussed in box III.1

    There have been two basic forms of debt-for-nature exchanges (Buckley and Freeland, 2011). In the first, part of a country’s external debt is purchased by an environmental non-governmental organization and offered to the debtor for cancellation in exchange for a commitment to protect a particular area of land. Such transactions occurred mainly in the late 1980s and 1990s and were generally relatively small-scale. An early example was a 1987 deal under which Conservation International, a Washington, D.C.-based environmental non-governmental organization, bought $650,000 of the commercial bank debt of Bolivia (now Plurinational State of Bolivia) in the secondary market for $100,000, and exchanged this for shares in a company established to preserve 3.7 million acres of forest and grassland surrounding the Beni Biosphere Reserve in the north-east part of the country.

    In the second form, debt is exchanged for local currency (often at a discount), which is then used by local conservation groups or government agencies to fund projects in the debtor country. Swaps of this kind are generally much larger, and have predominated since the 1990s. The largest such swap came in 1991, when a group of bilateral creditors agreed to channel principal and interest payments of $473 million (in local currency) into Poland’s Ecofund set up to finance projects designed to counter environmental deterioration. The EcoFund financed 1,500 programmes between 1992 and 2007, providing grants for conservation projects relating to cross-border air pollution, climate change, biological diversity and the clean-up of the Baltic Sea (Buckley and Freeland, 2011).

    This is nothing short of predatory lending and usury. Lending out large sums of money (often debt financed by donor countries), to other countries who can’t pay it back. The debts can be forgiven in return for consideration, such as rendering sections of land unavailable for use.

    In short, these lands are taken away in return for debt forgiveness.
    See the more sinister variation at the end.

    It should be pointed out that UNESCO is not the only organization that is involved in debt swaps. There are private groups that do it too.

    8. The Paris Club – Debt Swapper

    The Paris Club is just one group that is involved in the debt swaps when countries can’t afford to make payments on their debts. While presented as harmless, it takes away national sovereignty. Keep in mind, that the average citizen isn’t responsible for racking up this debt.

    9. UN Development Program

    Debt for Nature Swaps _ UNDP (1)

    The UN Development Program also runs a version of the same scheme. Here is a short guide they provide on the details.

    10. Argentina Debt-For-Nature Swap

    WASHINGTON, D.C., August 19, 2004 – The United States Government and the Government of Panama signed a debt-for-nature swap agreement today that will reduce the sovereign debt of the Government of Panama and help conserve 579,000 hectares (over 2,200 square miles) of tropical rainforest, an area larger than the State of Delaware. The deal will fund conservation efforts in a portion of the Darién National Park, an area of dense rainforest, sandy beaches, freshwater marshes and rocky coasts that is environmentally, anthropologically and historically rich.

    The park has been officially recognized by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization as a World Heritage site and as a Biosphere Reserve. It is located in an ecologically vital area that forms a land-bridge between the North and South American continents. The region is home three major indigenous groups, the Emberá, Waunaan and Kunas, who continue to live by traditional practices. The Darién coast was explored by Christopher Columbus in 1502 and visited by Spanish conquistadors. The Darién Gap region is inhabited by numerous rare animal species, including the jaguar, white-lipped peccary, giant anteater, bush dog, mantled howler monkey and harpy eagle (Panama’s national bird).

    And with that, a piece of land larger than the State of Delaware has been signed over to UNESCO, in return for having some of its debt reduced. Remember, while the land officially stays in the hands of the country, it is now considered the interest of the global community.

    In addition to the debt-for-nature swaps, there are also debt-for-health swaps. These can be even more nefarious.

    11. UN Debt-Vaccine Conversion Mechanism

    Look familiar? In Part 14 we mentioned IFFIm, the International Finance Facility for Immunization. How this works is that nations make legally binding pledges to IFFIm. IFFIm then takes those pledges and issues bonds to the World Bank, who sells them on the open market. Money then goes to World Bank, who gives it to IFFIm, who in turn provides it to GAVI. GAVI (also funded by Gates), uses it for vaccine research and development.

    A reasonable person may ask why not give the money directly to GAVI. That’s because other people can’t line their pocket it that happened.

