Another Site Taken Down? “Privacy Is Your Right” No Longer Operational

On March 27th, 2023 a group called Privacy Is Your Right appeared seemingly out of nowhere to promote a legal challenge at the Divisional Court of Ontario. There was a press conference held over Zoom. They were to appear on the 30th. The thing was: there was also a lot of begging going on for money. They were already talking about going to the Ontario Court of Appeal if this didn’t work out.

The cause seemed worthwhile enough: patients and a Dr. Sonja Kustka were taking the CPSO to Court in order to prevent them from looking at medical records during an investigation. How did things transpire?

The case was thrown out on the spot, with the reasons coming a few weeks later.

This raises some eyebrows in light of recent events.

Another site,, was completely shut down shortly after the attention it received from here. Perhaps there was backlash after pointing out that it would be just a rehash of the other “bad beyond argument” Federal case.

Now, the privacy site hasn’t completely disappeared, at least not yet. However, the site isn’t working, and none of the original links seem to either. It’s been that way for at least a few weeks.

A check on the site shows that it was created January 19th, 2023, and that 2 years was paid for. Apparently, the last time the site was updated (in any capacity), was December 22nd, 2023.

The main site, Motion Record, and Factum are only available now via the Wayback Machine, unless they’ve been saved elsewhere. The last time it appears to have been functional — while saved — was January 19th, 2024.

Now, why was it so odd that this group was asking for money, even though they openly conceded they’d probably be appealing it? Turns out that this case, the Kustka, case, was almost identical to the Dr. Rochagné Kilian case which had been rejected for the same reasons. At the time of this fundraising, the Ontario Superior Court had already refused patients standing. See the procedural history, and this review for more information.

That’s right. The big case (Kustka) that Privacy Is Your Right was soliciting money for was a clone of the earlier (Kilian) one.

However, that wasn’t disclosed at the virtual press conference. Going through the website, or at least the archived pages of it, there’s no mention of Dr. Kilian either.

Note: This isn’t to justify what the CPSO has been doing in recent years, but to point out the futility that was obvious from the start.

How many donors would have refused to hand over any money if there had been transparency about this? Probably most of them.

Looking at the ruling, it’s obvious. The Kustka case was a complete rehash of the Kilian case, with only superficial differences. This should have been made apparent prior to soliciting donations.

[10] The issue of public and private interest standing was recently examined in detail by this Court in Kilian v. College of Physicians and Surgeons, 2022 ONSC 5931 (Div. Ct.). The Patient Applicants’ applications for judicial review in this case are analogous to the patients’ applications for judicial review in Kilian. We see no basis to depart from this court’s decision in Kilian, which we find to be persuasive.

[13] In Kilian, at para. 44, this Court confirmed that patients have no private interest standing in the circumstances where the CPSO has initiated an investigation into a member’s conduct, stating as follows:
The Patient Applicants do not have a personal legal interest in the ICRC’s decisions to authorize an investigation of Dr. Kilian’s conduct or to place restrictions on her certificate. They have concerns that their medical records will be disclosed to College investigators, but that does not justify a grant of private interest standing, given the purpose of the regulatory regime and the subject matter of the judicial review proceeding.

[14] In Kilian, at para. 45, this Court held that a finding of private interest standing would be contrary to the statutory purpose, which is to regulate physicians’ conduct in the public interest. A finding of private interest standing would “disrupt” professional regulation because it would entitle thousands of patients to standing at the investigation stage: Kilian, at para. 47. This Court also noted that the Code grants patients standing in certain limited circumstances, further demonstrating the legislature’s intention to circumscribe patient participation in the regulatory process.

[15] Moreover, in Kilian, this Court went on to find that the patients have no direct interest in the decisions under review, which involve the regulator and the member. Similarly, the restrictions on the physician’s certificate in that case did not affect the patients’ legal interests: Kilian, at paras. 49-50. We see no reason to depart from the thorough and persuasive analysis conducted by this Court in Kilian.

[16] The Patient Applicants distinguish their applications for judicial review from those brought by the patients in Kilian on the basis that in this case, they seek to challenge s. 76 of the Code, while Kilian was limited to considering an investigation under s. 75 of the Code. In our view, this is a distinction without a difference. In Kilian, the CPSO had brought a parallel application in the Superior Court pursuant to s. 87 of the Code to compel the production of records under s. 76. While, in the circumstances, this Court did not specifically address s. 76, the underlying factual scenario was the same as in this case. The patients in Kilian argued that they had standing to bring an application for judicial review because their private medical records would be disclosed to CPSO investigators.

