Category: Privacy

Posted on

Getting Government Certified In Contact Tracing: No Skill Or Patience Required

Do you have an hour to kill? Want to become a government certified contact tracer? Now it’s even easier than ever. No real skill, talent, or hard work required.
https://training-formation.phac-aspc.gc.ca/?lang=en
https://training-formation.phac-aspc.gc.ca/course/
https://training-formation.phac-aspc.gc.ca/course/view.php?id=296

Side note: I notice that several of the questions imply that you may have multiple sexual partners. Almost as if there was some agenda going on.

CONTACT TRACING INTERVIEWING

It turns out that turning in someone who’s here illegally is actually the wrong answer. One would think that border enforcement is a serious topic, but the Public Health Agency of Canada doesn’t see it that way.

SUPPLEMENTAL TRAINING

The supplemental sections did cram a lot of social justice nonsense into it, such as privilege and oppression. However, we have to power through it (or just keep hitting skip), in order to get move on.

The public health section has a lot of history lessons, but very little useful information. Yes, this entire article has basically just been trolling, but it wasn’t that painful.

Posted on

Bill C-21: Introducing Red Flag Laws To Make It Easier To Grab Guns

Bill C-21, if implemented, will allow for private citizens to go before Courts, and ask A Judge to issue an Order to seize a person’s firearms. Note: it doesn’t appear that the person who is potentially subjected to such a restraint will have the opportunity to defend themselves.

1. Gun Rights Are Essential, Need Protecting

The freedoms of a society can be gauged by the laws and attitudes they have towards firearms. Governments, and other groups can push around an unarmed population much easier than those who can defend themselves. It’s not conspiratorial to wonder about those pushing for gun control. In fact, healthy skepticism is needed for a society to function.

2. What The Criminal Code Says Right Now

Discretionary prohibition order
.
110 (1) Where a person is convicted, or discharged under section 730, of
.
(a) an offence, other than an offence referred to in any of paragraphs 109(1)(a) to (c.1), in the commission of which violence against a person was used, threatened or attempted, or
.
(b) an offence that involves, or the subject-matter of which is, a firearm, a cross-bow, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or an explosive substance and, at the time of the offence, the person was not prohibited by any order made under this Act or any other Act of Parliament from possessing any such thing,
.
the court that sentences the person or directs that the person be discharged, as the case may be, shall, in addition to any other punishment that may be imposed for that offence or any other condition prescribed in the order of discharge, consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of the person or of any other person, to make an order prohibiting the person from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, and where the court decides that it is so desirable, the court shall so order.

Section 109 of the Criminal Code of Canada mandates prohibitions based on serious convictions, and 110 of the Code allows for weapons bans based on lesser crimes. But the key is CRIMINALS.

What is key here, is that it refers to people convicted of crimes, or discharged after a finding of guilt. There are also provisions which allow for accused people released on bail to have their firearm access suspended. That’s reasonable to most people.

However, this proposed addition to the Code would allow for (shorter) prohibitions based on reasonable suspicion, whatever that means. And while people are entitled to defend themselves in criminal cases, that doesn’t see to apply here.

3. What Bill C-21 Would Add To Criminal Code

4 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 110:
Application for emergency prohibition order
110.‍1 (1) Any person may make an ex parte application to a provincial court judge for an order prohibiting another person from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, if the person believes on reasonable grounds that it is not desirable in the interests of the safety of the person against whom the order is sought or of any other person that the person against whom the order is sought should possess any such thing.

Emergency prohibition order
(2) If, at the conclusion of a hearing of an application made under subsection (1), the provincial court judge is satisfied that the circumstances referred to in that subsection exist and that an order should be made without delay to ensure the immediate protection of any person, the judge shall make an order prohibiting the person against whom the order is sought from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, for a period not exceeding 30 days, as is specified in the order, beginning on the day on which the order is made.

Service of order
(3) A copy of the order shall be served on the person to whom the order is addressed in the manner that the provincial court judge directs or in accordance with the rules of court.

Warrant to search and seize
(4) If a provincial court judge is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person who is subject to an order made under subsection (2) possesses, in a building, receptacle or place, any thing the possession of which is prohibited by the order, and that it is not desirable in the interests of the safety of the person, or of any other person, for the person to possess the thing, the judge may issue a warrant authorizing a peace officer to search the building, receptacle or place and seize any such thing, and every authorization, licence or registration certificate relating to any such thing, that is held by or in the possession of the person.

Search and seizure without warrant
(5) If, in respect of a person who is subject to an order made under subsection (2), a peace officer is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is not desirable, in the interests of the safety of the person, or of any other person, for the person to possess any thing the possession of which is prohibited by the order, the peace officer may, where the grounds for obtaining a warrant under subsection (4) exist but, by reason of a possible danger to the safety of the person or any other person, it would not be practicable to obtain a warrant, search for and seize any such thing, and any authorization, licence or registration certificate relating to any such thing, that is held by or in the possession of the person.

Return to provincial court judge or justice
(6) A peace officer who executes a warrant referred to in subsection (4) or who conducts a search without a warrant under subsection (5) shall immediately make a return to the provincial court judge who issued the warrant or, if no warrant was issued, to a justice who might otherwise have issued a warrant, showing
(a) in the case of an execution of a warrant, the things or documents, if any, seized and the date of execution of the warrant; and
(b) in the case of a search conducted without a warrant, the grounds on which it was concluded that the peace officer was entitled to conduct the search, and the things or documents, if any, seized.

Return of things and documents
(7) Any things or documents seized under subsection (4) or (5) from a person against whom an order has been made under subsection (2) shall be returned to the person and any things or documents surrendered by the person in accordance with the order shall be returned to the person
(a) if no date is fixed under subsection 110.‍2(1) for the hearing of an application made under subsection 111(1) in respect of the person, as soon as feasible after the expiry of the period specified in the order made against the person under subsection (2);
(b) if a date is fixed for the hearing but no order is made against the person under subsection 111(5), as soon as feasible after the final disposition of the application; or
(c) despite paragraphs (a) and (b), if the order made against the person under subsection (2) is revoked, as soon as feasible after the day on which it is revoked.

10 The Act is amended by adding the following after the heading before section 117.‍011:
.
Application for emergency limitations on access order
117.‍0101 (1) Any person may make an ex parte application to a provincial court judge for an order under this section if the person believes on reasonable grounds that
(a) the person against whom the order is sought cohabits with, or is an associate of, another person who is prohibited by any order made under this Act or any other Act of Parliament from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things; and
(b) the other person would or might have access to any such thing that is in the possession of the person against whom the order is sought.
Emergency limitations on access order
.
(2) If, at the conclusion of a hearing of an application made under subsection (1), the provincial court judge is satisfied that the circumstances referred to in that subsection exist and that an order should be made without delay to ensure the immediate protection of any person, the judge shall make an order in respect of the person against whom the order is sought, for a period not exceeding 30 days, as is specified in the order, beginning on the day on which the order is made, imposing any terms and conditions on the person’s use and possession of any thing referred to in subsection (1) that the judge considers appropriate.

https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/bill/C-21/first-reading#ID0ELAA

As it is written right now, any person will be able to file an application with the Court, to ask a person be removed of their guns, without the right to defend themselves at the start. It’s written up so that the person applying doesn’t have to fear for their safety, but can claim to fear for someone else. Of course, it’s unclear what standard (if any), would be applied to satisfy a Court.