    Funnelling money through “vaccine bonds” does nothing except allow others to skim from it. Now, what happens to the money that actually does arrive? It’s used in another predatory way.

    (Page 89, 57 in document)
    Debt2Health Since the development of debt swaps in the 1980s, there has been a diversification of their uses to encompass social projects, most recently in the area of health under the Debt2Health initiative, which was launched by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in 2007 to harness additional resources for its programmes. Under Debt2Health, a donor country agrees to reduce part of a loan ineligible for debt relief under global initiatives such as the HIPC and Multilateral Debt Reduction Initiatives, in exchange for a commitment by the debtor to invest (in local currency) half of the nominal value of the debt in programmes approved by the Global Fund. The Global Fund is committed to devoting all of the funds thus generated to financing programmes in the country rather than overhead costs (Buckley, 2011c)

    This is an alternative to the debt-for-nature swap. Want your debt forgiven? Take your sterilizing and possibly paralysing vaccines.

    12. Taking Advantage Of Desperate People

    A lot of the loans and conditional foreign aid are not free. They come with strings attached.

    Loans are handed out with terms that cannot possibly be met. What happens afterwards is an “arrangement” to cancel or reduce the debt. This can require ceding control over part of the land to outsiders, or having to play along with a certain agenda.

    A variation of that is the debt-for-health swap, where debt is forgiven in return for adopting certain health measures. This includes vaccines, which can cripple or kill.

    One has to wonder how UNESCO got its 1,121 heritage sites.

    The Indian Act Of Canada

    1. Important Links

    CLICK HERE, for the Indian Act, 1985 version.

    2. Quotes From Indian Act

    Marginal note:Superintendent general
    3 The Minister of Indigenous Services shall be the superintendent general of Indian affairs.
    R.S., 1985, c. I-5, s. 32019, c. 29, s. 357

    That’s right, the Minister of Indigenous Services will be charge of this group of people. How bad is that, you may ask. Let’s go through it and pick our some of the more disturbing portions of it.

    Lands Taken for Public Purposes
    Marginal note:Taking of lands by local authorities
    35 (1) Where by an Act of Parliament or a provincial legislature Her Majesty in right of a province, a municipal or local authority or a corporation is empowered to take or to use lands or any interest therein without the consent of the owner, the power may, with the consent of the Governor in Council and subject to any terms that may be prescribed by the Governor in Council, be exercised in relation to lands in a reserve or any interest therein.
    Marginal note:Procedure
    (2) Unless the Governor in Council otherwise directs, all matters relating to compulsory taking or using of lands in a reserve under subsection (1) are governed by the statute by which the powers are conferred.
    Marginal note:Grant in lieu of compulsory taking
    (3) Whenever the Governor in Council has consented to the exercise by a province, a municipal or local authority or a corporation of the powers referred to in subsection (1), the Governor in Council may, in lieu of the province, authority or corporation taking or using the lands without the consent of the owner, authorize a transfer or grant of the lands to the province, authority or corporation, subject to any terms that may be prescribed by the Governor in Council.
    Marginal note:Payment
    (4) Any amount that is agreed on or awarded in respect of the compulsory taking or using of land under this section or that is paid for a transfer or grant of land pursuant to this section shall be paid to the Receiver General for the use and benefit of the band or for the use and benefit of any Indian who is entitled to compensation or payment as a result of the exercise of the powers referred to in subsection (1).

    So much for honouring treaties. Land can be taken by the Federal, Provincial, or Municipal Governments largely at their discretion.

    Notice that the money isn’t even paid to the band itself. Instead, it goes to the Receiver General who will act as a Trustee. Way to control the purse strings.

    Surrenders and Designations
    Marginal note:Sales
    37 (1) Lands in a reserve shall not be sold nor title to them conveyed until they have been absolutely surrendered to Her Majesty pursuant to subsection 38(1) by the band for whose use and benefit in common the reserve was set apart.
    Marginal note:Other transactions
    (2) Except where this Act otherwise provides, lands in a reserve shall not be leased nor an interest in them granted until they have been designated under subsection 38(2) by the band for whose use and benefit in common the reserve was set apart.