[17] The production of private medical records pursuant to s. 87 was subsequently addressed by Chalmers J. of the Superior Court in Kilian v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 1654 (Sup. Ct.) [Kilian SCJ]. In that case, Chalmers J., relying on College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia v. Bishop (1989), 1989 CanLII 2674 (BC SC), 34 B.C.L.R. (2d) 175, held that the expectation of privacy in medical records is subject to the higher need to maintain appropriate standards in the profession: at para. 34. In addition, patient records are protected by the requirement that the CPSO maintain their confidentiality under s. 36 of the RHPA. As a result, courts have rejected the argument that patient-physician privilege precludes an order requiring the production of patient records: Kilian SCJ, at paras. 36 and 51.

The Court denied the patients private standing. Later in the ruling, they are denied public interest standing, again, for the same reasons outlined in the Kilian case.

Again, the group asking for money never disclosed this.

The follow up on the Dr. Kilian case isn’t encouraging either. July 2023, Court of Appeal for Ontario handed down a $16,000 cost award against Dr. Kilian, stating that adding the patient intervenors was a ploy designed to stall the original investigation.

May 8th, 2023, Dr. Kilian was finally ordered to produce the medical records the CPSO demanded. That was upheld by the Court of Appeal in January 2024. Absent a challenge to the Supreme Court of Canada, this case appears to be over.

So, why did Privacy Is Your Right gut their website? One possibility is that they’ve milked the donations for all they can. Now that the ruling is out — and everyone can see that it’s just a rehash — that one will dry up as well.

But just like those anti-lockdown and union cases, the CPSO ones are recycled as well.

Court Of Appeal For Ontario Upholds “Prematurity” Rulings With CPSO

It’s been challenged many times whether or not professional regulators, like the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, or CPSO, can have cases taken from them. Typically, the response is to let the internal processes play out, prior to coming to Court. The latest is an Appellate decision in Ontario that confirmed Rochagné Kilian was supposed to exhaust her options with the CPSO first.

The general reasoning behind these decisions is that any doctor — or any professional — could circumvent the internal discipline process by filing with the Court. While Court challenges have come in abundance in recent years, they tend to be thrown out as premature.

Note: This isn’t to justify the rulings that organizations like the CPSO are making, or injection mandates. It’s just to explain procedurally what is going on.

The records in particular that the CPSO was after primarily involved the issuance of exemptions for the injections in 2021. Dr. Kilian is hardly the only doctor to be investigated for doing this, but the procedural history is interesting, to say the least. It’s not just her doing this, but various patients have also tried to intervene.

The Court of Appeal lays out the facts in their ruling, which are largely agreed with. The main issues to be decided were questions of law.

There’s a lot going on, but here’s a timeline.

August 23rd, 2021: Dr. Kilian attends a town hall meeting with Grey-Bruce Health Services (GBHS), which was her employer at the time. She expressed concerns about the injection mandate that was coming up. Around that time, she’d also been issuing exemptions for patients.

On a bit of a side note

[11] In the late summer of 2021, Dr. Kilian began to sign exemption forms for people who did not wish to get the COVID-19 vaccine. She provided these exemptions in three different ways: through her own practice, through an organization known as “EnableAir”, and through an organization known as White Knight Medical. Her association with “EnableAir” was limited and is now the subject of a complaint to the RCMP in British Columbia. The details and outcome of that complaint are not relevant to the issues we have to determine in this case.

October 1st, 2021: Investigators were formally assigned to look into Dr. Kilian, and to the exemptions that were being issued. They also weren’t happy that she wasn’t complying with the “safe and effective” mantra that was expected.

October 15th, 2021: The ICRC, which is the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the CPSO, issued restrictions on Kilian’s medical certificate of registration. In particular, it was supposed to prevent the issuance of more exemptions for injections, masks and testing.

October 21st, 2021: The CPSO files an Application to compel Dr. Kilian to turn over patient records, and to cooperate with their investigation. This comes after repeated requests for that information are refused.

