Category: Property Rights

Posted on

Bills C-398/C-399: The “Right” Of Homeless Encampments, And Immigration “Equity”

Just before Parliament took its Summer recess in 2024, NDP Member of Parliament, Jenny Kwan, introduced 2 Private Member’s Bills: C-398 and C-399.

Both are in the introductory stage in the House of Commons. While Private Bills don’t commonly become law, there’s always the possibility they will. There’s also the prospect that the contents will simply be incorporated into a larger, Government Bill.

Starting with Bill C-398, it would create the “right” to set up homeless encampments on Federal land. It would amend the National Housing Strategy Act in several places. Authorities would be prevented from blocking them, or shutting them down. And for reference:

Homeless encampment means an outdoor settlement of one or more temporary structures, such as tents, vehicles or other structures that are not designed or intended for permanent human habitation but that one or more persons experiencing homelessness use as their residence.‍ (campement d’itinérants).

(e) establish measures to prevent the removal of homeless encampments on federal land and to identify alternatives to homeless encampments following meaningful engagement with their residents; and

(f) provide for processes to ensure that Indigenous peoples are actively involved and supported in determining and developing culturally appropriate housing-related programs and that responses to homeless encampments respect their rights.

Bill C-398 does talk about “identifying alternatives to homeless encampments”. Presumably this means providing people with low or no-cost housing. Interestingly, there’s nothing in the legislation that says it will only apply to Canadian citizens, or permanent residents, or landed immigrants.

Logically, anyone who entered the country illegally, who who overstayed their visa, would be entitled to the same protections.

Mandate
10 (1) The mandate of the Ombud is to examine the practices of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to ensure that they are fair, equitable, unbiased, non-racist and non-discriminatory, and to conduct investigations if the Ombud has reasonable grounds to believe that a person or group of persons has been the victim of unfairness, inequity, bias, racism or discrimination — including systemic racism and systemic discrimination — in the Department’s decision-making process.

Duties and functions
(2) The Ombud’s duties and functions include
(a) reviewing the Department of Citizenship and Immigration’s policies, programs, initiatives, training procedures and processing standards to identify fairness or equity problems in the Department’s administration of the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, including those resulting from biases and discrimination — including systemic racism and systemic discrimination;
(b) receiving and, if appropriate, investigating complaints, including complaints about the problems referred to in paragraph (a);
(c) monitoring trends and patterns in complaints in order to identify the problems referred to in paragraph (a); and
(d) making recommendations to the Minister regarding any unfairness, inequity, bias or discrimination — including systemic racism and systemic discrimination — that the Ombud identifies.

Kwan wants to create an ombudsman to ensure that “equitable” policies and practices are being implemented by the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration. She also wants that ombudsman to make recommendations to the Minister in order to help this along.

Now, while the connection may seem tenuous, consider this:

The New Democrats and experts agree that the problem on orderly crossings is the safe third country agreement. For over a year now, I have been calling on the government to invoke article 10 of the safe third country agreement and to provide written notice to the United States that we are suspending the agreement.

If the safe third country agreement is suspended, asylum seekers can make safe, orderly crossings at designated ports of entry. This will protect the rights of the asylum seekers, provide safety and stability to Canada’s border communities most impacted by this influx, and allow for the government agencies, such as the RCMP, CBSA, IRCC, and the IRB, to strategically deploy personnel and resources necessary to establish border infrastructure instead of this ad hoc approach. This is the rational, reasonable response to this situation.

Back in April 2018, Kwan posted on her website that she had been calling on the Trudeau Government to suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement. The reason for doing this is so that people entering from the United States — to claim asylum — could simply stroll into any official port of entry.

In November 2018, Kwan called for the Safe Third Country Agreement to be suspended, claiming that the U.S. (under Donald Trump) wasn’t a “safe country”.

In March 2020, she wrote to Trudeau and Freeland, protesting that illegals trying to cross from the U.S. were being turned back.

Taken together, what does this all mean?

It means that Kwan, who is pro-open borders, supports having illegals come in from the U.S., and presumably elsewhere as well. On one hand, she introduces Bill C-398, which entrenches the “right” of people to set up encampments on Federal land. On the other, she has Bill C-399, which creates and ombudsman to ensure that “equitable” immigration policies are enforced, and to make recommendations to the Minister.

Will taxpayer funded “housing for illegals” become a human right?

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-398
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/jenny-kwan(89346)
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-398/first-reading
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-11.2/FullText.html
(5) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/44-1/C-399
(6) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-399/first-reading
(7) https://www.jennykwanndp.ca/on_irregular_border_crossings
(8) https://www.jennykwanndp.ca/emergency_study_on_irregular_border_crossings
(9) https://www.jennykwanndp.ca/open_letter_to_deputy_prime_minister_on_border_restriction

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(1) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(2) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(3) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(4) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(5) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(6) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(7) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(8) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(9) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(10.1) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(10.2) Bill C-293: Concerns Raised In Hearings Over Food Supplies
(11) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(12) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(13) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(14) Bill C-373: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism 2.0
(15) Bill C-388: Fast Tracking Weapons, Energy, Gas To Ukraine
(16) Bill C-390: Expanding Euthanasia Into PROVINCIAL Frameworks
(17) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(18) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(19) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(20) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights
(21) Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

Posted on

Diagolon Gun Grab, Part 4: Caselaw Makes It Surprisingly Easy To Do

This continues the series on the “meme group” Diagolon, and the threat that it poses to gun ownership in Canada. Part 1 focused on the ruling of Gary Schill, which saw his privileges suspended for 5 years. Part 2 and Part 3 covered the testimony given by Detective Constable Ernest Carmichael.

The short version is that an Ontario Judge decided it was in the public interest to suspend Schill’s licence because of what he might do. This wasn’t because of a criminal conviction, or ties to terrorism or sedition. He was an administrator of the Diagolon Telegrams, and his posting came to police attention.

Yes, he was arrested for assault, and it was dropped. But it was the content he had posted online, his associations, his views, and making ammunition at home which led to the ban.

The hearsay evidence of his then-wife was also considered at the hearing, despite her not testifying at all. She had told police that a militia was being formed.

Now, how easy is it to suspend or revoke gun rights (or privileges) in Canada? Looking at the cases cited in the Schill decision, it’s actually pretty straightforward. Cases cited are listed at the bottom of the article, although not all are available on CanLII.