Not only can these Applications be done without a person being able to defend themselves, but it appears that warrantless searches would be allowed. Of course, all of this is done in the name of public safety.

It’s not limited to getting an Order against a person — again, with no chance to defend themself. In addition, an Order can also be sought against the people who live with, or associate with, that person. So much for freedom of association.

To repeat, there is no requirement that the recipients of such Orders be charged or convicted of crimes. Simply having a Judge “believe reasonably” is sufficient. Certainly, it’s easier when only one side can be heard.

4. Recent Red Flag Laws In United States

Unfortunately, these types of laws are not limited to Canada, or to Liberals. Even in the United States, efforts to implement red-flag laws are growing. Here, then President Trump, a REPUBLICAN, supported taking the guns first. However, the full scale of that will be saved for another article.

Posted on

TSCE #9(G): Bit Of History – Bill C-30, Toews Gutting Internet Privacy Under Pretense Of Child Protection

On February 14, 2012, then-Public Safety Minister Vic Toews introduced Bill C-30 into the House of Commons. It would have forced internet providers to hand over customer data — without a warrant — to police during investigations. Even law abiding people had reason to be concerned, with just how broad and sweeping this Bill was. Anyhow, it didn’t get past 1st Reading.

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. Content Of Bill C-30

Obligations Concerning Subscriber Information
Provision of subscriber information
16. (1) On written request by a person designated under subsection (3) that includes prescribed identifying information, every telecommunications service provider must provide the person with identifying information in the service provider’s possession or control respecting the name, address, telephone number and electronic mail address of any subscriber to any of the service provider’s telecommunications services and the Internet protocol address and local service provider identifier that are associated with the subscriber’s service and equipment.
.
Purpose of the request
(2) A designated person must ensure that he or she makes a request under subsection (1) only in performing, as the case may be, a duty or function
(a) of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service under the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act;
(b) of a police service, including any related to the enforcement of any laws of Canada, of a province or of a foreign jurisdiction; or
(c) of the Commissioner of Competition under the Competition Act.
.
Designated persons
(3) The Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Commissioner of Competition and the chief or head of a police service constituted under the laws of a province may designate for the purposes of this section any employee of his or her agency, or a class of such employees, whose duties are related to protecting national security or to law enforcement.
.
Limit on number of designated persons
(4) The number of persons designated under subsection (3) in respect of a particular agency may not exceed the greater of five and the number that is equal to five per cent of the total number of employees of that agency.
Delegation
(5) The Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service may delegate his or her power to designate persons under subsection (3) to, respectively, a member of a prescribed class of senior officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or a member of a prescribed class of senior officials of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Miscellaneous Provisions
Facility and service information
24. (1) A telecommunications service provider must, on the request of a police officer or of an employee of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service,
(a) provide the prescribed information relating to the service provider’s telecommunications facilities;
(b) indicate what telecommunications services the service provider offers to subscribers; and
(c) provide the name, address and telephone number of any telecommunications service providers from whom the service provider obtains or to whom the service provider provides telecommunications services, if the service provider has that information.

Persons engaged in interceptions
28. (1) A telecommunications service provider must, on the request of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, provide a list of the names of the persons who are employed by or carrying out work for the service provider who may assist in the interception of communications.

34. (1) An inspector may, for a purpose related to verifying compliance with this Act, enter any place owned by, or under the control of, any telecommunications service provider in which the inspector has reasonable grounds to believe there is any document, information, transmission apparatus, telecommunications facility or any other thing to which this Act applies.
.
Powers on entry
(2) The inspector may, for that purpose,
(a) examine any document, information or thing found in the place and open or cause to be opened any container or other thing;
(b) examine or test or cause to be tested any telecommunications facility or transmission apparatus or related equipment found in the place;
(c) use, or cause to be used, any computer system in the place to search and examine any information contained in or available to the system;
(d) reproduce, or cause to be reproduced, any information in the form of a printout, or other intelligible output, and remove the printout, or other output, for examination or copying; or
(e) use, or cause to be used, any copying equipment or means of telecommunication at the place.
.
Duty to assist
(3) The owner or person in charge of the place and every person in the place must give all assistance that is reasonably required to enable the inspector to perform their functions under this section and must provide any documents or information, and access to any data, that are reasonably required for that purpose.
.
Inspector may be accompanied
(4) The inspector may be accompanied by any other person that they believe is necessary to help them perform their functions under this section.

Entry onto private property
36. An inspector and any person accompanying them may enter private property — other than a dwelling-house — and pass through it in order to gain entry to a place referred to in subsection 34(1). For greater certainty, they are not liable for doing so.
.
Use of force
37. In executing a warrant to enter a dwelling-house, an inspector may use force only if the use of force has been specifically authorized in the warrant and they are accompanied by a peace officer.

Does this sound like it’s about protecting kids online? The CPC became notorious for gaslighting Canadians over privacy concerns with the line: “Either you’re with us, or you’re with the child pornographers”. Concerns over this Bill wasn’t just limited to criminals and child predators. Anyone with any expectation of privacy from internet providers should be alarmed.

Remember the days when “Conservatives” at least pretended care about personal freedoms, such as privacy and property rights?

Who’s to say that elements of this won’t be, (or haven’t already been), slipped into other pieces of legislation? If it were more arranged in a more piece-meal fashion, it could pass.

3. Backlash Felt Over Privacy Concerns

Following the predictable public outrage, Toews backed down almost immediately, saying he would entertain amendments to the Bill. At that time, the Conservative Party held a majority in Parliament, so they could have passed it if they wanted to. In the end, Bill C-30 didn’t get past First Reading, and died in that session of Parliament.

Posted on

Provincial Health Acts Are Really Just WHO-IHR Domestically Implemented

Bill C-12 is the 2005 Quarantine Act, passed by Canada’s Parliament. It was heavily based on presumed changes to the International Health Regulations that the World Health Organization imposed. However, the problem has filtered down to the Provinces as well.

Strangely, it was only the Bloc Quebecois who voted against this. All other parties supported this Bill.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the GREAT RESET. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. The International Health Regulations are legally binding. The Postmedia empire and the “independent” media are paid off, as are the fact-checkers. The virus was never isolated, PCR tests are a fraud, as are forced masks, social bubbles, and 2m distancing.

2. Important Links

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/HESA/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=981075
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/38-1/HESA/report-2/

(AB) https://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/P37.pdf
(SK) https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/laws/stat/ss-1994-c-p-37.1/11022/ss-1994-c-p-37.1.html
(MB) https://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/p210e.php
(ON) https://healthunit.org/wp-content/uploads/Health_Protection_and_Promotion_Act.pdf

3. Canada’s Quarantine Act Written By WHO

As mentioned earlier, the International Health Regulations (IHR), that the WHO issues are legally binding on all Member States. Countries are expected to follow the directives that are sent, even if they are very much against national self interest.