October 27th, 2021: Dr. Kilian received an interim suspension of her license, because these restrictions were not being followed.

November 2021: Dr. Kilian files her own Application for Judicial Review, challenging the constitutionality of what the CPSO was doing. At this time, the she hadn’t attempted to resolve it internally.

January 7th, 2022: The CPSO Application is supposed to be heard, but is deferred until February 8th.

February 7th, 2022: A large number of people, approximately 40, applied to intervene in Dr. Kilian’s case, claiming to be patients of hers, and invoking privilege. This was one day before the Application was supposed to be heard. Note, another ruling incorrectly lists the date as February 14th.

February 18th, 2022: The Ontario Superior Court hears an the Motion to Intervene and reserved the decision.

March 14, 2022: The ONSC schedules a hearing on the Application to compel the turning over of medical records of patients. There were patients asking for Intervenor status, since they viewed their medical records as privileged. Justice Pollak deferred the issue of Intervenors until the other questions were settled.

Justice Pollak wrote: “As I have found above, I agree with Dr. Kilian that the parties must be given the opportunity to make their submissions on what the issues are for determination by this court in the Application and what the subject matter of the Application is.”

This is from the ruling. Keep it in mind.

April 9th, 2022: Justice Pollak stays (puts on hold) an Intervenor Motion from Kilian’s patients. This had been argued o February 18th, and March 22nd.

April 19th, 2022: Justice Pollak, ONSC, stays (prevents) the Application from the CPSO for the production of patient files, related to Dr. Kilian and injection exemptions. This was to be until the Judicial Review was heard from Kilian. It ruling be challenged at Divisional Court.

August 8th, 2022: The Divisional Court granted leave (permission) to appeal the Interlocutory stay from Dr. Kilian’s patients.

September 27, 2022: There’s a Case Management Conference on the Appeal, with the hearing to be scheduled for December 5th, 2022.

November 7th, 2022: The Divisional Court granted a Motion from the CPSO to quash (throw out) the Application for Judicial Review of Dr. Kilian’s patients, and a review of her own case. The Court also granted a publication ban as requested.

Dr. Kilian had asked the Divisional Court to look at 3 ICRC decisions, and all were upheld.

  • Judicial Review of the investigation decision is premature
  • The Restrictions Decision was reasonable
  • The Suspension Decision was reasonable

November 8th, 2022: Justice Leiper issued a decision that it wasn’t in the interests of the various patients to be granted Intervenor status. Rules 5.03 and 13.01(2) were both cited, but prematurity was the concern. The original Application still hadn’t been ruled on, and the Court found this to be unnecessarily complication. The patients had also asked for permission to intervene anonymously. However, since they were denied standing — premature at this stage — it was deemed irrelevant if the Court knew who they were.

January 5th, 2023: The Divisional Court lifts the stay that Justice Pollak had ordered on April 19, 2022. Costs of $7,500 were ordered, with the panel saying that a different Judge should handle the case. The Panel was annoyed with her, saying this:

[18] On February 18th, 2022, the Applications Judge heard the motion to intervene and reserved her decision. On March 14th, 2022 she released a lengthy endorsement (2022 ONSC 1526) in which she set out the positions of the various parties in detail. At the conclusion of her reasons, in paragraph 44, she stated:
[44] As I have found above, I agree with Dr. Kilian that the parties must be given the opportunity to make their submissions on what the issues are for determination by this court in the Application and what the subject matter of the Application is. I find that it is not possible for this court to consider the factors to be examined on this Intervenor motion until the subject matter and scope of this Application, which is a major issue in dispute between the parties, is resolved. In light of this significant dispute between the parties on the “subject matter of the proceeding” (the Application), I reserve the decision on this motion until the court has made a determination on the subject matter and scope of the Application.

[19] There was no mention in the March 14th, 2022 endorsement that the Applications Judge was considering imposing a temporary stay.

In other words, Justice Pollak had effectively “scooped” the Application Judge, by imposing a stay that was already under consideration. While this surely was an oversight, it did set things back considerably. And a new Justice would hear the Application.

March 10th, 2023: Justice Chalmers dismissed the Application from Dr. Kilian’s patients to intervene in the proceedings.