    Surrender to Her Majesty
    38 (1) A band may absolutely surrender to Her Majesty, conditionally or unconditionally, all of the rights and interests of the band and its members in all or part of a reserve.
    Marginal note:Designation
    (2) A band may, conditionally or unconditionally, designate, by way of a surrender to Her Majesty that is not absolute, any right or interest of the band and its members in all or part of a reserve, for the purpose of its being leased or a right or interest therein being granted.

    What a scam. If you actually own your property or land, you can sell it to almost anyone. But here, it must first and foremost be surrendered to the Crown. Guess it is really their land after all.

    Conditions — surrender
    39 (1) An absolute surrender is void unless
    (a) it is made to Her Majesty;
    (b) it is assented to by a majority of the electors of the band
    (i) at a general meeting of the band called by the council of the band,
    (ii) at a special meeting of the band called by the Minister for the purpose of considering a proposed absolute surrender, or
    (iii) by a referendum as provided in the regulations; and
    (c) it is accepted by the Governor in Council.
    Marginal note:Minister may call meeting or referendum
    (2) If a majority of the electors of a band did not vote at a meeting or referendum called under subsection (1), the Minister may, if the proposed absolute surrender was assented to by a majority of the electors who did vote, call another meeting by giving 30 days’ notice of that other meeting or another referendum as provided in the regulations.
    Marginal note:Assent of band
    (3) If a meeting or referendum is called under subsection (2) and the proposed absolute surrender is assented to at the meeting or referendum by a majority of the electors voting, the surrender is deemed, for the purposes of this section, to have been assented to by a majority of the electors of the band.
    Marginal note:Secret ballot
    (4) The Minister may, at the request of the council of the band or whenever he considers it advisable, order that a vote at any meeting under this section shall be by secret ballot.
    Marginal note:Officials required
    (5) Every meeting under this section shall be held in the presence of the superintendent or some other officer of the Department designated by the Minister.

    Interesting way to run a vote. The Minister must be informed of this, new meetings can be called if they don’t like the outcome, and the Minister can order secret ballots. Surprised the votes are stacked with paid off representatives. Seems like a shady way to run a vote.

    Descent of Property
    Marginal note:Powers of Minister with respect to property of deceased Indians
    42 (1) Subject to this Act, all jurisdiction and authority in relation to matters and causes testamentary, with respect to deceased Indians, is vested exclusively in the Minister and shall be exercised subject to and in accordance with regulations of the Governor in Council.
    Marginal note:Regulations
    (2) The Governor in Council may make regulations providing that a deceased Indian who at the time of his death was in possession of land in a reserve shall, in such circumstances and for such purposes as the regulations prescribe, be deemed to have been at the time of his death lawfully in possession of that land.

    Courts may exercise jurisdiction with consent of Minister
    44 (1) The court that would have jurisdiction if a deceased were not an Indian may, with the consent of the Minister, exercise, in accordance with this Act, the jurisdiction and authority conferred on the Minister by this Act in relation to testamentary matters and causes and any other powers, jurisdiction and authority ordinarily vested in that court.
    Marginal note:Minister may refer a matter to the court
    (2) The Minister may direct in any particular case that an application for the grant of probate of the will or letters of administration of a deceased shall be made to the court that would have jurisdiction if the deceased were not an Indian, and the Minister may refer to that court any question arising out of any will or the administration of any estate.

    In short, inheritance and wills are to be ruled by the Minister and the Governor in Council. This means that the wishes of the people themselves may very well go unhonoured.

    Marginal note:Appeal to Federal Court
    47 A decision of the Minister made in the exercise of the jurisdiction or authority conferred on him by section 42, 43 or 46 may, within two months from the date thereof, be appealed by any person affected thereby to the Federal Court, if the amount in controversy in the appeal exceeds five hundred dollars or if the Minister consents to an appeal.

    If you have a problem with how the Minister (or the Ministry) is meddling with your estate or inheritance, you can be expected to take him to Court. With what money? And will the Federal Government oppose any Court action using an army of lawyers?