In declaring this “pandemic”, Trudeau activated the 2005 Quarantine Act, a piece of legislation that violates many basic rights in the name of “public health”. However, Bill C-12 was actually written by the World Health Organization. What this means is that the Bill was drafted in anticipation of changes to the 3rd Edition of the IHR, which remain legally binding today.

But what about the Provinces? What is the situation with their Public Health Acts? Turns out that many of the clauses from the Quarantine Act are included, almost word for word?

4. British Columbia Public Health Act

Preventive measure
16 (1) Preventive measures include the following:
(a) being treated or vaccinated;
(b) taking preventive medication;
(c) washing with, applying or ingesting a substance, or having a substance injected or inserted;
(d) undergoing disinfection and decontamination measures;
(e) wearing a type of clothing or other personal protective equipment, or changing, removing or altering clothing or personal protective equipment;
(f) using a type of equipment or implementing a process, or removing or altering equipment or processes.
.
(2) A person subject to a regulation requiring preventive measures must not be in a place or do a thing that is prohibited by the regulation until the person has
(a)taken preventive measures as set out in the regulation, or
(b)if permitted by the regulation, made an objection under subsection (4).

General emergency powers
Division 2 — Order of the Minister
Minister may order temporary quarantine facility
.
26 (1)The minister may by order designate a place as a quarantine facility if the minister reasonably believes that the temporary use of the place for the purposes of isolating or detaining infected persons is necessary to protect public health.
.
(2) A person who has control of a place designated as a quarantine facility must provide the place to the minister or a medical health officer.

Division 3 — Orders Respecting Infectious Agents and Hazardous Agents
When orders respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents may be made
27 (1) A medical health officer may issue an order under this Division only if the medical health officer reasonably believes that
(a) a person
(i) is an infected person, or
(ii) has custody or control of an infected person or an infected thing, and
(b) the order is necessary to protect public health.
.
(2) An order may be issued based on clinical findings or a person’s or thing’s circumstances or medical history, even if the person or thing has been examined and the examination did not reveal the presence of an infectious agent or a hazardous agent.

General powers respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents
.
28 (1) If the circumstances described in section 27 [when orders respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents may be made] apply, a medical health officer may order a person to do anything that the medical health officer reasonably believes is necessary for either or both of the following purposes:
(a) to determine whether an infectious agent or a hazardous agent exists, or likely exists;
(b) to prevent the transmission of an infectious agent or a hazardous agent.

(2 ) A medical health officer may, in respect of an infected thing,
(a) make any order, with any necessary modifications, that can be made under this Division as if the infected thing were an infected person, and
(b) direct the order to any person having custody or control of the infected thing.

Specific powers respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents
.
29 (1) An order may be made under this section only
(a) if the circumstances described in section 27 [when orders respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents may be made] apply, and
(b) for the purposes set out in section 28 (1) [general powers respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents].
.
(2) Without limiting section 28, a medical health officer may order a person to do one or more of the following:
.
(a) remain in a specified place, or not enter a place;
(b) avoid physical contact with, or being near, a person or thing;
(c) be under the supervision or care of a specified person;
(d) provide to the medical health officer or a specified person information, records, samples or other matters relevant to the person’s possible infection with an infectious agent or contamination with a hazardous agent, including information respecting persons who may have been exposed to an infectious agent or a hazardous agent by the person;
(e) be examined by a specified person, including
(i) going to a specified facility for examination, and
(ii) being examined before a particular date or according to a schedule;
(f) submit to diagnostic examination, including going to a specified facility or providing the results to a specified person;
(g) take preventive measures, including
(i) going to a specified facility for preventive measures,
(ii) complying with preventive measures set out in the order, specified by a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner, or both, and
(iii) beginning preventive measures before a particular date, and continuing until a particular date or event;
(h) provide evidence of complying with the order, including
(i) getting a certificate of compliance from a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner or specified person, and
(ii) providing to a medical health officer any relevant record;

(I ) take a prescribed action.
.
(3) For greater certainty, this section applies even if the person subject to the order is complying with all terms and conditions of a licence, a permit, an approval or another authorization issued under this or any other enactment.

54 (1) A health officer may, in an emergency, do one or more of the following:
(a) act in a shorter or longer time period than is otherwise required;
(b) not provide a notice that is otherwise required;
(c) do orally what must otherwise be done in writing;
(d) in respect of a licence or permit over which the health officer has authority under section 55 [acting outside designated terms during emergencies] or the regulations, suspend or vary the licence or permit without providing an opportunity to dispute the action;
(e) specify in an order a facility, place, person or procedure other than as required under section 63 [power to establish directives and standards], unless an order under that section specifies that the order applies in an emergency;
(f) omit from an order things that are otherwise required;
(g) serve an order in any manner;
(h) not reconsider an order under section 43 [reconsideration of orders], not review an order under section 44 [review of orders] or not reassess an order under section 45 [mandatory reassessment of orders];
(i) exempt an examiner from providing examination results to an examined person;
(j) conduct an inspection at any time, with or without a warrant, including of a private dwelling;
(k) collect, use or disclose information, including personal information,
(i) that could not otherwise be collected, used or disclosed, or
(ii) in a form or manner other than the form or manner required.

Under Section 54 the B.C. Public Health Act, during emergencies (or self-identified emergencies), Health Officers can have any place inspected at any time. A person can be examined, and the results of that exam withheld from him/her. Business can be shut down, without any recourse to challenge it. Health Officers can do things with oral only notice, or with no notice at all, and these privileges can be extended longer than need be.

Under Section 16 of the Act, a person can be ordered to be: vaccinated; medicated; ingest or insert something, and other invasive procedures. Section 26 of the Act allows the Health Minister to take any property and convert it into a quarantine facility. Sections 27 through 29 allows a Medical Health Officer – in this case, Bonnie Henry – virtual dictatorial powers over other people’s lives and livelihoods.

Worth clarifying, these “Health Officers” or “Medical Officers” are not elected by the public in any capacity. They cannot be voted out of their positions, regardless of the sentiments of the general population.
The Act of course is much, much longer than this. However, it is truly stunning just how much power unelected Health Officers are given over other people’s lives. And in B.C., all parties are apparently okay with handing over their duties.

Sure, the B.C. Public Health Act gives bureaucrats that power, but who wrote the Act in the first place? Who was responsible for handing over that power to begin with? This Act was written and voted on by MLAs (Members of Legislative Assembly), who are, in theory, accountable to voters.

A cynic might wonder if MLAs made this law in order to avoid making themselves accountable for decisions they make. Here at least, they can claim it’s not them, and that they are simply following the advice of health professionals.

It’s interesting that the B.C Health Act was assented to (made law) in 2008. The 3rd Edition of WHO’s International Health Regulations came into effect in 2005, and Canada’s 2005 Quarantine Act was heavily based on those IHR. The B.C. Act contains much of the same information and powers as the WHO/Federal documents, and it’s fair to assume that the content was derived from them.