April 20th, 2023: The Court of Appeal heard a Motion to stay (defer) pending appeal of the dismissal of the Appellant’s Application for leave to intervene. The Appellants are the patients of Dr. Kilian who wanted intervenor status. They didn’t want the CPSO to hand over their medical data until the other issues were resolved.

April 21st, 2023: The Court of Appeal notifies the Parties that the Appeal has been dismissed, with the reasons to follow.

April 24th, 2023: The Court of Appeal hands down the written reasons. It finds patients “do not have a direct legal interest in the proceedings between the CPSO and Dr. Kilian just because their medical records may be examined in the course of an investigation”. Therefore, they can’t stop the data from being shared with the CPSO while main Appeal is ongoing.

May 8th, 2023: Justice Dineen grants the CPSO’s Application to compel Kilian to cooperate fully with their investigation. Various arguments against it are all rejected.

July 26, 2023: Dr. Kilian is hit with $16,000 in costs from the Court of Appeals. It’s also determined that the strategy of “adding Intervenors” was largely a tactic designed to stall or prevent the release of records to the CPSO.

January 25th, 2024: The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appeal to comply with the CPSO’s requirement to cooperate, and turn over patient information. Dr. Kilian is hit with $18,000 in costs.

It’s unclear if there will be an attempt to go to the Supreme Court of Canada. Who knows at this point? As long as there’s money to be made, it cannot be ruled out.

Regardless of what one thinks of the CPSO getting access to these files, the case was a mess.

As for another “premature” case….

Privacy Is Your Right Fiasco

The Divisional Court of Ontario heard a challenge on March 30th, 2023, and dismissed it right away. The written reasons were issued on April 21st. What was the problem?

It was filed by a Dr. Sonja Kustka, an Ontario doctor who was challenging several moves from the CPSO, such as:

  • The appointment of investigators by the Registrar to investigate Dr. Kustka’s COVID-19 practices, dated February 24, 2022 (the “Appointment Decision”);
  • The ICRC’s interim order, dated May 3, 2022, imposing restrictions on Dr. Kustka’s certificate of registration (the “Interim Order”);
  • The ICRC’s decision, dated June 9, 2022, confirming the interim restrictions but deciding not to suspend Dr. Kustka’s certificate of registration (the “Confirmation Decision”); and
  • The Registrar’s decision, dated June 9, 2022, appointing investigators to investigate Dr. Kustka’s cooperation with the investigation of her COVID-19 practices and her compliance with the Interim Order.

She also had patients apply to be Intervenors, to involve themselves in the case, and to claim that the CPSO seizing medical records amounted to a breach of medical privilege.

In short, it was a rehash of the Kilian case above.

Back in March 2023, there was a fundraising drive that went on to finance this litigation. At present, it’s before the Court of Appeals. But it wasn’t disclosed that all of the major issues had already been argued and decided ahead of this.

Parallel between CPSO cases and certain employment suits

There is significant overlap between some of these doctors’ challenges, and cases involving unionized or government employers. In both cases, it comes down to lack of jurisdiction.

  • With these types of suits involving doctors and their regulators, Courts are routinely finding that the internal investigations should have been carried out prior to commencing litigation. The Courts may be asked to review only afterwards.
  • With many (former) employees, they aren’t following the terms of their collective bargaining agreements, or for public sector workers, applicable legislation. This usually means that there is some grievance process that must be followed, which often leads to arbitration. There’s no inherent right to sue, unless the process is corrupt or unworkable.

Just because a dispute may involve constitutional issues, the Courts aren’t necessarily able to hear them if there are other avenues to settle them.

Saying that a case is brought prematurely is a polite way of saying that there’s no jurisdiction to hear them. It would be interesting to know what kind of advise such litigants are getting. It seems to be common sense that their lawyers would inquire about their circumstances in advance.

Court of Appeal for Ontario
2024-01-25 College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Kilian, 2024 ONCA 52
2023-07-26 College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Kilian, 2023 ONCA 515
2023-04-24 College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Kilian, 2023 ONCA 281

Superior Court of Justice
2023-05-08 Kilian v College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 2689
2022-03-14 College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Kilian, 2022 ONSC 1526

Divisional Court
2022-12-09 Kilian v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2022 ONSC 6871
2022-11-08 The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Kilian, 2022 ONSC 6345
2022-11-07 Kilian v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2022 ONSC 5931
2023-01-05 Kilian v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 5

Were Recent Gun Control Measures In Canada Initiated By The United Nations?

