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?

(1) https://disarmament.unoda.org/conventional-arms
(2) https://smallarms.un-arm.org/sustainable-development-goals
(3) https://smallarms.un-arm.org/country-profiles/CAN
(4) https://unoda-poa.s3.amazonaws.com/reports/CAN-English-1186-SUBMITTED.pdf
(5) UNODA 2022 Report On Gun Control Measures
(6) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=39208&lang=en
(7) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=41953&lang=en
(8) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/43-2/c-21
(9) https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf

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.

(1) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=39208&lang=en
(2) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/hearing-lists
(3) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont
(4) https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/hearings-calendar

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….

(1) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=193&regId=56567406
(2) https://www.doctorsofbc.ca/about-us
(3) https://www.doctorsofbc.ca/news/doctors-bc-supports-provincial-government-actions-calls-mandatory-vaccination-health-care
(4) https://archive.is/YrAle
(5) https://www.doctorsofbc.ca/presidents-blog/government-makes-good-moves-we-need-more-curb-covid-19
(6) https://archive.is/FguBF
(7) https://www.doctorsofbc.ca/presidents-blog/government-makes-good-moves-we-need-more-curb-covid-19
(8) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/18022
(9) https://twitter.com/VCHhealthcare/status/1643026387425714176

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.

(1) https://www.assembly.ab.ca/assembly-business/
(2) https://www.assembly.ab.ca/assembly-business/bills/bill?billinfoid=11997&from=bills
(3) https://docs.assembly.ab.ca/LADDAR_files/docs/bills/bill/legislature_30/session_4/20221129_bill-008.pdf
(4) Alberta Firearms Act Full Text
(5) https://twitter.com/ABDanielleSmith/status/1634596199130083328
(6) https://twitter.com/shandro/status/1634364239338151936
(7) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=39208&lang=en
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/canada-firearms-act-and-other-backdoored-legislation/
(9) https://canucklaw.ca/saskatchewan-firearms-act-bill-117-backdoored-and-worthless/

Saskatchewan Firearms Act, Bill 117, Backdoored And Worthless

Saskatchewan Premier, Scott Moe, is making a big deal out of Bill 117, the Saskatchewan Firearms Act. It was introduced last December and has now passed Second Reading, with N.D.P. support. This is hailed as a way to protect gun owners from Ottawa. But, are things as they appear to be?

Keep in mind, Moe is the same monster who brought lockdowns, business closures, mask mandates and vaccine passports to Saskatchewan. This was less than 2 years ago. Remember how he decided the time for patience was over? Remember how Discount Bond Villain wanted to make things “less comfortable” for the unvaccinated?

Is this the person we should trust with our freedoms?

Moe is trying to portray himself as a hero of the people, saying Saskatchewan will not help in any way to enforce the gun grab from the May 2020 Order In Council. The stated purpose of this new Firearms Act is to create a separate system from Ottawa, one that can’t be abused.

Of course, any legislation in Saskatchewan can be viewed online at any time. While not exhaustive, here are some of the major points to consider.

Read the full text to ensure nothing is taken out of context:

3-1 explains what this really is. Saskatchewan is essentially setting up an additional firearms license, just a Saskatchewan version. If a person: (a) has a valid PAL/RPAL; and (b) is a Saskatchewan resident, they are deemed to have a Provincial license.

3-2(1) states that a firearms license will be revoked upon conviction of a number of criminal offenses.

3-3 through 3-12 list activities that are prohibited such as unauthorized possession, use, pointing of a firearm, illicit transport, import or export. These are already Criminal Code violations, and illegal anyway.

3-16 outlines the penalties for Section 3 violations, which can be up to 6 months in jail, and fines of $5,000 (individual) and up to $20,000 (for a corporation).

3-17 and 3-18 get into “alternative measures” for violations, and this could be considered parallel to diversion programs offered in Criminal Court. Resolutions include paying fees and taking classes.

Section 4 covers seizure agents, and the requirements to become one. It also gets into the rules and responsibilities once a person becomes an agent. The fact that it’s so detailed can make one wonder how broadly Saskatchewan will be seizing residents’ firearms.