Starting with the Supreme Court of Canada:

(1) R. v. Wiles, 2005 SCC 84 (CanLII), [2005] 3 SCR 895

[9] I agree with the Court of Appeal. Mr. Wiles has not established that the imposition of the mandatory weapons prohibition orders constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. As noted by the Court of Appeal, the prohibition has a legitimate connection to s. 7 offences. The mandatory prohibition relates to a recognized sentencing goal — the protection of the public, and in particular, the protection of police officers engaged in the enforcement of drug offences. The state interest in reducing the misuse of weapons is valid and important. The sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to the fact that possession and use of firearms is not a right or freedom guaranteed under the Charter, but a privilege. It is also a heavily regulated activity, requiring potential gun-owners to obtain a licence before they can legally purchase one. In Reference re Firearms Act (Can.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783, 2000 SCC 31, this Court held that requiring the licensing and registration of firearms was a valid exercise of the federal criminal law power. If Parliament can legitimately impose restrictions on the possession of firearms by general legislation that applies to all, it follows that it can prohibit their possession upon conviction of certain criminal offences where it deems it in the public interest to do so. It is sufficient that Mr. Wiles falls within a category of offenders targeted for the risk that they may pose. The sentencing judge’s insistence upon specific violence, actual or apprehended, in relation to the particular offence and the individual offender takes too narrow a view of the rationale underlying the mandatory weapons prohibition orders.

To state the obvious: the above case dealt with a mandatory prohibition following a criminal conviction, whereas Schill had his charge dropped. So there is a difference.

Nonetheless, there are strong parallels in the reasoning. The Supreme Court ruled that owning firearms is not a right, but a privilege. There’s a valid principle of public safety at stake, and Parliament has the right to regulate firearm use and possession. Now, many people would take issue with this, but that is what was said.

By stating the firearm ownership is a privilege and not a right, it means there will always be the possibility of having them seized.

(2) R. v. Zeolkowski, 1989 CanLII 72 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 1378

A police officer made application in provincial court, pursuant to s. 98(4) of the Criminal Code, for an order prohibiting respondent from possessing any firearms or ammunition or explosive substances. Prior to the calling of any evidence, counsel for the respondent requested a general ruling as to the admission of hearsay evidence. The “custom” in Manitoba provincial courts had been to permit hearsay testimony at hearings on applications for a firearm prohibition. When the judge ruled that evidence at a firearm prohibition hearing was to be limited to what would be admissible at a criminal trial, counsel for the Crown, who had intended to rely on hearsay evidence as to threats made by respondent, called no evidence and the application was dismissed. The ruling as to admissibility was upheld on appeal by the Crown, first by the Court of Queen’s Bench, and then by a majority of the Court of Appeal.

However, the Supreme Court would decide otherwise and allow the Appeal.

Hearsay evidence is admissible at a firearm prohibition hearing under s. 98(6) unless such a result is precluded by the words “all relevant evidence”. The provincial court judge’s role in such hearings is to confirm the existence of the reasonable grounds which led the peace officer to launch the application, as proved on a balance of probabilities. It was not intended that the provincial court judge strictly apply the rules of evidence.

The expression “all relevant evidence” means all facts which are logically probative of the issue. The rules of evidence as to admissibility signify that the fact is relevant and that it satisfies auxiliary tests and extrinsic policies. Parliament, by using the phrase “all relevant evidence”, required only that the evidence at the firearm prohibition hearing be relevant; it did not address the question of exclusionary rules. The effect of the exclusionary rules is left to the provincial court judge as part of the whole body of evidence on which the provincial court judge determines whether reasonable grounds exist. Frailties in the evidence are a matter of weight.

When an Application is filed to revoke someone’s guns and licence, the standards are nowhere near as stringent as in a criminal trial. Yes, the basis for the Application is based on the Criminal Code of Canada, but it follows different rules.

Specifically, the standard of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” has been replaced by “on the balance of probabilities”, which would be the civil test. Additionally, hearsay evidence which would typically be excluded in criminal cases is permitted here, but with the Judge typically giving less weight to it.

This is a 1989 case, so it’s been around for a very long time.

(3) B.C. (Chief Firearms Officer) v. Fahlman, 2004 BCCA 343 (CanLII)

[25] I read s. 5 differently. Section 5(1) creates a broad safety standard for eligibility to hold a firearms licence or to continue to hold one following a revocation inquiry. Section 5(2) requires a firearms officer or a Provincial Court judge on a reference to “have regard to” certain conduct by the applicant or licence holder. I do not read s. 5(2) as being exhaustive of the matters to be considered as affecting safety concerns under s. 5(1). There are many other things a firearms officer or a judge might consider that do not fit into s. 5(2) and that might logically and reasonably give rise to valid safety concerns. I agree with the appellant’s submission that there is no statutory obligation to decide the safety issue in favour of the applicant or licence holder when none of the criteria in s. 5(2) is present; and that there is no obligation to refuse a licence or order a revocation if one or more of those criteria are present. A plain reading of the section by itself evinces no such intention by Parliament. The firearms officer and the judge are entitled to consider anything about the background or conduct of the applicant or licence holder that is relevant to public safety.

The Court of Appeal for British Columbia had held that the Firearms Officer and the Judge are allowed to consider anything about the licence holder. The only question is whether their decisions are seen as “reasonable”.

(4) R. v. Christiansen, 2006 BCCA 189 (CanLII)

[7] After reviewing these statutory provisions and the authorities cited on this appeal (other than Fahlman, which supports his reasoning and conclusion), the appeal court judge found (at paras. 35 – 37) that s. 111 of the Code does not “exclusively deal with behaviour that could be characterized as involving criminal conduct or acts of violence against others.” Nor do the three criteria set out in the Firearms Act operate as “exhaustive criteria” for the application of s. 5 of that Act. Thus, a provincial court judge conducting a hearing under s. 111 of the Code is not confined to a determination of whether the three criteria set out in s. 5(2) of the Firearms Act are met in order to impose a prohibition. He concluded that the provincial court judge had made no error “in holding that there can be a firearms prohibition without criminal conduct, a history of real or threatened violent behaviour or a documented mental disorder that leads to violence.”

This is also from the Court of Appeal for British Columbia. Firearms prohibitions can happen even without a history of violent behaviour or a documented mental disorder. It’s very subjective.