The title isn’t clickbait. The UNODA, or United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, keeps records of the various actions taken by Member States. Canada is one of them.

One of the specific initiatives is the UN Programme of Action (PoA) and its International Tracing Instrument (ITI), which essentially amounts to global gun control efforts.

Interestingly, the Federal Government is reporting some of the restrictions they’ve made on gun owners in the 2022 report as the progress being made towards the implementation of PoA and the ITI. (See archive).

This raises the obvious question of who is really in charge here.

Let’s start with O.I.C. 2020-0298.

[Page 3]
National targets
1.4. Has your country set national targets relating to the implementation of the PoA and ITI?
1.4.1. If so, describe
In May 2020, the Government of Canada prohibited over 1,500 models of assault-style firearms and their variants. These prohibited firearms cannot be legally sold, or imported, and can only be used or transported under limited circumstances. An Amnesty Order is in effect until October 30, 2023 to allow firearms owners and businesses to come into compliance with the law, and to allow time to implement a mandatory buyback program.
As part of the Government of Canada’s comprehensive strategy to keep communities safe from gun violence, the Government intends to continue the implementation of regulations for firearms licence verification and business record-keeping; require the permanent alteration of long-gun magazines so that they can never hold more than five rounds; ban the sale or transfer of magazines capable of holding more than the legal number of bullets; implement the gang prevention and intervention program to provide direct funding to municipalities and Indigenous communities; introduce red flag laws to allow the immediate removal of firearms if that person is a threat to themselves or others, particularly to their spouse or partner, and increase maximum penalties for firearms trafficking and smuggling.
Target year:

If this is to be taken at face value, then the May 1, 2020 Order In Council was aimed at complying with the PoA and the (ITI).

The “Red-Flag Laws” are a reference to Bill C-21, which was introduced in the last session of Parliament, and reintroduced in this one.

Altering firearms so they can never hold more than 5 bullets is also something that Bill C-21 addresses, although the details are sparse.

Then there’s O.I.C. 2022-0447.

[Page 6]
ITI 12a 2.3.2. How long must manufacturing records be kept?
[if other, please explain]
For businesses only (NOT for manufacturers): As of May 18, 2022, firearms businesses are required to keep records which describe each firearm in their possession, and record activities related to each firearm, the date on which these activities are performed, and their disposal, as follows, in order to facilitate the tracing of firearms by law enforcement in the event that a firearm is diverted to the illicit market:
i) Manufacturer, make, model, type of firearm, classification, action, gauge or caliber, barrel length, magazine capacity (in the case of a fixed magazine), and all serial numbers found on the frame and receiver.
ii) Manufacture, importation, exportation, purchase, alteration, repair, storage, exhibition, deactivation,
destruction, sale, barter, donation, consignment, pawn, or any other category related to the possession or disposal of the firearm, and the date on which the change occurred;
iii) The name of the shipper, their permit number or carrier licence number, and the reference number, if the shipper is different from the business keeping the records. Businesses would be required to retain the possession and disposal records for 20 years from the record’s creation. Once a business ceases to be a business they must transfer their records to the Registrar of Firearms who will hold them for no less than 20 years.

By another Order In Council, it’s now the law that businesses must keep records of all gun sales for a minimum of 20 years, regardless of whether they are non-restricted. Again, this is the “progress” that’s being reported to the UNODA.

Keep in mind, Target 16.4 of the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals states that: “By 2030, significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows, strengthen the recovery and return of stolen assets and combat all forms of organized crime”. The full text is available online.

Were these changes made because politicians believed they were the right things to do? Or, were they done in order to comply with international agreements?

(5) UNODA 2022 Report On Gun Control Measures

Federal Court Streaming Challenges To 2020 Order In Council And Gun Grab

The Federal Court of Canada is hearing 6 challenges to the May 1, 2020 Order In Council, which instantly converted some 1,500 types of firearms to “prohibited”.

People wanting to attend virtually can. The registration link is available to all, but the usual broadcasting prohibitions apply.