    Mentally Incompetent Indians
    Marginal note:Powers of Minister generally
    51 (1) Subject to this section, all jurisdiction and authority in relation to the property of mentally incompetent Indians is vested exclusively in the Minister.
    Marginal note:Particular powers
    (2) Without restricting the generality of subsection (1), the Minister may
    (a) appoint persons to administer the estates of mentally incompetent Indians;
    (b) order that any property of a mentally incompetent Indian shall be sold, leased, alienated, mortgaged, disposed of or otherwise dealt with for the purpose of
    (i) paying his debts or engagements,
    (ii) discharging encumbrances on his property,
    (iii) paying debts or expenses incurred for his maintenance or otherwise for his benefit, or
    (iv) paying or providing for the expenses of future maintenance
    ; and
    (c) make such orders and give such directions as he considers necessary to secure the satisfactory management of the estates of mentally incompetent Indians.

    If the Minister thinks that an Indian is mentally incompetent, then that person’s property can be sold or leased to pay for debts or medical care. This will never be abused.

    Money of Infant Children
    Marginal note:Distributions of capital
    52.1 (1) The council of a band may determine that the payment of not more than three thousand dollars, or such other amount as may be fixed by order of the Governor in Council, in a year of the share of a distribution under paragraph 64(1)(a) that belongs to an infant child who is a member of the band is necessary or proper for the maintenance, advancement or other benefit of the child.
    Marginal note:Procedure
    (2) Before making a determination under subsection (1), the council of the band must
    (a) post in a conspicuous place on the reserve fourteen days before the determination is made a notice that it proposes to make such a determination; and
    (b) give the members of the band a reasonable opportunity to be heard at a general meeting of the band held before the determination is made.
    Marginal note:Minister’s duty
    (3) Where the council of the band makes a determination under subsection (1) and notifies the Minister, at the time it gives its consent to the distribution pursuant to paragraph 64(1)(a), that it has made that determination and that, before making it, it complied with subsection (2), the Minister shall make a payment described in subsection (1) for the maintenance, advancement or other benefit of the child to a parent or person who is responsible for the care and custody of the child or, if so requested by the council on giving its consent to that distribution, to the council.

    The Minister is responsible for managing other people’s money. How is this self control and autonomy?

    Management of Reserves and Surrendered and Designated Lands
    Marginal note:Transactions re surrendered and designated lands
    53 (1) The Minister or a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose may, in accordance with this Act and the terms of the absolute surrender or designation, as the case may be,
    (a) manage or sell absolutely surrendered lands; or
    (b) manage, lease or carry out any other transaction affecting designated lands.

    Departmental employees
    (3) No person who is appointed pursuant to subsection (1) or who is an officer or a servant of Her Majesty employed in the Department may, except with the approval of the Governor in Council, acquire directly or indirectly any interest in absolutely surrendered or designated lands.

    So people in the Department can’t benefit personally off of land given up, unless the Minister approves of it. Sure, no conflict of interest here.

    Lease at request of occupant
    (3) The Minister may lease for the benefit of any Indian, on application of that Indian for that purpose, the land of which the Indian is lawfully in possession without the land being designated.

    Land can be leased, but only if the Minister agrees, and only under the terms which the Minister agrees to.

    Control over lands
    60 (1) The Governor in Council may at the request of a band grant to the band the right to exercise such control and management over lands in the reserve occupied by that band as the Governor in Council considers desirable.
    Marginal note:Withdrawal
    (2) The Governor in Council may at any time withdraw from a band a right conferred on the band under subsection (1).

    So the Governor in Council may allow bands to manage their own lands, but can also withdraw that right at any time. So it isn’t really a right, but rather a privilege.

    Management of Indian Moneys
    Marginal note:Indian moneys to be held for use and benefit
    61 (1) Indian moneys shall be expended only for the benefit of the Indians or bands for whose use and benefit in common the moneys are received or held, and subject to this Act and to the terms of any treaty or surrender, the Governor in Council may determine whether any purpose for which Indian moneys are used or are to be used is for the use and benefit of the band.

    Funny, in another context this sort of behaviour would be considered financial abuse: taking power over other people by controlling their finances.

    Loans to Indians
    Marginal note:Loans to Indians
    70 (1) The Minister of Finance may authorize advances to the Minister out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of such sums of money as the Minister may require to enable him
    (a) to make loans to bands, groups of Indians or individual Indians for the purchase of farm implements, machinery, livestock, motor vehicles, fishing equipment, seed grain, fencing materials, materials to be used in native handicrafts, any other equipment, and gasoline and other petroleum products, or for the making of repairs or the payment of wages, or for the clearing and breaking of land within reserves;
    (b) to expend or to lend money for the carrying out of cooperative projects on behalf of Indians; or
    (c) to provide for any other matter prescribed by the Governor in Council.