(5) R. v. Hurrell, 2002 CanLII 45007 (ON CA)

[48] Applying that reasoning to this case, I am satisfied that when the words “not desirable”, which in my view simply mean “not advisable”, are read in context, they can hardly be described as so subjective, vague and amorphous that they fail to provide an adequate basis for legal debate. The fact that language may be open to judicial interpretation does not render it impermissibly vague. Flexibility and vagueness are not synonymous: see Reference re Criminal Code, Sections 193 & 195.1(1)(c), 1990 CanLII 105 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123 at p. 1156, 56 C.C.C. (3d) 65 at p. 89 and French Estate v. Ontario (Attorney General) (1998), 1998 CanLII 1771 (ON CA), 38 O.R. (3d) 347 at p. 361, 157 D.L.R. (4th) 144 (C.A.); application for leave to appeal dismissed, [1998] S.C.C.A. No. 139). Moreover, because s. 117.04(1) is procedural and does not carry with it the threat of a criminal record or imprisonment, the need for precision is diminished: see French, supra, at p. 363 O.R. Finally, to the extent that the police or the issuing justice need a framework within which to assess the “non-desirability/public interest” component of s. 117.04(1), Parliament itself has provided guidance in ss. 5(1) and (2) of the Firearms Act, S.C. 1995, c. 39. These provisions deal with the eligibility for holding a firearms licence and read as follows:

The Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled that the language used was not unconstitutionally vague. The Court does go on to explain what examples are provided, but they are not exhaustive.

These are just a few of the cases that were used as a basis to have Schill’s guns taken away. The list is provided below, though some rulings aren’t published online. The short version of this is that it can happen for nearly any reason, hearsay evidence may be used, and it’s a low burden of proof.

Schill may be the first person to have his firearms taken away because of his “association” with Jeremy MacKenzie and Diagolon. But he won’t be the last.

Next up: the Public Emergency Order Commission (PEOC) hearings.

SCHILL HEARING:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2024/2024oncj249/2024oncj249.html
(2) Evidence Of Officer Ernest Carmichael, Day 1
(3) Evidence Of Officer Ernest Carmichael, Day 2, Cross Examination

POEC HEARINGS:
(1) https://publicorderemergencycommission.ca/
(2) POEC Report, Volume 1: Overview
(3) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 1 Overview
(4) POEC Report, Volume 2: Analysis (Part 1)
(5) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 2 Analysis Part 1
(6) POEC Report, Volume 3: Analysis (Part 2)
(7) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 3 Analysis Part 2 Recommendations
(8) POEC Report, Volume 4: Process and Appendices
(9) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 4 Process And Appendices
(10) POEC Report, Part 5: Policy Papers
(11) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 5 Policy Papers

MOSLEY DECISION:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2024/2024fc42/2024fc42.html#par41

CASELAW ON REVOKING FIREARMS PERMITS:
(1) R. v. Zeolkowski, 1989 CanLII 72 (SCC), [1989] S.C.J. No. 50, at para 12, 16, 17, 18
(2) British Columbia (Chief Firearms Officer) v. Fahlman, 2004 BCCA 343, at para 25.
(3) R. v. Christiansen, 2006 BCCA 189, at para 7.
(4) R. v. Bokhari, 2009 ONCJ 691, at para 10, relying on R. v. Day, [2006] O.J. No. 3187 (S.C.J.) and R. v. Morgan, [1995] O.J. No. 18 (Ont.Ct.(Prov.Div.)).
(5) R. v. Peacock-McDonald, 2007 ONCA 128, at para 40
(6) R. v. Douglas, 2013 ONCJ 649, at paras 45, 57.
(7) R. v. Mourtzis, 2015 ONCJ 74, at para 25.
(8) R. v. Roman, 2018 ONCJ 344, at para 89.
(9) R. v. Hurrell, 2002 CanLII 45007 (ON CA), [2002] O.J. No. 2819, at para 48.
(10) R. v. Christiansen, supra, at para 7.
(11) Fahlman, supra, at para 25.
(12) R. v. Peacock-Macdonald, supra, at para 40.
(13) R. v. Roman, supra, at para 89.
(14) R. v. Wiles, 2005 SCC 84, at para 9.

Posted on

Diagolon Gun Grab, Part 2: The Carmichael Testimony

This continues the series on “Diagolon”, and the consequences that have resulted from this group. The last article focused on the ruling of Justice Robinson, who suspended Gary Schill’s firearms licence and weapons for a period of 5 years. Schill was a former administrator of the Diagolon podcast.

This doesn’t just automatically happen. A police officer brings an Application under Section 111 of the Criminal Code to ask a Judge to suspend someone’s rights. This isn’t as formal as a Trial, and the proof standards aren’t anywhere near as high.

Now, what was said during the hearing?

Fortunately, a redacted version of the Day 1 and Day 2 transcripts were published. The redactions appear to have been done to remove the name of Schill’s ex-wife. Yes, it’s from Antihate, but still worth a read.

Schill was represented by an Amicus Curiae. This is someone who isn’t a party, but is allowed to assist and make submissions for parties. Think of them as “duty-counsel”. They can be common for self-represented litigants and accused persons.

Ernest Carmichael is a detective constable with York Regional Police Service. He testified that he had been with the Tactical Intelligence Unit for 5 years. He went on to explain what had he and his group had been doing lately.

He testified that there had been a complaint that a member of the York Regional Police had publicly associated himself with Jeremy MacKenzie and Diagolon. That person is apparently no longer part of the force. It’s implied (though not explicitly stated) that the association cost him his position.

It paints a disturbing picture for many reasons.

First, the standard of proof needed to revoke a firearms licence is surprisingly low. Even though this is based in the Criminal Code, there’s no “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” needed. Far from it. “Balance of probabilities” is what’s important here.

Second, the rules of evidence are also much more lax, including hearsay evidence that should otherwise be prohibited. This included and Affidavit from Detective Constable Dimitri Kritsotakis, submitted, despite him not appearing. Carmichael is given wide latitude to speculate on matters.

Third, it’s explained here just how heavily surveilled podcasts and social media sites are. Without speaking to a single witness, this police officer was able to get a warrant to seize electronic devices.

Fourth, freedom of association — a protected right — seems meaningless when someone can lose their job because of who they interact with. Unfortunately, the circumstances here are not explained. The officer is not named, nor is his exact fate spelled out.

Fifth, it shows just how clueless and out-of-touch MacKenzie’s followers are with reality. They are oblivious to the basic facts. The Emergencies Act wasn’t declared because of a “meme”, and people weren’t exonerated due to some “Hate Gate emails”.

The above is from page 8. No actual interviews had to be conducted. The information obtained online was sufficient, which should really scare people.

Carmichael goes on to testify that he came across a video MacKenzie posted, just before receiving the formal complaint. He describes the “Raging Dissident persona” as this: He sells anger, really, on his podcast. He’s often vehemently anti-government, anti-authority. So by virtue of that, his following tends to be of the same vein.