Of course, this is hardly limited to B.C. Other Provinces have their own version of a Provincial Health Act, and they carry many of the same powers. This includes: Alberta , Saskatchewan , Manitoba , among others. What these Acts all have in common is they give broad, sweeping powers to bureaucrats who are not elected by the public, and who cannot be voted out. Looking at Alberta:

5. Alberta Public Health Act

Powers of Chief Medical Officer
.
14(1) The Chief Medical Officer
.
(a) shall, on behalf of the Minister, monitor the health of Albertans and make recommendations to the Minister and regional health authorities on measures to protect and promote the health of the public and to prevent disease and injury,
.
(b) shall act as a liaison between the Government and regional health authorities, medical officers of health and executive officers in the administration of this Act,
.
(c) shall monitor activities of regional health authorities, medical officers of health and executive officers in the administration of this Act, and
.
(d) may give directions to regional health authorities, medical officers of health and executive officers in the exercise of their powers and the carrying out of their responsibilities under this Act.

(2) Where the Chief Medical Officer is of the opinion that a medical officer of health or executive officer is not properly exercising powers or carrying out duties under this Act in respect of a matter, the Chief Medical Officer may assume the powers and duties of the medical officer of health or executive officer in respect of the matter and act in that person’s place.

Isolation, Quarantine and Special Measures
.
Isolation and quarantine
.
29(1) A medical officer of health who knows of or has reason to suspect the existence of a communicable disease or a public health emergency within the boundaries of the health region in which the medical officer of health has jurisdiction may initiate an investigation to determine whether any action is necessary to protect the public health.
(2) Where the investigation confirms the presence of a communicable disease, the medical officer of health
(a) shall carry out the measures that the medical officer of health is required by this Act and the regulations to carry out, and
(b) may do any or all of the following:
(i) take whatever steps the medical officer of health considers necessary
(A) to suppress the disease in those who may already have been infected with it,
(B) to protect those who have not already been exposed to the disease,
(C) to break the chain of transmission and prevent spread of the disease, and
(D) to remove the source of infection;
(ii) by order
(A) prohibit a person from attending a school,
(B) prohibit a person from engaging in the person’s occupation, or
(C) prohibit a person from having contact with other persons or any class of persons for any period and subject to any conditions that the medical officer of health considers appropriate, where the medical officer of health determines that the person’s engaging in that activity could transmit an infectious agent;
.
(iii) issue written orders for the decontamination or destruction of any bedding, clothing or other articles that
have been contaminated or that the medical officer of health reasonably suspects have been contaminated.
(2.1) Where the investigation confirms the existence of a public health emergency, the medical officer of health
(a) has all the same powers and duties in respect of the public health emergency as he or she has under subsection (2) in the case of a communicable disease, and
(b) may take whatever other steps are, in the medical officer of health’s opinion, necessary in order to lessen the impact of the public health emergency.

Sections 13 to 15 of Alberta’s Public Health Act outline how a Medical Health Officer is appointed, and the vast powers available to that person. In Alberta, that is currently Deena Hinshaw. Like Bonnie Henry, she is not elected, and cannot be held directly liable to the public for anything that she does.

Pages 25 through 31 of the most recent version of that Act relate to quarantine measures, epidemics, and how the average person’s rights can be suspended almost indefinitely under the pretense of “public safety”. It reads like the Provincial counterpart to the Quarantine Act, which of course, was dictated by the WHO.

Pages 39 through 51 cover Section 52 of the Alberta Public Health Act. It gives sweeping powers to unelected bureaucrats in the name of safety. The content of that Section reads almost beat for beat identical to that of the Quarantine Act. Moving on to Saskatchewan, we get this piece of legislation:

6. Saskatchewan Public Health Act

CONTROL OF EPIDEMICS Orders
.
45(1) The minister may make an order described in subsection (2) if the minister believes, on reasonable grounds, that:
.
(a) a serious public health threat exists in Saskatchewan; and (b) the requirements set out in the order are necessary to decrease or eliminate the serious public health threat. (2) An order pursuant to this section may: (a) direct the closing of a public place;
.
(b) restrict travel to or from a specified area of Saskatchewan;
.
(c) prohibit public gatherings in a specified area of Saskatchewan;
.
(d) in the case of a serious public health threat that is a communicable disease, require any person who is not known to be protected against the communicable disease:
(i) to be immunized or given prophylaxis where the disease is one for which immunization or prophylaxis is available; or
(ii) to be excluded from school until the danger of infection is past where the person is a pupil;
.
(e) establish temporary hospitals;
.
(f) require a local authority, a medical health officer or a public health officer to investigate matters relating to the serious public health threat and report to the minister the results of the investigation;
.
(g) require any person who, in the opinion of the minister or medical health officer, is likely to have information that is necessary to decrease or eliminate the serious public health threat to disclose that information to the minister or a medical health officer;
.
(h) authorize public health officers, peace officers or prescribed persons to confiscate substances or other materials found in any place, premises or vehicle, if those substances or materials are suspected by the public health officer, peace officer or prescribed person of causing or contributing to a serious public health threat or packages, containers or devices containing or suspected of containing any of those substances or materials;
.
(i) in the case of a serious public health threat that is a communicable disease, require any person to be isolated from other persons until a medical health officer is satisfied that isolation is no longer necessary to decrease or eliminate the transmission of a communicable disease.

Preventive detention order
45.1(1) If a person fails to comply with an order pursuant to clause 45(2)(i) and a medical health officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person is endangering the lives, safety or health of the public because the person is or probably is infected with, or has been or might have been exposed to, a communicable disease, the medical health officer may detain the person for a period not exceeding the prescribed period of transmissibility of the disease.

(2) A person detained by a medical health officer pursuant to subsection (1) may request a review of his or her detention by application to the Court of Queen’s Bench served on the minister, and the court may make any order with respect to the detention or the release of the person that the court considers appropriate, having regard to the danger to the lives, safety or health of the public.

In similar fashion, Saskatchewan has their own Public Health Act, which has undergone several revisions since the 1990s. It allows for freedoms and liberties to be suspended on even the vaguest suspicion that a person may have an infectious disease. It also allows for property to be seized, and people to be detained.

Things like public gatherings, and freedom of citizens to travel can also be suspended indefinitely under the guise of safety.

Note: as with all of these cases, it’s not the politicians doing the dirty work. It’s the various “experts” who call themselves Chief Medical Officers (or similar titles). This provides cover to elected officials, who want to stamp out civil rights, but don’t want to get their own hands dirty in the process. Now, about Manitoba:

7. Manitoba Public Health Act

PART 6
PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY
Public health emergency
67(1) The chief public health officer may take one or more of the special measures described in subsection (2) if he or she reasonably believes that
(a) a serious and immediate threat to public health exists because of an epidemic or threatened epidemic of a communicable disease; and
(b) the threat to public health cannot be prevented, reduced or eliminated without taking special measures.