    Regular Canadians are not subjected to this. Heck, new immigrants in the country are able to get loans and credit far easier than this. This is, again, about financial control.

    Marginal note: Minister may operate farms
    71 (1) The Minister may operate farms on reserves and may employ such persons as he considers necessary to instruct Indians in farming and may purchase and distribute without charge pure seed to Indian farmers.
    Marginal note:Application of profits
    (2) The Minister may apply any profits that result from the operation of farms pursuant to subsection (1) on reserves to extend farming operations on the reserves or to make loans to Indians to enable them to engage in farming or other agricultural operations or he may apply those profits in any way that he considers to be desirable to promote the progress and development of the Indians.

    Under the Indian Act, even farming is controlled by the Minister. Where is the autonomy that we are told there is? This reeks of Stalinist collectivism from the 1930s.

    73 (1) The Governor in Council may make regulations
    (a) for the protection and preservation of fur-bearing animals, fish and other game on reserves;
    (b) for the destruction of noxious weeds and the prevention of the spreading or prevalence of insects, pests or diseases that may destroy or injure vegetation on Indian reserves;
    (c) for the control of the speed, operation and parking of vehicles on roads within reserves;
    (d) for the taxation, control and destruction of dogs and for the protection of sheep on reserves;
    (e) for the operation, supervision and control of pool rooms, dance halls and other places of amusement on reserves;
    (f) to prevent, mitigate and control the spread of diseases on reserves, whether or not the diseases are infectious or communicable;
    (g) to provide medical treatment and health services for Indians;
    (h) to provide compulsory hospitalization and treatment for infectious diseases among Indians;
    (i) to provide for the inspection of premises on reserves and the destruction, alteration or renovation thereof;
    (j) to prevent overcrowding of premises on reserves used as dwellings;
    (k) to provide for sanitary conditions in private premises on reserves as well as in public places on reserves;
    (l) for the construction and maintenance of boundary fences; and
    (m) for empowering and authorizing the council of a band to borrow money for band projects or housing purposes and providing for the making of loans out of moneys so borrowed to members of the band for housing purposes.

    Elsewhere, a lot of these would be considered Municipal or Provincial affairs. It seems the Federal Government has total control over nearly every aspect of people on these reserves.

    Elections of Chiefs and Band Councils
    Marginal note:
    Elected councils
    74 (1) Whenever he deems it advisable for the good government of a band, the Minister may declare by order that after a day to be named therein the council of the band, consisting of a chief and councillors, shall be selected by elections to be held in accordance with this Act.
    Marginal note:
    Composition of council
    (2) Unless otherwise ordered by the Minister, the council of a band in respect of which an order has been made under subsection (1) shall consist of one chief, and one councillor for every one hundred members of the band, but the number of councillors shall not be less than two nor more than twelve and no band shall have more than one chief.

    So the Minister will not only declare when elections will be, but will in effect determine the size of the Council. Great autonomy here.

    75 (1) No person other than an elector who resides in an electoral section may be nominated for the office of councillor to represent that section on the council of the band.
    Marginal note:
    (2) No person may be a candidate for election as chief or councillor of a band unless his nomination is moved and seconded by persons who are themselves eligible to be nominated.

    3. Thoughts On The Act

    This is shameful. An entire group of people who, rather than enjoying full rights, are essentially wardens of the state who have all their major decisions controlled.

    Admittedly, I originally thought the Indian Act was something that had long passed, but that is not the case. And I didn’t know just how pervasive it really was.

    This abomination needs to go

    UN Declaration On Rights Of Indigenous Peoples (BC and Feds)

    (BC Premier John Horgan)

    1. Important Links

    (1) https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf
    (2) http://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=8160636
    (3) http://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=8936657
    (4) http://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=9630600
    (5) https://canucklaw.ca/canadas-bill-c-69-impact-energy-navigation-acts/
    (6) https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/b-c-commits-to-being-1st-province-in-canada-to-put-undrip-into-legislation-1.5018447

    The Government of British Columbia has announced that it will enact legislation to enforce UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Currently, there is a Federal version (Bill C-262) working its way through the Canadian Senate.