Carmichael testifies that he had been monitoring “these channels” for the better part of 2 years. While it implies he refers to Diagolon channels, it could mean others as well. Then there’s this on page 14:

Yeah. The majority of the content was – especially considering the time, it was very anti-COVID, anti-vaccine, anti-government material. There was a lot of conspiracy theory material in that. There was a lot of what I would define as White nationalists, White supremacy ideology existing within that space. There was also a lot of what I would define as militia-type discussions. There was a lot of talk of acquiring weaponry, body armour, ammunition, planning meet-ups, organizing community events, and then also articulating the purpose of these events beyond simply….

This is getting to the heart of it. Carmichael alleges that there’s more than just racist and anti-authoritarian posting done here. Conversations also involved firearms, body armour and meet-ups.

“The Day Of The Rope” and “The Turner Diaries” are both cited as well.

Carmichael testifies that not only was he observing and documenting conversations about guns and meetings, but that meetings themselves were surveilled.

Carmichael does go on about the backstory of the name “Diagolon”. Specifically, that it was based on the idea of a fictional country made up of the more sane and stable Provinces and U.S. States. That detail is agreed on by everyone.

However, Carmichael states (or opines?) that it became more of a separatist movement.

Carmichael also explains how he identified Schill, and it’s pretty stupid. He used his real name, real photo, and dropped details about the region he was living in. From there, a simple background check from a prior arrest revealed everything else.

Yes. So Mr. Schill made a number of statements that caused concern for us. With these statements, he was also promoting the fact that he was a firearms fanatic; he was involved in reloading within his garage, which means taking – basically, building bullets himself rather than commercially purchasing them…

…and producing a large amount of ammunition in his private residence. So this, like, compounded with the rhetoric, plus what we already understood about Diagolon raised our concerns related to public safety.

So I’ll, I’ll expand on some of the conversation pieces that we observed, but as an example, for – some of the messaging that Jeremy MacKenzie provided his, his members, I can read some of the messaging that was included on his podcast that would have been re-shared in the Telegram channels. He stated – during a podcast, there was a ticker tape, similar to what you would see on maybe CP24 that would scroll across the screen. And the banner stated:

Mentally prepare yourself for the hardest decade of your life. Your children need you to reject the system in its entirety. It isn’t for you. It is for your enemy, and it seeks to subvert, subjugate, and destroy you. You either pro-human freedom or you are not. One of those choices makes you our mortal enemy. Death to Circulon. We all just wanted to be left alone. You want blood. We got what you want. Come and get it. Fuck you, make me.

So that was some of the rhetoric that Jeremy MacKenzie was, was pumping out to his followers, who would then re-share it on the Telegram channel. So on the heels of a statement like that his members would then begin organizing in-person meetings. They would discuss what the purpose of these meetings would be. It was almost always around planning. I can quote, “bush craft, survival training, firearms training.” In fact, I can recall a conversation that involved Mr. Schill where they were discussing shooting and firearm training, but then Mr. Schill had stated something to the effect of, “Well, I don’t want to just go shoot. I’d like smaller groups. And I want to shoot with a purpose.” I interpreted that to mean they didn’t want to just go target shooting on a range. They wanted to apply practical skills to their shooting, similar to what you’d see the military or law enforcement trained to do.

It would be interesting to know — though it’s not expanded on — is whether this is just conversations being recorded, or whether the police (or CSIS) have actually gone to these meets.

Carmichael goes on (page 29) about conversations that happened about body armour, and what some good choices were. This is largely opinion, but he implies that it was directed for non-civilian use.

Because when compounded with the information we’d already had, and now it was quite clear that they were starting to develop their in-person meetings to include shooting and what we had interpreted as militia-type training, our concern was strictly public safety and whether we had a private militia forming within the region.

Keep in mind, this is a hearing over a gun licence, not a criminal trial. While most of this testimony wouldn’t have been permitted in other settings, it is here.

Carmichael then gets into the topic of Schill’s arrest for assault causing bodily harm, along with the arrest of his (now) ex-wife. Electronic devices were seized during a search. Schill had 3 guns, all legally owned and safely stored. However, he had ammunition which didn’t appear to fit any of them.

The hearing continued the next day, and more on that.

If there is one takeaway here, it’s that the police are arguing that Diagolon is more than just edgy podcasting, racism, and memes. Carmichael is trying to convince the Judge that it’s an actual group and a threat to the public. He’s trying to show that this is an extremist group with a violent agenda.

People reading this transcript may — reasonably — think that it’s full of speculation, innuendo and hearsay. And they’d be right. However, this isn’t a criminal charge, and the standard is much, MUCH lower.

The Public Emergency Order Commission (PEOC) Report and Mosley decision have laid the groundwork for what’s coming. Followers of “Diagolon” really have no clue what’s been going on. This case is the first of what will likely be many gun seizures.

SCHILL HEARING:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2024/2024oncj249/2024oncj249.html
(2) Evidence Of Officer Ernest Carmichael, Day 1
(3) Evidence Of Officer Ernest Carmichael, Day 2, Cross Examination

POEC HEARINGS:
(1) https://publicorderemergencycommission.ca/
(2) POEC Report, Volume 1: Overview
(3) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 1 Overview
(4) POEC Report, Volume 2: Analysis (Part 1)
(5) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 2 Analysis Part 1
(6) POEC Report, Volume 3: Analysis (Part 2)
(7) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 3 Analysis Part 2 Recommendations
(8) POEC Report, Volume 4: Process and Appendices
(9) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 4 Process And Appendices
(10) POEC Report, Part 5: Policy Papers
(11) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 5 Policy Papers

MOSLEY DECISION:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2024/2024fc42/2024fc42.html#par41

Posted on

Diagolon Gun Grab, Part 1: The Schill Decision

A few months ago, an Ontario Court Judge suspended the firearms permit of a man deemed to be a threat to the public. This came despite him being convicted of no crime. Gary Schill is prohibited from owning any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance for 5 years.

The reasoning of Justice Robinson rested largely — though not entirely — on his association with the “meme” group Diagolon, and its leader, Jeremy MacKenzie. The testimony itself as available in the transcripts linked below.

As an aside, yes, his name is misspelled throughout the ruling.

Part 2 of the series will focus on the testimony that was used.

For some background, Schill was arrested back in April 2022, along with his then-wife, Jennifer McNeil. Both faced domestic violence charges, but with his being the more serious. Charges against them were eventually dropped.

McNeil told the police that Schill: (a) was a member of Diagolon; (b) was a stream moderator; and (c) was recruiting ex-military members for the purpose of building a militia.