(1) Cassandra Parker et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al.
Case Number: T-569-20
Filed May 26, 2020

(2) Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al.
Case Number: T-577-20
Filed May 26, 2020

(3) John Hipwell v. Attorney General of Canada et al.
Case Number: T-581-20
Filed May 27, 2020

(4) Michael John Doherty et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al.
Case Number: T-677-20
Filed: June 29, 2020

(5) Christine Generoux et al. v. His Majesty The King et al.
Case Number:T-735-20
Filed: July 10, 2020

(6) Jennifer Eichenberg, David Bot, Leonard Walker et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al.
Case Number: T-905-20
Filed: August 11, 2020

The hearings started on Tuesday, April 11th, and are expected to finish up next week. Given that these cases cover essentially the same material, they’ll all be decided together.

So far, the Applicants have been focusing on a few concepts: (a) definitions of words are vague or missing; and (b) the choices of which firearms to prohibit are not consistent or logical.

For anyone interesting in searching the case histories, or to order more documents, the information is available for Federal cases.

Expect and update soon with attached documents.


Association of Doctors of B.C. Wants All Drugs Decriminalized, Previously Backed Vaccine Passport

Doctors of BC (British Columbia) describes itself as “a voluntary association of 14,000 physicians, residents and medical students in British Columbia.” It’s interesting that they refer to it as voluntary, as the group promotes policies that are anything but.

As an aside, lobbying efforts also include having obesity declared a chronic disease. This is because… reasons. There’s also calls for “health equity”, whatever that means.

Advocacy regarding decriminalization and safe supply of opioids with policy paper was published in June 2021. The policy paper contains a statement that calls on the provincial government to dedicate resources to health and social interventions that will have a positive impact on the life trajectories of people who use drugs, including reducing drug toxicity injuries and deaths.

This organization calls for: improving access to substance use prevention, harm reduction, and treatment programs and services, all while making it easier to access those same drugs.

Yes, an association which claims to speak for 14,000 physicians, residents and medical students wants to see all hard drugs in the Province decriminalized. Absurd as it sounds, it gets even worse when looking at other policies they recently advocated for.

The lobbying records also listed: “Advocacy regarding secondary use of EMR data with the outcome of a creation of a governance structure for secondary use of data generated from physician EMRs”, as one of the purposes meeting with M.L.A.s. While this is vague, it’s plausible that this could mean selling patient data (possibly with identifying markers removed) for research.

Another topic was: “Advocacy regarding the development of the legislative framework to expand the Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) with the goal of ensuring physicians are covered by the protections of PIDA.” This would make it easier and less risky to divulge confidential information, although the specifics are not clear.

This was less than 2 years ago, so it’s not ancient. It’s also very revealing into the ideologies of how such institutions are really run.

Doctors of BC applauds the provincial government for its announcement of progressive measures to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 in the province, including the reinstatement of the indoor mask mandate, and the introduction of the BC Vaccine Card requiring mandatory vaccinations in order to access discretionary indoor events. In taking these steps, government is recognizing the threat posed by highly transmissible COVID-19 variants and the mounting pressure on our health care system and to those who work in it.

The Association of Doctors of BC supported (in Summer 2021) the vaccine passport being introduced, as well as mask mandates being reinstated. Matthew Chow, President of the group, wrote glowingly about it.

The Association of Doctors of B.C. says it takes people’s health (including mental health) seriously, but openly supported excluding them from society in order to coerce them into taking mRNA shots.

This also helps explain why no doctors were willing to hand out mask or vaccine exemption letters in this Province. They were all controlled.

For an organization that claims to want to create a healthier Province, it ignores the obvious cause of drug use and overdoses in the last few years: medical lockdown measures. In other words, they supposedly want to fix a problem, but support actions that lead to it getting worse.

Even today, they’re still hyping the vaccines.

Just the previous month, the group released a paper calling for the decriminalization of all illicit drugs in B.C. in the name of health and safety. Specifically, there were goals to:

  • Decriminalization of simple possession of all controlled substances for personal use.
  • Enhanced coordination of and improved access to a range of community-based, culturally appropriate, evidence-informed substance use prevention, harm reduction, and treatment programs and services.
  • Increased access to health and social programs and services to address the social determinants of health.
  • Efforts to separate people from the toxic, illicit drug supply, and prevent unintentional toxic drug poisoning or overdose, including improved access to safer pharmaceutical alternatives.