    For reference, links to both C-48 (oil transportation), and C-69 (amend environmental acts) are both included. Canada is a nation that relies on resource development. Both of these bills will make these industries harder to function.

    The UNDRIP, however, although “non-binding” may now be implemented at the Federal level and/or in British Columbia. This will give veto power to any development that may occur across of near “traditional lands”.

    2. From The CBC Article

    “”We need to address reconciliation in British Columbia, not just for social justice… but for economic equality for all citizens, Indigenous and non-Indigenous.”

    Horgan’s NDP campaigned on a promise to implement UNDRIP, which includes 46 articles meant to recognize the basic human rights of Indigenous Peoples’ along with their rights to self-determination.

    Article 32 is among those in the declaration often cited by Indigenous leadership. It directs states to obtain free, prior and informed consent from Indigenous groups before approving projects that would affect their lands or territories.

    “For too long uncertainty on the land base has led to investment decisions being foregone, and I believe that that hurts Indigenous people and it hurts other British Columbians,” Horgan said on Tuesday.”

    Okay, so what is this Article 32? It is right here:

    Article 32
    1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources.
    2. States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.
    3. States shall provide effective mechanisms for just and fair redress for any such activities, and appropriate measures shall be taken to mitigate adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or spiritual impact.

    A/ Take steps to mitigate social, cultural or spiritual impact? Industry now has be developed “around” religion or spirituality?
    B/ Is this a right to veto any such projects? Or is this a right to demand “tolls” or “commissions”?
    C? Is this an acknowledgement that Canada doesn’t have control over its own lands?

    3. What Else Is In UNDRIP

    Article 4 Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.

    Interesting. Not necessary to actually be part of a nation when it is inconvenient.

    Article 5 Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.

    So it is not necessary to choose. A person “can” be part of both the state, and a separate collective, depending on what is convenient at that time.

    Article 8
    1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.
    2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for:
    (a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;
    (b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;
    (c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;
    (d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration;
    (e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them.

    The UN believes that Indigenous People’s should never be forced to assimilate. UN “also” views assimilation of migrants to not be important. This will lead to fracturing and balkanizing nations.

    The next several articles go on about the host country not being forced to assimilate of change. Perhaps we can use it against future waves of migration.

    Article 27 States shall establish and implement, in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned, a fair, independent, impartial, open and transparent process, giving due recognition to indigenous peoples’ laws, traditions, customs and land tenure systems, to recognize and adjudicate the rights of indigenous peoples pertaining to their lands, territories and resources, including those which were traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used. Indigenous peoples shall have the right to participate in this process.

    If this wording is to be taken literally, it looks like parallel legal systems can be used. This makes any uniformity or justice unlikely.

    Article 31
    1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions.
    2. In conjunction with indigenous peoples, States shall take effective measures to recognize and protect the exercise of these rights.

    Would be nice if the rest of Canada was entitled to keep our identity, rather than this multicultural, post-nation state that is forced upon us.

    Article 45 Nothing in this Declaration may be construed as diminishing or extinguishing the rights indigenous peoples have now or may acquire in the future.

    Okay, this list is not exhaustive, and new “rights” may be added later, or other previous rights will also be enacted.

    Admittedly, there are some good things in this declaration. However, getting any major projects going will be difficult if several groups are able to veto at any time for any reason.

    There is evident a double standard when it comes to protecting identity.

    So, what does Bill C-262 say?

    In short, it has a short introduction to adopt UNDRIP, then quotes it all

    United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
    3 The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations as General Assembly Resolution 61/295 on September 13, 2007, and that is set out in the schedule, is hereby affirmed as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law.
    4 The Government of Canada, in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples in Canada, must take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
    National Action Plan
    5 The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples, develop and implement a national action plan to achieve the objectives of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

    Like many United Nations initiatives, this looks fairly innocuous and harmless. However, once it is implemented, the actual consequences are far from clear.

    It could be a sign of goodwill, and a way to ensure autonomy.

    Or it could help destroy the Canadian economy. Time will tell.