Following this, York Regional Police went to the Court for the purpose of pre-emptively getting a firearms prohibition against Schill. This came despite the fact that the charge against him had been dropped.

It’s worth noting that it’s not alleged that Schill ever engaged in any terrorist behaviour, or committed any ideologically motivated violence. However, the Judge thought that there were valid concerns that he might endanger the public.

This will probably come as a surprise to Diagolon supporters, who seem to be under the mistaken belief that the group was supposedly cleared with the “HateGate” revelations. Diagolon, after all, was based on a joke of a new country made up of the “sane” Provinces and States, going from Alaska to Florida.

But no such exoneration ever happened.

Paul S. Rouleau, head of Public Emergency Order Commission (PEOC) made it clear he views the group as a militia-like network. Members of CSIS, the RCMP and OPP all testified about their concerns.

There’s also the false claim going around that panic over this “meme country” was responsible for having the state of emergency declared in the first place. That also isn’t true. While MacKenzie and Diagolon were cited as concerns, there was a lot more going on.

Anyhow, more on that in a later piece. As for Schill:

[5] The entirety of the Crown’s case came through the evidence of D.C. Carmichael, a police officer with York Regional Police’s Tactical Intelligence Unit, a unit tasked with investigating terrorism, extremism and subversive groups.

Diagolon, Jeremy McKenzie and Mr. Schill.
[6] In August 2021, the police received a complaint from a member of the public regarding a police officer who was publicly associated with Jeremy McKenzie, a well-known extremist.

[7] Initially, D.C. Carmichael was tasked with conducting a surface level assessment of Mr. McKenzie. He quickly learned that Mr. McKenzie was a prominent podcaster under the name “Raging Dissident” with a large following. His views were vehemently anti-government and anti-authority. Mr. McKenzie was the founder and face of an organization named Diagolon.

[8] D.C. Carmichael identified two Diagolon-related Telegram channels in York region. One was entitled the “North of 7 Community Safe Zone for C-19 Bigots”. The other was “York Region Bigots”, which later became “York Region Purebloods.” D.C. Carmichael was able to join the channels and monitor their activity for approximately two years.

[9] The two York region channels directly referenced Diagolon. Whenever Jeremy McKenzie posted anything or released a podcast, its contents would be shared immediately on the York-region Telegram channels.

[10] The content of the channels was anti-vaccine, anti-government, white nationalist and white supremacy rhetoric. It involved conspiracy theory discussions and talk about assembly a militia by acquiring weaponry and body armour and planning meet-ups.

[11] D.C. Carmichael identified Mr. Schill early on as an active member on the Telegram channels. Unlike others who hid behind aliases, Mr. Schill identified himself by his real name and real photograph.

[12] Mr. McKenzie, the founder of Diagolon, actively promoted “Day of the Rope”, a book about a white supremacist revolution that was based on “The Turner Diaries”, a 1978 neo-nazi novel. The books, described by D.C. Carmichael as the bible of white nationalism, recount a race war that evolves into genocide in which all non-whites, Jews and “race traitors” are lynched.

[13] D.C. Carmichael observed nazi imagery on many of the profile pictures of Diagolon members on Telegram. Their discussions included coordinating meet-ups to engage in shooting and combat-training.

[14] A photograph of one such meet-up [exhibit 1] shows a gathering of 14 individuals performing a Diagolon “salute”. Mr. Schill can be seen saluting under a large Diagolon flag.

[15] As of 28 March 2024, D.C. Carmichael was able to determine through a social media query that Mr. Schill was still following Jeremy McKenzie on Instagram.

[16] There was also evidence that Mr. Schill was in communication with Paolo Scarpelli, a close associate of Jeremy McKenzie’s, to organize Diagolon dinner parties at Mr. Schill’s residence.

Conversations from Telegram were entered into evidence to try to demonstrate that these were not just words, but that Schill (and others) intended to meet up.

According to D.C. Ernest Carmichael, he had been monitoring various Telegram chats for approximately 2 years. This wasn’t anonymous gossip from the Canadian Antihate Network. It was the police actively monitoring group chats. These were used as exhibits.

Not only are the police watching the postings, but they’re checking to see who’s following who. It’s one way to build a “network of association”.

Telegram Chats Going Into Evidence

Posting pictures of guns, ammunition or body armour with the caption “let’s meet up” is a pretty idiotic thing to do. Considering the various topics that are discussed, it’s hard to imagine that it wouldn’t be used to try to incriminate people.

Asking to “take everything to DMs” or direct messages was used by the police to imply that this was intended for illegal purposes. Now, it may all have been perfectly legal and legitimate, but it was used as evidence that it wasn’t.

It’s quite stunning what people post. And the police were able to record everything, without ever needing a warrant.

The Judge also referenced the Coutts blockade, and the arrest of Chris Lysak, whom had been referred to as the “head of security of Diagolon”.

Publishing Evidence On MacKenzie’s Substack

[27] Shortly after Mr. Schill received his disclosure on the domestic charges, excerpts from it were posted on Jeremy McKenzie’s blog on Substack, an online platform.

This is mind-bogglingly stupid. Schill, at the time, was facing a charge of assault causing bodily harm. If the Crown had proceeded by indictment (the more serious option) a conviction even for a first offence would have been serious. It would mean a mandatory 10 year ban on all non-restricted weapons, and a lifetime ban on any restricted or prohibited weapons.

This is, of course, in addition to any jail time, probation or fine that was handed down.

Sharing with someone privately is one thing. But what would cause a person to think that publishing evidence in an open criminal case (with violence alleged) was a good idea?

Quoting The PEOC Report

Report of the Public Inquiry into the 2022 Public Order Emergency
[39] In February 2023, a report was released by the Honourable Paul S. Rouleau, Commissioner of a public Inquiry into the declaration of a Public Order Emergency issued by the federal government in 2022.

[40] The Report noted that “[l]aw enforcement and intelligence agencies view Diagolon as a militia-like extremist organization.”

[41] The Report further found that:
Diagolon may have started as a joke on Mr. McKenzie’s podcast, but it has grown into a larger community. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) has described Diagolon as a militia-like network with members who are armed and prepared for violence. In his testimony, the head of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) Intelligence Bureau described Diagolon as an extremist group… I am satisfied that law enforcement’s concern about Diagolon is genuine and well founded. The fact that a ballistic vest that was seized by the RCMP during the protests in Coutts – along with numerous guns – bore a Diagolon patch suggests as much.

[42] Notwithstanding the findings of the Commission, Mr. Foy points out that Diagolon is not currently listed as a terrorist entity on Public Safety Canada’s list of domestic terrorist groups.