Special measures
67(2) The chief public health officer may take the following special measures in the circumstances set out in subsection (1):
(a) issue directions, for the purpose of managing the threat, to a regional health authority, health corporation, health care organization, operator of a laboratory, operator of a licensed emergency medical response system, health professional or health care provider, including directions about
(i) identifying and managing cases,
(ii) controlling infection,
(iii) managing hospitals and other health care facilities and emergency medical response services, and
(iv) managing and distributing equipment and supplies;
(a.1) issue an order prohibiting or restricting persons from travelling to, from or within a specified area, or requiring persons who are doing so to take specified actions;
(b) order the owner, occupant or person who appears to be in charge of any place or premises to deliver up possession of it to the minister for use as a temporary isolation or quarantine facility;
(c) order a public place or premises to be closed;
(d) order persons not to assemble in a public gathering in a specified area;
(d.1) order persons to take specified measures to prevent the spread of a communicable disease, including persons who arrive in Manitoba from another province, territory or country;
(e) order a person who the chief public health officer reasonably believes is not protected against a communicable disease to do one or both of the following:
(i) be immunized, or take any other preventive measures,
(ii) refrain from any activity or employment that poses a significant risk of infection, until the chief public health officer considers the risk of infection no longer exists;
(f) order an employer to exclude from a place of employment any person subject to an order under subclause (e)(ii).

Manitoba’s Public Health Act allows the Chief Medical Officer, and the operatives, to effectively suspend basic civil rights indefinitely. Of course this is “for your safety”, the ever present excuse. Basic liberties such as free association, freedom to peacefully assemble, and freedom to earn a livelihood can be stopped.

Note: the Act was assented to on June 13, 2006, a year after the Federal Quarantine Act, and the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations were implemented. The obvious implication is that this Act is just Manitoba enacting its own version.

Section 10 of the Act mandates that a Chief Medical Officer be named. Currently, that is Brent Roussin. In November, he caused a scandal when he openly admitted that public health orders don’t apply to public officials. Not leading by example.

8. Ontario Health Protection & Promotion Act

PART VI.1 PROVINCIAL PUBLIC HEALTH POWERS
.
Chief Medical Officer of Health may act where risk to health
.
77.1 (1) If the Chief Medical Officer of Health is of the opinion that a situation exists anywhere in Ontario that constitutes or may constitute a risk to the health of any persons, he or she may investigate the situation and take such action as he or she considers appropriate to prevent, eliminate or decrease the risk. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.
.
Same (2) For the purpose of subsection
.
(1), the Chief Medical Officer of Health,
.
(a) may exercise anywhere in Ontario,
(i) any of the powers of a board of health, including the power to appoint a medical officer of health or an associate medical officer of health, and (ii) any of the powers of a medical officer of health; and
.
(b) may direct a person whose services are engaged by a board of health to do, anywhere in Ontario, whether within or outside the health unit served by the board of health, any act,
(i) that the person has power to do under this Act, or
(ii) that the medical officer of health for the health unit served by the board of health has authority to direct the person to do within the health unit. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.
.
Authority and duty of person directed to act
(3) If the Chief Medical Officer of Health gives a direction under clause (2) (b) to a person whose services are engaged by a board of health, (a) the person has authority to act, anywhere in Ontario, whether within or outside the health unit served by the board of health, to the same extent as if the direction had been given by the medical officer of health of the board of health and the act had been done in the health unit; and (b) the person shall carry out the direction as soon as practicable. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15. Section 22 powers
.
(4) For the purpose of the exercise by the Chief Medical Officer of Health under subsection (2) of the powers of a medical officer of health, a reference in section 22 to a communicable disease shall be deemed to be a reference to an infectious disease. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15. Application to judge where risk to health 77.2 (1) If the Chief Medical Officer of Health is of the opinion that a situation exists anywhere in Ontario that constitutes or may constitute a risk to the health of any persons, he or she may apply to a judge of the Superior Court of Justice for an order under subsection (2). 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.

Possession of premises for temporary isolation facility
.
77.4 (1) The Minister, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (3), by order may require the occupier of any premises to deliver possession of all or any specified part of the premises to the Minister to be used as a temporary isolation facility or as part of a temporary isolation facility. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.
.
Extension
(2) An order under subsection (1) shall set out an expiry date for the order that is not more than 12 months after the day of its making and the Minister may extend the order for a further period of not more than 12 months. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.
.
Grounds for order
(3) The Minister may make an order under subsection (1) where the Chief Medical Officer of Health certifies in writing to the Minister that, (a) there exists or there is an immediate risk of an outbreak of a communicable disease anywhere in Ontario; and (b) the premises are needed for use as a temporary isolation facility or as part of a temporary isolation facility in respect of the communicable disease. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.

Ontario has the 2007 Health Protection and Promotion Act. The wording and powers are very similar to other Provinces, and to the Federal Quarantine Act. The timing is also suspicious, given that this was implemented soon after the 2005 International Health Regulations and the Federal legislation.

In Ontario, the Chief Medical Officer is David Williams, and the Deputy Medical Officer is Barbara Yaffe. As with the other so-called experts, these people are not elected, and have no real accountability to the public. Both have made very interesting statements about how dangerous this “pandemic” really is. More on them later.

9. These Acts Strip Away Basic Rights

At no time is there a requirement for there to be PROOF of a public health emergency to act on these powers. These Chief Medical Officers can simply claim that they “reasonably believe”, and that is sufficient.

Provincially and Federally, politicians write laws that allow unelected bureaucrats almost free reign to impose whatever measures they want. Of course, they don’t write content of the laws, but follow the instructions of a supra-national body that is accountable to no one.

This only covers 5 Provinces, however, they all have similar laws. If there is time, a Part II will be published to cover the others.

Posted on

TSCE #12(C): Twitter Sued For (Allegedly) Refusing To Remove Child Exploitation Material

Twitter is being sued in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California. It’s alleged that Twitter refused to take down pornographic material, even after becoming aware that minors were involved, and they were exploited. The site, endsexualexploitation.org, posted a copy of the complaint. The names were redacted in the papers to protect the identities of the family.

Just a reminder: at this point, it is just accusations against Twitter.

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

Twitter CP Remained Up Lawsuit Filed Statement Of Claim
Endsexualexploitation,org Website Link
Interview With Epoch Times — American Thought Leaders
Twitter T.O.S.: Child Sexual Exploitation Policies
https://archive.is/PVP1w
Twitter Medical Misinformation Policies
https://archive.is/RLwRi
Twitter Misleading Information Updates
https://archive.is/zoqrD

3. Epoch Times Interviews Plaintiff’s Lawyer

Lisa Haba, lawyer for the victim, gave an interview with Jan Jekielek of Epoch Times a few days ago. This is well worth a watch. They bring up several interesting topics, including using Section 230 as a legal defense.