This isn’t really designed to get people to stop doing drugs altogether, but to have them doing it “safely”. And yes, this is a doctor’s group.

The state of health care in B.C….


Alberta Firearms Act, Bill 8, Also Backdoored And Worthless

A month ago, the Alberta Government introduced Bill 8, the Alberta Firearms Act. This was sold as a protective measure to keep the Federal Government (or Trudeau, more specifically) from further encroaching on the gun rights of legal owners.

It was presented as a way to circumvent a 2020 Order-In-Council that made some 1,500 models of firearms “prohibited” overnight. Alberta wouldn’t play along with the gun grab that was to result from it.

Bill 8, which is widely expected to become law in the near future. It has passed Third Reading, and is awaiting Royal Assent. (See archive.)

Tyler Shandro, who is now the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, has been hyping up the legislation. He’s a bizarre choice, to be blunt. During his time as Health Minister, he was famous for imposing lockdown measures, and punishing people who dared to resist.

However, despite all the public attention this firearms piece gets, this legislation isn’t anywhere close to what its being presented as.

Here are some highlights:

Section 8 gives the Province the right to act as a seizure agent, or to contract out with a company to hire seizure agents.

Section 9 gives the Minister the right to impose conditions of licencing.

Section 10 requires seizure agents to be licensed.

Section 11 sets out a compensation scheme for seized firearms and ammunition.

Section 12 gives the Minister the power to set out a program for forensic and ballistic testing of firearms that are seized.

Section 13 establishes penalties for seizure agents who fail to comply with their licencing and other requirements.

Section 14 makes directors of corporations liable if they were in any way involved in the decision making process which led to violations of the Act.

Now, before anyone thinks that this will somehow protect gun owners, here’s what can be changed by regulation. This means changed without debate.

15 The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations
(a) establishing types or classes of licences;
(b) prescribing types or classes of firearms, ammunition, accessories and parts in respect of which this Part and the regulations made under this Part apply;
(c) prescribing persons or classes of persons who are required to hold a licence;
(d) prescribing persons or classes of persons who are not required to hold or are prohibited from holding a licence;
(e) prescribing activities that licensees are authorized to carry out and prohibiting the carrying out of those activities without a licence;
(f) respecting the powers, duties and functions of licensees;
(g) respecting applications for the issuance and renewal of licences;
(h) respecting application fees, including regulations
(i) authorizing the Minister to charge application fees, and
(ii) fixing the amount of those fees;
(i) respecting the requirements that must be met for the issuance or renewal of licences;
(j) respecting the circumstances in which the Minister may refuse to issue or renew licences;
(k) respecting terms and conditions that the Minister may impose on licences;
(l) respecting the term of licences;
(m) respecting the amendment, suspension and cancellation of licences;
(n) respecting the requirement to return expired, suspended, cancelled or otherwise invalid licences;
(o) respecting requirements that licensees must meet as a condition of holding a licence;
(p) respecting records and other documents that licensees are required to keep for the purposes of this Part and the manner in which such records and documents are to be kept;
(q) respecting the prohibition, regulation and control of advertising by licensees;
(r) respecting complaints relating to licensees;
(s) respecting inspections and investigations relating to licensees, including regulations
(i) authorizing the Minister to appoint inspectors and investigators,
(ii) prescribing the circumstances in which inspections and investigations may be or are required to be carried out,
(iii) respecting the powers, duties and functions of inspectors and investigators,
(iv) respecting procedural and evidentiary matters relating to inspections and investigations,
(v) respecting the production of records, documents, objects and information, and
(vi) respecting entry and searches of premises;
(t) respecting the seizure by licensees of firearms, ammunition, accessories and parts;
(u) respecting the rights of persons from whom firearms, ammunition, accessories and parts are seized to make
written representations;
(v) respecting the transportation by licensees of seized firearms, ammunition, accessories and parts;
(w) respecting the storage by licensees of seized firearms, ammunition, accessories and parts;
(x) respecting the modification, destruction and deactivation by licensees of seized firearms, ammunition, accessories and parts;
(y) respecting identification and uniforms for licensees;
(z) respecting safety requirements for licensees;
(aa) respecting the reporting of incidents involving the use of force or other unusual interventions;
(bb) respecting the establishment, implementation and operation of a compensation program;
(cc) respecting the payment of compensation, including regulations respecting the circumstances in which
compensation is payable and by whom it is payable;
(dd) respecting the factors to be considered for the payment of compensation;
(ee) respecting the determination of the fair market value of firearms, ammunition, accessories and parts for the
purposes of the payment of compensation, including regulations respecting methods to be used to determine
fair market value;
(ff) respecting information and documents that the Chief Firearms Officer may request for the purposes of determining the fair market value of firearms, ammunition, accessories and parts;
(gg) respecting firearms compensation committees, including regulations respecting
(i) the establishment and composition of firearms compensation committees,
(ii) the reimbursement of members of firearms compensation committees for expenses, and
(iii) the powers, duties and functions of firearms compensation committees;
(hh) respecting exemptions from the requirement to pay compensation or circumstances in which the payment of
compensation is prohibited;
(ii) respecting the establishment, implementation and operation of a testing program;
(jj) respecting the submission of seized firearms, ammunition, accessories and parts to a testing program;
(kk) respecting the forensic and ballistic testing of seized firearms, ammunition, accessories and parts;
(ll) respecting the designation by the Chief Firearms Officer of approved testing facilities;
(mm) respecting the powers, duties and functions of approved testing facilities;
(nn) respecting the powers, duties and functions of the Chief Firearms Officer and the Minister for the purposes of this Part;
(oo) prescribing provisions of this Part or the regulations made under this Part or terms and conditions of licences for the purposes of section 13(2);
(pp) prescribing penalties for the purposes of section 13(2).