Worth noting: Diagolon is not currently listed as a terrorist group.

Now, one could argue that it was unfair to have the PEOC Report used as a foundation for Justice Robinson here. Sure, it could be viewed as guilt by association. That being said, PEOC was used as a basis to pull Schill’s gun licence.

Assessment Of Risk Of Diagolon, Schill, MacKenzie

[64] The views of Jeremy McKenzie and his creation, Diagolon, can properly be described as anti-government and anti-authority, promoting the assembly of a militia to overthrow or, at the very least, actively resist the government.

[65] Mr. Pearson invites me to make a finding that Diagolon is a “terrorist group” as defined in s.83.01 C.C.. It is unnecessary for me to do so.

[66] Rather, it is sufficient – and permissible – for me to rely on the Commission Report’s findings that Diagolon is a militia-like extremist organization consisting of members who are armed and prepared for violence. I concur with the Commission’s finding that law enforcement’s concern about Diagolon is genuine and well-founded.

[67] Apart from the Commission’s findings, the evidence before me reasonably supports a valid public safety concern about the activities and members of Diagolon.

[68] Viewed cumulatively, there is cogent evidence that situates Mr. Schill in the inner ideological circle of Diagolon and close to its founder, Jeremy McKenzie. There is also cogent evidence of Mr. Schill’s intention to engage in the type of illegal activity espoused by Diagolon. For example:

(a) Mr. Schill’s devices show direct communication between him and Mr. McKenzie;

(b) Mr. Schill remains a follower of Mr. McKenzie on Instagram;

(c) Mr. Schill was an active participant on Telegram’s Diagolon channels based in York Region;

(d) Mr. Schill was observed in attendance at a Diagolon meet-up, where he was photographed giving the Diagolon salute under the Diagolon flag;

(e) Mr. Schill was actively engaged in organizing Diagolon meetings with Paolo Scarpelli, a close associate of Jeremy McKenzie;

(f) Mr. Schill’s wife provided evidence that he was attempting to recruit ex-military members to build a militia;

(g) Mr. Schill’s Telegram posts can reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to organize tactical shooting and combat training outings;

(h) Mr. Schill’s posts about attempting to acquire Level IV body armour and his desire to be “protected against mil spec” suggests active resistance against the government and not merely protection;

(i) Mr. Schill’s use of guarded language (e.g. “catch my drift” ) seems to confirm the illegal objective of the posts;

(j) Mr. Schill’s post about the House of Commons is clearly a reference to burning down Parliament;

(k) Mr. Schill was part of the inner circle Diagolon meeting on the outskirts of Ottawa during the Freedom Convoy;

(l)At the meeting, in which Jeremy McKenzie personally acknowledged and thanked Mr. Schill, Mr. McKenzie’s parting words were “there will not be any fucking surrendering as long as I am around;”

(m) Mr. Schill’s garage contained a re-load station in which he stored “huge amounts” of ammunition, not all of which was compatible with his lawfully-owned firearms; and

(n) In that same re-load station, Mr. Schill had a hand-drawn sketch of what can only be interpreted as a plan to engage in criminal activity at a closed gas station.

This was enough for Justice Robinson to conclude that a 5 year prohibition from weapons was warranted. For all the cries about this group just being a podcast community and “based on a meme”, these conversations and meets were used as evidence.

This ruling came from an Ontario Judge, not some nobody. Now, it’s precedent, and will almost certainly be cited in future cases.

Diagolon and MacKenzie weren’t cleared by the PEOC report. Rouleau made it clear that the thought the group was dangerous.

They weren’t cleared by the Mosley ruling either. That was the January 2024 verdict in Federal Court that it was unreasonable to invoke the Emergencies Act. There was just passing mention of them at all.

Defenders have claimed that there was no evidence of wrongdoing, and that there was a heavy reliance on groups like the Canadian Antihate Network. This was supposed to be some major intelligence failure. But Carmichael testified that he personally had been monitoring the chats for 2 years. The transcripts are available, and are also worth a read.

Now, a person has had his firearms rights suspended — despite not being convicted of a crime — due in large part to his connection to this “meme” group.

Could the police be lying or exaggerating in order to punish someone they ideologically disagree with? Sure, it’s possible. Nonetheless they were successful at getting the licence taken away. Please read the decision in full.

Guess that wasn’t something to brag about on the “Road Rage Terror Tour”.

More on PEOC and Mosley coming in subsequent posts.

Now, the ruling does look really, REALLY bad, but what was actually said at the hearing? The transcripts are available, so Carmichael’s testimony can be looked at. And interestingly, it comes across as a lot more speculative than what the Judge wrote. Stay tuned.

SCHILL HEARING:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2024/2024oncj249/2024oncj249.html
(2) Evidence Of Officer Ernest Carmichael, Day 1
(3) Evidence Of Officer Ernest Carmichael, Day 2, Cross Examination

POEC HEARINGS:
(1) https://publicorderemergencycommission.ca/
(2) POEC Report, Volume 1: Overview
(3) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 1 Overview
(4) POEC Report, Volume 2: Analysis (Part 1)
(5) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 2 Analysis Part 1
(6) POEC Report, Volume 3: Analysis (Part 2)
(7) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 3 Analysis Part 2 Recommendations
(8) POEC Report, Volume 4: Process and Appendices
(9) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 4 Process And Appendices
(10) POEC Report, Part 5: Policy Papers
(11) Public Order Emergency Report Volume 5 Policy Papers

MOSLEY DECISION:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2024/2024fc42/2024fc42.html#par41

Posted on

Senate Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

Have you heard of Senate Bill S-275? It is called the “Act to amend the Bank of Canada Act (mandate, monetary policy governance and accountability)”. It was introduced back in September 2023, and is currently at Second Reading.

It was brought in by Quebec Senator Diane Bellemare, who was appointed by Harper back in 2012. Keep in mind that she was appointed by a “conservative” Prime Minister. Now, what is this all about?

From the preamble of Bill S-275:

Whereas monetary policy has measurable redistributive effects on Canadians’ incomes;
.
Whereas underlying economic trends over the coming decades will be shaped by demographic shifts, the climate crisis, technological change and global political uncertainty and are conducive to generating supply shocks to prices—shocks that are minimally affected in the short term by traditional monetary policy;
.
Whereas a gap currently exists between the Bank of Canada Act and the Bank’s practices respecting monetary policy;

There will now be a section added to the Bank of Canada Act, and it reads as follows:

Bank mandate
4.‍1 The mandate of the Bank is to ensure the financial stability of Canada and of Canadian financial institutions and to promote sustainable and equitable prosperity and the well-being of all Canadians.