5-3 through 5-6 specify that guns which are seized for enforcing laws, “fair market value” is to be provided. Note: it doesn’t prevent guns from being seized, but just imposes some minimal level of compensation.

5-7(2) prevents residents from commencing any form of litigation against members of this Firearms Compensation Committee. It’s an indemnification clause.

5-8 makes mandatory forensic and ballistic testing for firearms that are seized for criminal history. It’s written as “forensic and ballistic”, suggesting that there may be several different tests that are performed.

5-9 provides the option of forensic and ballistic testing when weapons are seized for other reasons.

5-10 gives the firearm owner the results of any forensic and ballistic testing that has been performed. Nice to see a bit of transparency added in there.

5-11 delays the destruction or deactivation of any firearm until the owner has received notice under 5-10.

6-1 is a way to both limit the cooperation that local police officers or municipalities have with the Government of Canada, as well as accepting financing. Presumably, this is how the “defunding” aspect will work.

6-2(1) gives the Minister broad powers to authorize people to commence investigations to ensure the Act is complied with

6-2(2) defines the scope at which authorized persons may investigate others. And 6-2(2)(d) is rather vague, stating:

(d) any property or assets of or things owned, acquired or alienated in whole or in part by the person being investigated or by any person acting on behalf of or as agent for the person being investigated.

6-2(3) states that the person(s) being investigated have to provide answers, meaning that this isn’t optional.

6-4 gives the Provincial Courts explicit authority to issue search warrants.

6-5 makes it mandatory to generate copies of documents examined during investigation.

6-6(1) list the penalties for obstruction, which can be up to 6 months in jail, and fines of $5,000 (individual) and up to $20,000 (for a corporation).

And, in case you believe you’ve been wronged in some way….

6-7 No action or proceeding lies or shall be commenced against the Crown, the minister, the chief firearms officer, a firearms officer, the commissioner or any employee of the Crown if that person is acting pursuant to the authority of this Act or the regulations for anything in good faith done, caused or permitted or authorized to be done, attempted to be done or omitted to be done by that person or by any of those persons pursuant to or in the exercise or supposed exercise of any power conferred by this Act or the regulations or in the carrying out or supposed carrying out of any responsibility imposed by this Act or the regulations.

All too common in most legislation is a provision to indemnify the institution, and any actors involved. How would one ever prove bad faith?

Now we get to the worst part:

6-8 The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations:
(a) defining, enlarging or restricting the meaning of any word or expression used in this Act but not defined in this Act;
(b) exempting any person or class of persons from this Act or any provisions of this Act;
(c) prescribing offences for the purposes of subsection 3-2(1);
(d) prescribing persons or classes of persons for the purposes of subsection3-3(2);
(e) prescribing the form of an order for the purposes of section 3-18;
(f) for the purposes of section 4-1:
(i) prescribing any law as a specified law; and
(ii) exempting any law as a specified law;
(g) excluding any person or class of person from the definition of a seizure agent for the purposes of subsection 4-1(2);
(h) for the purposes of Part 4:
(i) respecting the issuing, renewing, amending, suspending and cancelling of licences;
(ii) respecting information to be provided to the minister by a licensee or an applicant for a licence;
(iii) requiring the payment of fees for the issuance or renewal of licences and prescribing amounts and terms of payment;
(iv) prescribing a code of ethical conduct for persons licensed pursuant to that Part;
(v) prescribing any additional standards, qualifications and training required to obtain a licence;
(vi) respecting the keeping of records and data, including the protection of privacy;
(vii) prescribing any new terms and conditions of a licence;
(i) prescribing additional factors for the purposes of subsection 5-6(1);
(j) prescribing requirements for the forensic and ballistic testing of the firearm for the purposes of subsection 5-9(3);
(k) prescribing requirements for an approved testing facility for the purposes of section 5-12;
(l) prescribing any matter or thing required or authorized by this Act to be prescribed in the regulations;
(m) respecting any other matter or thing that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers necessary to carry out the intent of this Act.

That last part, (m) means that virtually anything else can be changed as well. The importance of this cannot be understated.