4. Quotes From The Lawsuit Against Twitter

This is a civil action for damages under the federal Trafficking Victims’ Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591 and 1595, Failure to Report Child Sexual Abuse Material, 18 U.S.C. § 2258A, Receipt and Distribution of Child Pornography, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A, and related state law claims arising from Defendant’s conduct when it knowingly hosted sexual exploitation material, including child sex abuse material (referred to in some instances as child pornography), and allowed human trafficking and the dissemination of child sexual abuse material to continue on its platform, therefore profiting from the harmful and exploitive material and the traffic it draws.

1. Sex trafficking is a form of slavery that illegally exists in this world—both throughout the United States and globally—and traffickers have been able to operate under cover of the law through online platforms. Likewise, those platforms have profited from the posting and dissemination of trafficking and the exploitative images and videos associated with it.

2. The dissemination of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) has become a global scourge since the explosion of the internet, which allows those that seek to trade in this material to equally operate under cover of the law through online platforms.

3. This lawsuit seeks to shine a light on how Twitter has enabled and profited from CSAM on its platform, choosing profits over people, money over the safety of children, and wealth at the expense of human freedom and human dignity.

4. With over 330 million users, Twitter is one of the largest social media companies in the world. It is also one of the most prolific distributors of material depicting the sexual abuse and exploitation of children.

28. Twitter explains how it makes money from advertising services as follows:
.
We generate most of our advertising revenue by selling our
Promoted Products. Currently, our Promoted Products consist of
the following:
.
• Promoted Tweets. Promoted Tweets, which are labeled as
“promoted,” appear within a timeline, search results or profile
pages just like an ordinary Tweet regardless of device, whether it
be desktop or mobile. Using our proprietary algorithms and
understanding of the interests of each account, we can deliver
Promoted Tweets that are intended to be relevant to a particular
account. We enable our advertisers to target an audience based on
an individual account’s interest graph. Our Promoted Tweets are
pay-for-performance or pay-for-impression delivered advertising
that are priced through an auction. Our Promoted Tweets include
objective-based features that allow advertisers to pay only for the
types of engagement selected by the advertisers, such as Tweet
engagements (e.g., Retweets, replies and likes), website clicks,
mobile application installs or engagements, obtaining new
followers, or video views.

65. In 2017, when John Doe was 13-14 years old, he engaged in a dialog with someone he thought was an individual person on the communications application Snapchat. That person or persons represented to John Doe that they were a 16-year-old female and he believed that person went his school.

66. After conversing, the person or persons (“Traffickers”) interacting with John Doe exchanged nude photos on Snapchat.

67. After he did so the correspondence changed to blackmail. Now the Traffickers wanted more sexually graphic pictures and videos of John Doe, and recruited, enticed, threatened and solicited John Doe by telling him that if he did not provide this material, then the nude pictures of himself that he had already sent would be sent to his parents, coach, pastor, and others in his community.

68. Initially John Doe complied with the Traffickers’ demands. He was told to provide videos of himself performing sexual acts. He was also told to include another person in the videos, to which he complied.

69. Because John Doe was (and still is) a minor and the pictures and videos he was threatened and coerced to produce included graphic sexual depictions of himself, including depictions of him engaging in sexual acts with another minor, the pictures and videos constitute CSAM under the law.

70. The Traffickers also attempted to meet with him in person. Fortunately, an in person meeting never took place.

85. John Doe submitted a picture of his drivers’ license to Twitter proving that he is a minor. He emailed back the same day saying:

91. On January 28, 2020, Twitter sent John Doe an email that read as follows:
.
Hello,
.
Thanks for reaching out. We’ve reviewed the content, and didn’t find a violation of our policies, so no action will be taken at this time.
.
If you believe there’s a potential copyright infringement, please start a new report.
.
If the content is hosted on a third-party website, you’ll need to contact that website’s support team to report it.
.
Your safety is the most important thing, and if you believe you are in danger, we encourage you to contact your local authorities. Taking screenshots of the Tweets is often a good idea, and we have more information available for law enforcement about our policies.
.
Thanks,
Twitter

In short, the victim met someone online pretending to be someone else, and got him to send nude photos under false pretenses. The teen — which is still a minor today — was then blackmailed into sending more.

Some of this was posted on Twitter. Despite verifying the age and identity of the victim, they refused to remove the content, saying that they found no violations in their terms of services. It was only after Homeland Security stepped in, that Twitter finally complied.

Interestingly, almost half of the complaint against Twitter consists of copies of its own rules, policies, and terms of service. Twitter has rules on the books to prevent exactly this type of thing, but (allegedly) refused to act when it was brought to their attention.

The comment about “potential copyright infringement” comes across as a slap in the face. That was clearly never the concern of the child.

Twitter has not filed a response, so we’ll have to see what happens next.

5. Current Twitter Policy On Exploiting Minors

Child sexual exploitation policy
Overview
October 2020
.
We have a zero-tolerance child sexual exploitation policy on Twitter.
.
Twitter has zero tolerance towards any material that features or promotes child sexual exploitation, one of the most serious violations of the Twitter Rules. This may include media, text, illustrated, or computer-generated images. Regardless of the intent, viewing, sharing, or linking to child sexual exploitation material contributes to the re-victimization of the depicted children. This also applies to content that may further contribute to victimization of children through the promotion or glorification of child sexual exploitation. For the purposes of this policy, a minor is any person under the age of 18.

What is in violation of this policy?
Any content that depicts or promotes child sexual exploitation including, but not limited to:
-visual depictions of a child engaging in sexually explicit or sexually suggestive acts;
-illustrated, computer-generated or other forms of realistic depictions of a human child in a sexually explicit context, or engaging in sexually explicit acts;
-sexualized commentaries about or directed at a known or unknown minor; and
-links to third-party sites that host child sexual exploitation material.

The following behaviors are also not permitted:
-sharing fantasies about or promoting engagement in child sexual exploitation;
-expressing a desire to obtain materials that feature child sexual exploitation;
-recruiting, advertising or expressing an interest in a commercial sex act involving a child, or in harboring and/or transporting a child for sexual purposes;
–sending sexually explicit media to a child;
-engaging or trying to engage a child in a sexually explicit conversation;
-trying to obtain sexually explicit media from a child or trying to engage a child in sexual activity through blackmail or other incentives;
-identifying alleged victims of childhood sexual exploitation by name or image; and
-promoting or normalizing sexual attraction to minors as a form of identity or sexual orientation.

At least on paper, Twitter has very strong policies against the sort of behaviour that is outlined in the California lawsuit. It’s baffling why Twitter wouldn’t immediately remove the content. This isn’t the hill to die on for any company.

Twitter can, and does, suspend accounts for insulting pedophiles and making comments about death or castration. Yet, this incident wasn’t against their terms of service.

6. Title 47, CH 5, SUBCHAPTER II Part I § 230

(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
(d) Obligations of interactive computer service
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.

The “Section 230” which is commonly referenced refers to the 1996 Communications Decency Act. This gave platforms — both existing, and ones that came later — significant legal protections. They were considered platforms, not publishers.

The distinction between platforms and publishers seems small, but is significant. Platforms are eligible for certain benefits and tax breaks, but are cannot (except in limited circumstances), be held liable. Publishers, however, can be much more discriminatory about what they allow to be shown.