What exactly is “sustainable and equitable prosperity”? It’s not defined, so we’ll have to guess with this. “Sustainable” is probably being used in reference to playing along with the climate change scam. And “equitable prosperity” sounds like a fancy word for massive wealth redistribution.

One can certainly debate the value of the Bank of Canada, or the Bank for International Settlements. But why is crypto-Communist language being put into this Act?

There will also be a Permanent Committee added to the Bank of Canada. It will involve 9 people, 6 of them to be appointed in a vaguely described process.

  • the Governor of the Bank of Canada
  • the Deputy Governor
  • a Deputy Governor responsible for economic analysis
  • 6 external members appointed under this section

Some of the duties this Permanent Committee will have include:

(a) participate in discussions about setting the policy rate;
(b) set the policy rate by vote;
(c) adopt the annual cost-benefit analysis framework that supports policy rate decision-making;
(d) supervise the assessment of the effectiveness of monetary policy — that is to say, whether the targets are met, what economic effects monetary policy has on prices, employment, growth, investment and productivity, and what financial and redistributive effects it has on households and businesses;
(e) ensure that the use of non-traditional tools is consistent with the Bank’s mandate and the objectives of monetary policy; and
(f) represent the Bank in negotiating and drafting the agreement with the Government of Canada provided by section 14.‍4 and include monetary policy targets in the agreement.

To summarize: there will be a group of 9 people, 6 of whom selected in a yet to be defined process, determining major financial and economic decisions for the Bank of Canada. It’s to act in a manner consistent with its mandate. Keep in mind that the new mandate is:

to ensure the financial stability of Canada and of Canadian financial institutions and to promote sustainable and equitable prosperity and the well-being of all Canadians.

At the risk of being alarmist, this new mandate is a real concern. Given the proliferation of Carbon taxes, and various iterations of UBI, or universal basic income, where exactly are things going? The language is also vague enough that it’s hard to pin down specific details.

Bellemare spoke about the legislation on September 26th, 2023. However, it didn’t really add any specifics about what was going to happen. Nor did the questions she was asked.

Add this to the list of things to keep an eye on.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-275
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-275/first-reading
(4) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/bellemare-diane/
(5) https://sencanada.ca/en/content/sen/chamber/441/debates/142db_2023-09-26-e#41
(6) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/b-2/

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(1) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(2) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(3) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(4) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(5) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(6) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(7) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(8) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(9) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(10) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(11) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(12) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(13) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(14) Bill C-373: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism 2.0
(15) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(16) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(17) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(18) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights

Posted on

2 Sides Of The Same Coin: Sendai Framework And International Health Regulations

This topic isn’t revolutionary. However, it’s interesting how different pieces of legislation (supposedly brought for completely different areas of life) can serve much the same purpose. Laws that seemingly have no connection to each other can end up having very similar results.

Let’s look at a few of them.

For emergency and disaster management:
-U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda (Agenda 21) signed in 1992
–Yokohama Strategy for a Safer World signed in 1994
–Hyogo Framework for Action signed, goes from 2005 to 2015
-U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda (Agenda 2030) signed in 2015
–Sendai Framework signed, goes from 2015 to 2030.

For public health management:
–W.H.O. Constitution signed in 1946
-W.H.O. International Sanitary Regulations signed in 1951
-W.H.O. International Health Regulations (First Edition) signed in 1969
-W.H.O. International Health Regulations (Second Edition) signed in 1995
–W.H.O. International Health Regulations (Third Edition) signed in 2005

Now, what can these things have in common? Quite simply, they are pretexts for removing rights and property from people, under the cloak of being an emergency. True, the nature of it will vary, but the results are the same.

1. Parallels Between Sendai Framework And WHO-IHR

While not identical, there are many connections and similarities between enacting emergency management laws, and the public health laws. Using B.C. as an example:

(a) Bill 31 was derived from the Sendai Framework, which itself is part of the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda. There are many aspects to this ideology

(b) The Provincial Public Health Acts are the result of the 2005 Quarantine Act, which itself is derived from the 3rd Edition of the WHO’s International Health Regulations. Also, the WHO’s Constitution is well worth a read, as it dates back to the 1940s.

While laws are being enacted that greatly impact the lives of Canadians, the reality is that these — and many laws — are derived from international agreements that the public has no say in.

(a) Bill 31 is framed as “disaster reduction measures”, which presumably means natural disasters. As for speculation about “climate lockdowns”, this type of legislation is laying the ground work.

(b) Provincial Health Acts are framed as “preventing communicable diseases”, and we saw plenty of that in the last few years.

And reading through both, it’s clear that both are intended — among other things — to strip away large parts of individual rights, including property rights. These things are presented as necessary for the greater good.

Additionally, both sets of laws allows near dictatorial powers when it comes to issuing orders. A Cabinet Minister could do it for the Emergency & Disaster Management Act. A Minister, or Public Health Officer, can give orders concerning regulations within the Public Health Act

2. B.C. Bill 31, Emergency & Disaster Management Act

This is still going through the Legislature, but parts of it are certainly worth looking at. They’re ripe for abuse in the wrong hands.

Essential matters
75 (1) The minister may, by order, do one or more of the following:
(a) identify supplies, equipment or other items, services, property or facilities, or a class of any of these, as essential;
(b) for things identified under paragraph (a) as essential,
(i) establish or restrain increases in prices or rents for them,
(ii) ration or otherwise provide for their distribution or use,
(iii) provide for their restoration, and
(iv) prohibit or limit seizures of them or evictions from them;
(c) authorize a person to provide a service or give assistance of a type that the person is qualified to provide or give;
(d) require a person to provide a service or give assistance of a type that the person is qualified to provide or give;
(e) provide for, maintain and coordinate the provision and maintenance of necessities.
(2) Subsection (1) (b) (i) and (iv) applies despite any enactment governing tenancies or the recovery of property.
(3) Subsection (1) (c) and (d) applies despite any contract, including a collective agreement.

Land and other property
76 (1) The minister may, by order, do one or more of the following:
(a) appropriate, use or control the use of any personal property;
(b) use or control the use of any land;
(c) authorize the entry without warrant into any structure or onto any land by any person for the purpose of taking emergency measures;
(d) prohibit the entry into any structure or onto any land by any person;
(e) authorize or require the alteration, removal or demolition of any trees, crops, structures or landscapes;
(f) authorize or require the construction, alteration, removal or demolition of works;
(g) require the owner of a structure to
(i) have any damage to the structure assessed, and
(ii) give the results of the assessment to the minister or a person in a class of persons specified by the minister.
(2) The power under subsection (1) (b) to use or control the use of land does not apply to specified land.

General restrictions
78 (1) The minister may, by order, control or prohibit one or more of the following:
(a) travel to or from any area;
(b) the carrying on of a business or a type of business;
(c) an event or a type of event.
(2) The minister may, by order, do one or more of the following:
(a) require a person to stop doing an activity, including an activity that a person is licensed, permitted or otherwise authorized to do under an enactment;
(b) put limits or conditions on doing an activity, including limits or conditions that have the effect of modifying a licence, permit or other authorization issued under an enactment.

Clearly, the Bill is much longer than this. But what do these sections include?

  • Establish price controls of “essential goods”
  • Establish rationing of “essential goods”
  • Require (force) people to provide certain services
  • Appropriate or control someone’s private land
  • Allow warrantless searches
  • Prohibit people from entering their property
  • Prevent travel
  • Prohibit certain types of businesses
  • Prohibit or restrict activities

Sound familiar? It should. These things were implemented throughout British Columbia through 2020 to 2022, but under the pretense of “disease prevention”. All that’s missing are the injection passports and the mask mandates.

3. B.C. Public Health Act (2009), Derivative Of WHO-IHR

People will no doubt remember the years of endless (and seemingly arbitrary) dictates from BCPHO Bonnie Henry, and Health Minister Adrian Dix. But what allowed them to do this?

General powers respecting health hazards and contraventions
31 (1)If the circumstances described in section 30 [when orders respecting health hazards and contraventions may be made] apply, a health officer may order a person to do anything that the health officer reasonably believes is necessary for any of the following purposes:
(a) to determine whether a health hazard exists;
(b) to prevent or stop a health hazard, or mitigate the harm or prevent further harm from a health hazard;
(c) to bring the person into compliance with the Act or a regulation made under it;
(d) to bring the person into compliance with a term or condition of a licence or permit held by that person under this Act.
(2) A health officer may issue an order under subsection (1) to any of the following persons:
(a) a person whose action or omission
(i) is causing or has caused a health hazard, or
(ii) is not in compliance with the Act or a regulation made under it, or a term or condition of the person’s licence or permit;
(b) a person who has custody or control of a thing, or control of a condition, that
(i) is a health hazard or is causing or has caused a health hazard, or
(ii) is not in compliance with the Act or a regulation made under it, or a term or condition of the person’s licence or permit;
(c) the owner or occupier of a place where
(i) a health hazard is located, or
(ii) an activity is occurring that is not in compliance with the Act or a regulation made under it, or a term or condition of the licence or permit of the person doing the activity.

Specific powers respecting health hazards and contraventions
32(1) An order may be made under this section only
(a) if the circumstances described in section 30 [when orders respecting health hazards and contraventions may be made] apply, and
(b) for the purposes set out in section 31 (1) [general powers respecting health hazards and contraventions].

32(2) Without limiting section 31, a health officer may order a person to do one or more of the following:
(a) have a thing examined, disinfected, decontaminated, altered or destroyed, including
(i) by a specified person, or under the supervision or instructions of a specified person,
(ii) moving the thing to a specified place, and
(iii) taking samples of the thing, or permitting samples of the thing to be taken;
(b) in respect of a place,
(i) leave the place,
(ii) not enter the place,
(iii) do specific work, including removing or altering things found in the place, and altering or locking the place to restrict or prevent entry to the place,
(iv) neither deal with a thing in or on the place nor dispose of a thing from the place, or deal with or dispose of the thing only in accordance with a specified procedure, and
(v) if the person has control of the place, assist in evacuating the place or examining persons found in the place, or taking preventive measures in respect of the place or persons found in the place;
(c) stop operating, or not operate, a thing;
(d) keep a thing in a specified place or in accordance with a specified procedure;
(e) prevent persons from accessing a thing;
(f) not dispose of, alter or destroy a thing, or dispose of, alter or destroy a thing only in accordance with a specified procedure;
(g) provide to the health officer or a specified person information, records, samples or other matters relevant to a thing’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 hazardous agent by the thing;
(h) wear a type of clothing or personal protective equipment, or change, remove or alter clothing or personal protective equipment, to protect the health and safety of persons;
(i) use a type of equipment or implement a process, or remove equipment or alter equipment or processes, to protect the health and safety of persons;
(j) 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 health officer any relevant record;
(k) take a prescribed action.
(3) If a health officer orders a thing to be destroyed, the health officer must give the person having custody or control of the thing reasonable time to request reconsideration and review of the order under sections 43 and 44 unless
(a) the person consents in writing to the destruction of the thing, or
(b) Part 5 [Emergency Powers] applies.

While not identical, the B.C. Public Health Act provides many of the same restrictions that Bill 31 would (if enacted). Primarily, property and personal rights can be suspended in an open ended manner, under the excuse of an emergency.

It’s also worth mentioning the the “Public Officials” involved in issuing orders are exempt from legal liability, and cannot be sued. It’s written right into the legislation.

SENDAI FRAMEWORK, B.C. BILL 31
(1) https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-debates-proceedings/42nd-parliament/4th-session/bills/bills-with-hansard-debate
(2) https://www.leg.bc.ca/documents-data/debate-transcripts/42nd-parliament/4th-session/20231003am-Hansard-n331#bill31-1R
(3) https://www.preventionweb.net/publication/sendai-framework-disaster-risk-reduction-2015-2030
(4) https://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf
(5) https://www.preventionweb.net/files/44983_sendaiframeworkchart.pdf
(6) Sendai Framework 2015 Full Text English
(7) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Conference_on_Disaster_Risk_Reduction
(8) https://www.unisdr.org/files/8241_doc6841contenido1.pdf
(9) https://www.unisdr.org/2005/wcdr/intergover/official-doc/L-docs/Hyogo-framework-for-action-english.pdf

WHO TREATIES, INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS
(1) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/WHO-Constitution-Full-Document.pdf
(2) https://www.who.int/about/governance/constitution
(3) https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/
(4) https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/pdf_files/BD_49th-en.pdf#page=6
(5) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/
(6) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/index.aspx
(7) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103984&t=637793587893732877
(8) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103986&t=637862410289812632
(9) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103990&t=637793587893576566
(10) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103994&t=637862410289656362
(11) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103997&t=637793622744842730
(12) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=105025&t=637793622744842730
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/provincial-health-acts-are-really-just-who-ihr-domestically-implemented/
(14) https://canucklaw.ca/the-other-provincial-health-acts-written-by-who-ihr/
(15) WHO International Health Regulations, 3rd Edition 2005