This is what it means to be “backdoored”: virtually anything in the Saskatchewan Firearms Act can be changed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, without democratic debate. This is very similar to Section 117 of the Canada Firearms Act

As per the earlier comment, it’s interesting (or perhaps a coincidence), that it’s Saskatchewan Bill 117. This is because Section 117 of the Federal version is what allows the Governor in Council to make unilateral changes.

Regarding Section 68(h)(vi), and the phrase: “respecting the keeping of records and data, including the protection of privacy”, one can’t help but wonder if this could be the basis of a backdoor gun registry.

If there is something positive in Bill 117, it seems that at least gun owners would need to be paid fair price for their weapons once they’re confiscated.

(1) https://twitter.com/PremierScottMoe/status/1643423488168931330
(2) https://www.legassembly.sk.ca/
(3) https://www.legassembly.sk.ca/legislative-business/bills/
(4) https://www.legassembly.sk.ca/media/1398/progress-of-bills.pdf
(5) Saskatchewan Legislature Progress Of Bills
(6) Saskatchewan Firearms Act 2022
(7) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=39208&lang=en
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/canada-firearms-act-and-other-backdoored-legislation/
(9) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-11.6/FullText.html

Private Member’s Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of International Pandemic Treaty

Remember the hype in 2022 about a a proposed Global Pandemic Treaty? This was supposed to be an agreement that would give the World Health Organization binding legal authority over elected Governments. That seems to have stalled, at least to the casual observer.

Of course, the W.H.O. already has binding legal authority over Member States, which includes Canada. Anyone who’s ever read their Constitution would know that. That said, it doesn’t stop politicians from slipping in their rules in domestic legislation.

Private Member’s Bill C-293 was sponsored by Liberal M.P. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York). The content of which is interesting, to say the least.

Most Private Bills don’t become law. However, their content may become embedded into other legislation, and rammed through without proper debate and consideration.

Erskine-Smith isn’t a big player in Canadian politics. So, it’s strange that he would introduce something like this. Have to wonder if he wrote any of it.

Whereas the costs of prevention and preparedness measures are insignificant in comparison to the human and economic costs of a pandemic;

Whereas Parliament is committed to making efforts to prevent the risk of and prepare for future pandemics and to promote transparency and accountability in relation to those efforts;

Whereas it is critical to build on the lessons learned from previous outbreaks of serious diseases, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Ebola virus disease (EVD), Zika virus disease, tuberculosis, H1N1 flu and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19);

Whereas a One Health approach — a multisectoral and multidisciplinary collaborative approach that focuses on the human, animal, plant and ecosystem health and welfare interface — is central to preventing the risk of future pandemics;

And whereas this approach requires sustained collaboration among various ministers, all levels of government and Indigenous communities;

Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

There is something of a bait-and-switch here. While the Bill is presented as cooperation between various Governments in Canada, it’s clear that it also involves supra-national control.

Plan — contents
(2) The pandemic prevention and preparedness plan must

(a) set out a summary of mitigation strategies that the Minister of Health intends to implement in order to prevent the risk of and prepare for disease outbreaks that could lead to pandemics, as well as a projected timeline for their implementation;

Should we just state the obvious? They aren’t preparing for future outbreaks. Instead, this is laying the groundwork to erase more of people’s rights under the pretext of an outbreak.

(iv) the surge capacity of human resources required for the testing and contact tracing of persons exposed to infectious diseases, and

Contact tracing is just a means to implement mass surveillance.

(i) the manufacturing capacity in Canada with respect to any product relevant to pandemic preparedness, including vaccines, testing equipment and personal protective equipment, and the measures that the Minister of Industry intends to take to address any supply chain gaps identified, and

Expect more taxpayer money to be pumped into “building up reserves”, regardless of whether such items would ever be used. Think of the millions of vaccines that are going to waste.

(ii) the communications capacity and infrastructure for electronic platforms and tools, including electronic applications that enable contact tracing of persons exposed to infectious diseases that could lead to pandemics;

Building the infrastructure for electronic monitoring of “infected” people?! Canada already has a system in place to track people on parole and probation. Why would such an expansion be necessary, unless they were anticipating a massive influx?