The wording is such that it does give wiggle room for publishers to apply their own take on what material is considered offensive.

It has been suggested that Twitter could rely on its Section 230 protections, but that would not shield it from penalties for criminal actions. The allegations made in this lawsuit are not just civil, but criminal in nature.

While Twitter may not be liable for everything that goes on, this particular incident was brought to their attention. They asked for identification and age verification, received it, and then decided there was no violation to their terms of service. So claiming ignorance would be extremely difficult.

7. Loss On Social Media Anonymity?!

One issue not discussed as much is a potential consequence of legal actions against platforms like Twitter. Will this lead to the loss of anonymous accounts? Might identity verification come as an unintended consequence?

While no decent person wants children — or anyone — to be take advantage of, there is a certain security knowing that online and private life can be separated. This is the era of doxing, harassment and stalking, and as such, there are legitimate concerns for many people. This is especially true for those discussing more controversial and politically incorrect topics.

Do we really want things to go the way of Parler, who began demanding Government issued I.D., and then had a “data breach”?

8. Twitter Policies On “Medical Misinformation”

https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1267986500030955520
https://twitter.com/Policy/status/1278095924330364935
http://archive.is/fHoLx
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2020/updating-our-approach-to-misleading-information.html

This topic is brought up to show how selective Twitter’s commitment is to free speech, and to dissenting viewpoints. Even a charitable interpretation would be that there is political bias in how the rules and standardds are applied.

Strangely, Twitter takes a more thorough approach to monitoring and removing tweets and accounts for promoting “medical misinformation”. Despite there being many valid questions and concerns about this “pandemic”, far more of that is censored. Odd priorities.

Yet child porn and exploiting minors can remain up?

Posted on

CV #25(D): Meet Capital Hill Group, The Lobbying Firm Pushing For G4S Contracts

David Angus, the President of Capital Hill Group, is lobbying Ottawa on behalf of G4S Secure Solutions. This is a security company that also is involved in intelligence gathering, and running detention centers, among other things. See this article for background information. There is more than meets the eye.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the GREAT RESET. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. The International Health Regulations are legally binding. The media is paid off. The virus was never isolated, PCR tests are a fraud, as are forced masks, social bubbles, and 2m distancing.

2. Important Links

Capital Hill Group Lobbying Federal Government
Office Of The Lobbying Commissioner Of Canada
Erin Iverson OF CHG Lobbying B.C. For G4S
Lobbying Registry Of Ontario
David Angus’ Capital Hill Group Profile
https://archive.is/pCiAn
David Angus’ LinkedIN Profile
Ken Stewart’s Capital Hill Group Profile
https://archive.is/XgqxP
Ken Stewart’s LinkedIn Profile
Aaron Scheewe’s Capital Hill Group Profile
https://archive.is/Vr37H
Nathan Scheewe’s Capital Hill Group Profile
Nathan Scheewe’s LinkedIn Profile
Erin Iverson’s Capital Hill Group Profile
Erin Iverson’s LinkedIn Profile
Matthew Conway’s Capital Hill Group Profile
https://archive.is/fOcZx
Matthew Conway’s LinkedIn Profiles
Tara Beauport’s Capital Hill Group Profile
https://archive.is/maToe
Tara Beauport’s LinkedIn Profile
Jonathan Ballingall’s Capital Hill Group Profile
https://archive.is/RYxUB
Jonathan Ballingall’s LinkedIn Profiled
Jonathan Ballingall Lobbied For China Construction Bank
https://canadaproud.org/
https://ontarioproud.ca/
Dennis Burnside’s Capital Hill Group Profile
https://archive.is/UHMDv
G4S Bought By Allied Universal
Blackstone Group Acquires Allied In 2008

3. CHG Lobbying Ottawa For G4S

The President of CHG, David Angus, worked in the Prime Minister’s Office when Brian Mulroney was PM. Admittedly, this is rather strange. G4S has 24 registrations filed with the Office of the Lobbying Registry since 2015, but has made only 1 communication with public officials in that time? Right….

4. CHG Lobbying Ontario For G4S

It seems that Capital Hill Group has been lobbying Ontario for work as well. Currently, Ontario is run by Doug Ford. This man calls himself a “conservative”, despite stripping people of their livelihoods.

5. CHG Lobbying British Columbia For G4S

Yes, this dates back to March, but Erin Iverson did meet with officials in B.C., on behalf of G4S. The company “is a major provider of security services in Canada and around the world”.

6. David Angus, CHG President

Prior to joining CHG, David was the caucus liaison to former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, and served as a ministerial staffer in the Ontario Progressive Conservative government of Bill Davis. He has extensive expertise in procurement, defence, health and transport policy, and has consistently delivered results to clients in these areas.

At CHG, David has nurtured lasting relationships within federal, provincial and municipal governments. His government relations expertise has received public recognition in various publications including the North American Directory of “Who’s Who”, The Hill Times, and the Toronto Star.

David Angus, the President of Capital Hill Group, has extensive political ties both in Ontario, and Federally.

7. Ken Stewart, CHG Senior Consultant

Business and politics have been the cornerstone of Ken’s career for over 40 years. Ken got his start by answering mail in Pierre Trudeau’s office. He then went on to play a key communications role in the Trudeau Government’s “6&5” anti-inflation campaign under Finance Minister Marc Lalonde, and, later, travelled to every Ontario town, village and hamlet as Special Assistant to Ontario Premier David Peterson.

In 2003, as Director of Sales for Advanced Utility Systems Corporation, a highly successful software firm in Canadian and U.S. energy markets, he built upon his earlier career successes and continued to accumulate substantial sales achievements. He then returned to Queen’s Park as Chief of Staff to the Minister of Education in 2006, where he was responsible for staffing, briefings and stakeholder relations.

Based in CHG’s Toronto office since 2007, Ken leads a highly successful lobbying practice where his business and politics experience has guided clients through regulatory, legislative and procurement challenges. His insight and perspective into technology and government sales markets have earned him an outstanding reputation as one of Ontario’s top procurement lobbyists.

Stewart has extensive connections to Liberals, both Provincially and Federally. That these ties date back to the eighties.

8. Aaron Scheewe, CHG Managing Director

Aaron spent over a decade in Ottawa working in Parliament, holding senior positions within the offices of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, former Prime Minister of Canada and several of his Cabinet colleagues including the Honourable John Baird, the Honourable Tony Clement and the Honourable Gary Goodyear.

During his time in Ottawa Aaron to contributed to key government files including the significant international crises in Afghanistan (2008/09), Libya and Syria (2011/12), helping to manage large pockets of stimulus funding under Canada’s Economic Development Action Plan (2009-11) and setting-up the first suite of programs for the billion-dollar Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario. Aaron also helped the government become more streamlined in its processes by playing a key part in the Deficit Reduction Action Plan that saw billions in ongoing savings during the Conservative Party of Canada?s 2011-15 majority government.

Aaron Scheewe has long and extensive ties to the Conservative Party of Canada. He has actually been part of Harper’s Government.

9. Nathan Scheewe, CHG Senior Consultant

His extensive public sector experience includes working as a political staffer in Ottawa, where he held key senior positions within multiple Cabinet Ministers’ offices. He has a strong understanding of the legislative and regulatory processes. Nathan has also worked within the bureaucracy of the Ontario government and has a solid understanding of the important relationship between a Minister’s office and the department.

In addition to his public sector experience, Nathan served as the Manager, Government Relations for Alectra Utilities Corporation – the largest municipally owned utility in Ontario – where he managed a robust team and established and maintained positive and productive relationships with elected officials within the municipalities of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, and key political staff at Queen’s Park. During his time there, Nathan made significant contributions that helped drive the successful merger of Alectra Utilities and Guelph Hydro.

More and more political connections.
Are we starting to see a pattern here?

10. Erin Iverson, CHG Managing Director

With over 15 years of experience in federal politics, Erin brings an innate ability for relationship building and a superior understanding of the inner workings of government, issues management, parliamentary affairs and strategic communications.

During her time spent on Parliament Hill, Erin held senior positions within the Government including the Prime Minister’s Office, and the offices of the Minister of Transport, and Minister of Labour. Erin has also worked in opposition politics and is no stranger to both minority and majority government scenarios.

As a political strategist, Erin has worked on numerous federal election campaigns both from the CPC War Room and on local campaigns; and, also had the opportunity to serve as the Executive Assistant to the Right Honourable Stephen Harper’s transition team. Throughout her career, Erin has been known for her ability to make connections and provide sound advice on a wide variety of issues.

Over 15 years in Federal politics, with the Conservative Party, and its predecessor, the Canadian Alliance. How’s that for a dated reference?

11. Matthew Conway, CHG Senior Consultant

As a Government of Quebec consultant, Matthew has over a decade of experience in the public sector. He has served as an advisor to several Ministers, including the Honourable Caroline Mulroney, Honourable Tony Clement, Honourable James Moore, Honourable Jean-Pierre Blackburn, and the Honourable Senator Claude Carignan.

During his time at Queen’s Park, Matthew led Francophone Affairs for Minister Mulroney including reaching a deal with the Government of Canada for the joint financing of a French Language University in Toronto, helping develop the framework for an upcoming Francophone Economic Development Plan and led the preparations for the modernization of the upcoming French Language Services Act.

During his time in Ottawa, Matthew served as Press Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, Tony Clement, handling day to day media relations and highly sensitive issues. He also served as a policy advisor as well as a legal and political researcher to the Honourable Senator Claude Carignan during his term as Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Conway’s profile speaks for itself. Numerous connections to the Federal House of Commons, the Senate, the Ontario and Quebec Legislatures as well.

12. Tara Beauport, CHG Associate Consultant

Tara is a bilingual young professional who brings a diverse range of experience working within the Government, politics, and national associations. She began her career working as a coordinator at the Liberal Party of Canada’s HQ in Ottawa. While there, she developed a deep understanding of issues management, volunteer engagement, and public outreach.

With a little over 5 years of experience, Tara has thrived in creating lasting, positive connections in her roles. During her time in Government, she worked at the Privy Council Office on the Clerk’s Communications team, providing strategic communications support and social media expertise during the transition period of PCO Clerk Mr. Michael Wernick and Deputy Clerk Ms. Catherine Blewett.

She also worked within the agricultural sector at Egg Farmers of Canada, serving as a Public Relations Intern and providing instrumental support on a variety of public outreach and government relations events like the Downtown Diner and Breakfast on the Hill. Tara joins the CHG Ottawa team after working as an Outreach Coordinator at MP Catherine McKenna’s community office, having coordinated meetings for MP McKenna with local stakeholders and constituents as well as providing communications and event management support.

Beauport has ties to the Liberal Party of Canada, Catherin McKenna more specifically, and to Michael Wernick of the Privy Council.

13. Jonathan Ballingall, CHG Consultant

In 2013, Jonathan Ballingall, as a member of the Office of the Minister of Foreign Trade, was lobbied to set up a Canadian Branch of the China Construction Bank.

Is he related to Jeff Ballingall of Canada Proud and Ontario Proud? Those groups helped install Erin O’Toole and Doug Ford to their current positions. Or is this just a bizarre coincidence?

14. Dennis Burnside, CHG Senior Consultant

Dennis is an experienced political strategist and public policy expert who leverages more than a decade of experience gained in previous roles within federal and provincial governments to provide strategic advice and targeted engagement strategies to clients.

Prior to joining CHG, Dennis worked as the senior political advisor to the Minister of Indigenous and Municipal Relations in the Government of Manitoba, before assuming a position as a Project Manager at the Priorities and Planning Secretariat of Cabinet where he helped usher major government priorities from the policy development phase through to implementation.

Dennis also worked as a political strategist on Parliament Hill, serving elected officials in a variety of areas including committee preparation and management, legislative development, research, strategic communications and community-level engagement.

He has served in variety of election campaign roles as well, including as a campaign manager, at both the provincial and federal levels in Manitoba, Alberta, and Ontario.

Interestingly, G4S Security “isn’t” listed in the Manitoba Lobbying Registry, but was still able to land a bid back in November. However, this may explain it, as Dennis Burnside has held roles within the Manitoba Government. Perhaps he decided to call in a favour?! He has also worked for Alberta, Ontario, and Federally.

15. G4S Acquired By Allied Universal/Blackstone

Some developments on G4S Security itself: On December 8, 2020, it was announced that Allied Universal (a U.S. company) would be purchasing G4S (a British Company). Allied itself was bought out by the Blackstone Group in 2008. Blackstone is a very large investment firm based out of New York. Without going into too much detail, it’s a huge.

The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney
Former Prime Minister of Canada
.
The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney is a member of the board of directors of Blackstone. Mr. Mulroney is a senior partner and international business consultant for the Montreal law firm, Ogilvy Renault LLP/ S.E.N.C.R.C., s.r.l.
.
Prior to joining Ogilvy Renault, Mr. Mulroney was the eighteenth Prime Minister of Canada from 1984 to 1993 and leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada from 1983 and 1993. He served as the Executive Vice President of the Iron Ore Company of Canada and President beginning in 1977. Prior to that, Mr. Mulroney served on the Clich’e Commission of Inquiry in 1974.
.
Mr. Mulroney is a member of the Board of Directors of Archer Daniels Midland Company, Barrick Gold Corporation, Quebecor Inc., Quebecor World Inc., the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation and Wyndham Worldwide Corporation.

As an added bonus, Brian Mulroney, the former Prime Minister of Canada, is on the Board of Directors of Blackstone Group.

16. What Does This Mean For Canada?

The Blackstone Group (through Allied Universal) owns G4S, the company that Brian Pallister hired to police parts of Manitoba. This was “in the name of safety”, of course. What if Pallister decides that G4S needs to detain and imprison people — which they have done professionally? What if they run intelligence and surveillance on Manitobans? See the previous piece.

Depending on how aggressive the lobbying is, more parts of Canada could end up like this. But hey, it’s all about fighting a virus, right?

Scary times.