Federally, and soon in Saskatchewan as well, there are provisions that circumvent the democratic process. If basic rights can be “altered” by regulation changes, then nothing is secure.

Scott Moe and Danielle Smith are implementing much the same thing they criticize Trudeau about.

As with the Saskatchewan Act, the provision allowing for regulation changes on documentation and record keeping leave open the possibility of a new gun registry emerging from this.

Section 15 of the Alberta Act, Section 6-8 of the Saskatchewan Act, and Section 117 Federally all serve the same purpose. They allow firearms “rights” to be gutted by regulation changes, and without democratic debate or mandate.

Section 16 states that a municipality or police force must abide by these regulations before entering into any agreement with the Canadian Government, or accepting any funding.

Section 17 gives the Crown, the Minister, the Chief Firearms Officer, a firearms officer, a member of a firearms compensation committee or any employee of the Crown protection against legal action.

Section 18 goes through another (albeit shorter) list of regulatory changes that the Lieutenant Governor in Council can make. Again, no vote in Parliament would be needed for this.

(a) prescribing enactments of Canada for the purposes of section 1(g)(ii);
(b) prescribing other responsibilities of the Chief Firearms Officer for the purposes of section 3(j);
(c) prescribing matters for the purposes of section 5(1)(b);
(d) prescribing requirements that must be met for the purposes of section 16;
(e) respecting the collection, use and disclosure of information, including personal information, for the purposes of this Act and the regulations;
(f) respecting the confidentiality of information collected under or for the purposes of this Act and the regulations;
(g) respecting the exemption from the application of all or any provision of this Act or the regulations of
(i) any person or class of persons, and
(ii) any firearm, ammunition, accessory or part or class of firearms, ammunition, accessories or parts;
(h) varying the application of all or any provision of this Act or the regulations to
(i) any person or class of persons, and
(ii) any firearm, ammunition, accessory or part or class of firearms, ammunition, accessories or parts;
(i) defining, for the purposes of this Act, any word or phrase used but not defined in this Act;
(j) respecting any other matter or thing that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act.

As with both the Federal and Saskatchewan Acts, there’s a clause (j) that allows for pretty much anything else that’s “considered necessary”, but without defining what that is.

About (e), what are the limits of “respecting the collection, use and disclosure of information, including personal information, for the purposes of this Act and the regulations”? That’s also undefined. Again, all of this can be changed without a vote in the Legislature.

(g) leaves open the possibility of declaring entire classes of firearms to be prohibited.

An observation: the Alberta and Saskatchewan Acts are written with wording that is nearly identical in many cases. Perhaps the same people wrote both documents.

This is yet another Bill that sounds great when it’s announced, but that really needs to be carefully read by constituents.

(4) Alberta Firearms Act Full Text