(ii) regulate commercial activities that can contribute to pandemic risk, including industrial animal agriculture,

(iii) promote commercial activities that can help reduce pandemic risk, including the production of alternative proteins, and

Going back to the 2017 Federal Budget, millions were pumped into the “alternative protein” industry. Considering that this Bill also talks about reducing natural agriculture, a cynic may wonder if this is done to force citizens to take these alternative “foods”.

(iv) phase out commercial activities that disproportionately contribute to pandemic risk, including activities that involve high-risk species;

The suggestion has been made many times before, that this can be used as an excuse to attack the food supply. As such, the public would be forced to starve, or seek other alternative foods.

(m) include the following information, to be provided by the Minister of the Environment:
(i) after consultation with relevant provincial ministers, a summary of changes in land use in Canada, including in relation to disturbed habitats, that could contribute to pandemic risk, such as deforestation, encroachment on wildlife habitats and urbanization and that were made, in the case of the first plan, since the last report on changes in land use published under the Federal Sustainable Development Act or, in the case of the updated plans, during the reporting period for the updated plan,

This is essentially merging the U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda with the W.H.O.’s goals. Sorts of sounds like the GREAT RESET, which was just a conspiracy theory.

(ii) a summary of the measures the Minister of the Environment intends to take to reduce the risk that the commercial wildlife trade in Canada and abroad will lead to a pandemic, including measures to regulate or phase out live animal markets, and

Phase out live animal markets? Is this a way to help manufacture a food shortage? Could this be done by claiming that entire farms are “at risk”, and then culling them to protect the public?

(n) include a summary, to be provided by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, of the measures that that minister intends to take to support global health equity, including measures to increase public health capacity around the world and to ensure equitable access to vaccines, testing equipment and treatment;

(o) set out, in consultation with relevant ministers, a summary of key cooperative measures or agreements on disease outbreak prevention and preparedness between the Government of Canada, other foreign governments and key international organizations, including the World Health Organization, the United Nations Environment Programme, the World Organization for Animal Health and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; and

Here’s where it hits home. This will not simply be a Canadian system. Instead, it will be done in collaboration with:

  • Foreign Governments
  • World Health Organization
  • United Nations Environment Programme
  • U.N. Animal Health and the Food and Agriculture Organization

Read the entire Bill to make sure that nothing is being taken out of context. But this looks like a way to slip even more draconian measures onto the public.

And again, there has been — to my knowledge — any debate or reporting on this Bill. Why exactly is that? Isn’t this in the public interest?

1908: International Public Health Office to be created
1926: International Sanitary Convention was ratified in Paris.
1946: WHO’s Constitution was signed, and it’s something we’ll get into in more detail.
1951: International Sanitary Regulations adopted by Member States.
1969: International Health Regulations (1st Edition) replaced ISR. These are legally binding on all Member States.
2005: International Health Regulations 3rd Edition of IHR were ratified.

Without regurgitating the whole thing, the W.H.O. Constitution has been covered before, including the fact that it’s legally binding on Member States.

As has been outlined here before, the 2005 Quarantine Act, Bill C-12, was really just domestic implementation of the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations.

We’ve also gone heavily into the creation of PHAC, which is essentially just a branch of the World Health Organization. It was created at WHO’s instigation. It takes over (to a large degree) what Health Canada had been doing. The timeline is laid out, and worth a read.

Why does an unknown like Nathaniel Erskine-Smith introduce such a Bill? According to his Wikipedia page, he’s actually brought forward several pieces. This included (in the last Parliament) Bill C-235 to delete the drug possession offence from the Criminal Code. He also brought Bill C-236, to expand diversion alternatives for criminal cases involving drugs.

Whether or not this “Pandemic Treaty” ever goes ahead, this legislation seems designed to carry out the goals it was intended for. Perhaps this should be put to a public debate.

Again, why is this being done quietly in a Private Member’s Bill?

(1) https://eppc.org/publication/the-whos-pandemic-treaty/
(2) WHO Constitution, Full Document
(3) https://www.who.int/about/governance/constitution
(4) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills?chamber=1&page=3
(5) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-293
(6) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/nathaniel-erskine-smith(88687)
(7) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Erskine-Smith
(8) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/43-1/c-235
(9) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/43-1/c-236

%d bloggers like this: