Section 3 Prohibition of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse
3.1 Sexual exploitation and sexual abuse violate universally recognized international legal norms and standards and have always been unacceptable behaviour and prohibited conduct for United Nations staff. Such conduct is prohibited by the United Nations Staff Regulations and Rules.
3.2 In order to further protect the most vulnerable populations, especially women and children, the following specific standards which reiterate existing general obligations under the United Nations Staff Regulations and Rules, are promulgated:
(a) Sexual exploitation and sexual abuse constitute acts of serious misconduct and are therefore grounds for disciplinary measures, including summary dismissal;
(b) Sexual activity with children (persons under the age of 18) is prohibited regardless of the age of majority or age of consent locally. Mistaken belief in the age of a child is not a defence;
(c) Exchange of money, employment, goods or services for sex, including sexual favours or other forms of humiliating, degrading or exploitative behaviour, is prohibited. This includes any exchange of assistance that is due to beneficiaries of assistance;
(d) Sexual relationships between United Nations staff and beneficiaries of assistance, since they are based on inherently unequal power dynamics, undermine the credibility and integrity of the work of the United Nations and are strongly discouraged;
(e) Where a United Nations staff member develops concerns or suspicions regarding sexual exploitation or sexual abuse by a fellow worker, whether in the same agency or not and whether or not within the United Nations system, he or she must report such concerns via established reporting mechanisms;
(f) United Nations staff are obliged to create and maintain an environment that prevents sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. Managers at all levels have a particular responsibility to support and develop systems that maintain this environment.
3.3 The standards set out above are not intended to be an exhaustive list. Other types of sexually exploitive or sexually abusive behaviour may be grounds for administrative action or disciplinary measures, including summary dismissal, pursuant to the United Nations Staff Regulations and Rules.
Seems well intentioned.
The rules seem pretty specific, and written in such a way as to avoid any misunderstandings or loophole. Credit where credit is due.
But there is this:
4. Daily Wire Article
In a shocking report out this week, a former U.N. official accuses the agency of harboring hundreds, if not thousands, of criminals in its foreign service, and claims that U.N. aid workers have committed more than 60,000 rapes and sexual assaults over the course of the last decade.
The Times of London reports that Andrew MacLeod, the former “chief of operations at the U.N.’s Emergency Co-ordination Centre” told U.N. officials last month that “he estimated that 60,000 rapes had been carried out by UN staff in the past decade, with 3,300 paedophiles working in the organisation and its agencies.”
MacLeod also told officials that he believed sexual predators specifically applied for foreign aid jobs so that they could get closer to vulnerable populations, including helpless women and children living in abject poverty.
“There are tens of thousands of aid workers around the world with paedophile tendencies, but if you wear a Unicef T-shirt nobody will ask what you’re up to,” MacLeod told the Sun newspaper. “You have the impunity to do whatever you want. It is endemic across the aid industry across the world. The system is at fault, and should have stopped this years ago.”
MacLeod’s report does come with caveats: his number is estimated based on extrapolating information contained in a U.N. Secretary General’s report issued last year, which said there had been 103 allegations of sexual abuse made against members of the U.N.’s peacekeeping and foreign aid teams in one segment of Africa in 2016, and half of those allegations had multiple victims.
Assuming only one in 10 cases gets reported, and that the teams in Africa are generally representative of U.N. foreign aid teams overall, MacLeod suggested that tens of thousands of cases could occur every year.
Regardless of whether the 60,000 number is correct, the allegations that the U.N. could be harboring sexual predators in its midst is shocking, and echoes allegations made against other massive foreign aid agencies, like Oxfam. That group, which also has aid workers all over the world, is now accused of covering up hundreds of reports of abuse.
Why are we a part of this organization? If even a small percentage of the accusations are true, then there is rampant sexual abuse that goes on in the UN.
But this hypocrisy is to be expected.
5. UN “Human Rights” Council
The UN Human Rights Council contains Afghanistan, Angola, Australia, Brazil, Chile, China, Croatia, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Japan, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Tunisia, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. Recently Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Czechia, Denmark, Eritrea, Fiji, India, Italy, Philippines, Somalia, Togo and Uruguay were added.
There doesn’t seem to be a requirement that Human Rights Council members actually believe in human rights.
The UN has many documents and “commitments” to ending sexual abuse and exploitation. Yet, stories about it being rampant within the organization lead to obvious suggestions of hypocrisy.
“2. Article 6 recognizes and protects the right to life of all human beings. It is the supreme right from which no derogation is permitted1 even in situations of armed conflict and other public emergencies. The right to life has crucial importance both for individuals and for society as a whole. It is most precious for its own sake as a right that inheres in every human being, but it also constitutes a fundamental right, 2 whose effective protection is the prerequisite for the enjoyment of all other human rights and whose content can be informed and infused by other human rights.
3. The right to life is a right which should not be interpreted narrowly. It concerns the entitlement of individuals to be free from acts and omissions intended or expected to cause their unnatural or premature death, as well as to enjoy a life with dignity. Article 6 guarantees this right for all human beings, without distinction of any kind, including for persons suspected or convicted of even the most serious crimes.
4. Paragraph 1 of article 6 of the Covenant provides that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life and that the right shall be protected by law. It lays the foundation for the obligation of States parties to respect and to ensure the right to life, to give effect to it through legislative and other measures, and to provide effective remedies and reparation to all victims of violations of the right to life.”
So far, this looks pretty good. The UN states very bluntly that it values life.
Individuals should not be subjected to acts or omissions which cause their premature death (a.k.a. murder), and that they should have dignity in their lives.
States of the UN are obligated to respect life. This applies even to people suspected or convicted of committing the most serious crimes. It seems we are going down the line of “serial killers are human too”.
“6. Deprivation of life involves a deliberate3 or otherwise foreseeable and preventable life-terminating harm or injury, caused by an act or omission. It goes beyond injury to bodily or mental integrity or threat thereto, which are prohibited by article 9, paragraph 1.4 “
Nothing in this statement I can disagree with.
“8. Enforced disappearance constitutes a unique and integrated series of acts and omissions representing a grave threat to life and may thus result in a violation of the right to life.7 It also violates other rights recognized in the Covenant, in particular, article 9 (liberty and security of persons), article 7 (prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) and article 16 (right to recognition of a person before the law). “
Nothing in this passage that is offensive either. Forced disappearances “do” cause an obvious threat to life and violate all sorts of regulations.
We will skip over 9, and come back to it.
“10. [While acknowledging the central importance to human dignity of personal autonomy, the Committee considers that States parties should recognize that individuals planning or attempting to commit suicide may be doing so because they are undergoing a momentary crisis which may affect their ability to make irreversible decisions, such as to terminate their life. Therefore,] States should take adequate measures, without violating their other Covenant obligations, to prevent suicides, especially among individuals in particularly vulnerable situations.”
I would agree with this. Taking the effort to engage in intervention to protect potentially suicidal people is definitely worthwhile.
“12. States parties engaged in the use of existing weapons and in the study, development, acquisition or adoption of new weapons, and means or methods of warfare must always consider their impact on the right to life. “
Agree fully.
“14. States parties should monitor the impact on the right to life of less-lethal weapons which are designed for use by law-enforcement agents and soldiers charged with lawenforcement missions, including electro-muscular disruption devices (Tasers),29 rubbercoated metal bullets, and attenuating energy projectiles. The use of such weapons must be restricted only to law-enforcement agents who have undergone appropriate training, and must be strictly regulated in accordance with international protocols for their use.”
Try not to kill suspects? Sure, good idea.
“20. The Covenant does not provide an enumeration of permissible grounds for deprivation of life. Still, article 6, paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 implicitly recognize that countries which have not abolished the death penalty and that have not ratified the Second Optional Protocol may continue to apply the death penalty with regard to the most serious crimes subject to a number of strict conditions. Other procedures regulating activity that may result in deprivation of life, such as conditions for use of lethal weapons by the police or protocols for new drug treatment, must be established by law, accompanied by effective institutional safeguards designed to prevent arbitrary deprivations of life, and be compatible with other provisions of the Covenant.”
Limit the death penalty to the most serious crimes? Sure.
“28. Persons with disabilities, including psychosocial and intellectual disabilities, are entitled to special measures of protection so as to ensure their effective enjoyment of the right to life on equal basis with others. Such measures of protection shall include reasonable accommodation of public policies which are necessary to ensure the right to life, such as ensuring access of persons with disabilities to essential goods and services, and special measures designed to prevent excessive use of force by law enforcement agents against persons with disabilities.”
People with physical and intellectual disabilities are also entitled to life and dignity. Agreed.
“42. Under no circumstances can the death penalty be imposed as part of a policy of genocide against members of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Article 6, paragraph 3 reminds all States parties who are also parties to the Genocide Convention of their obligations to prevent and punish the crime of genocide, which include the obligation to prevent and punish all deprivations of life, which constitute part of a crime of genocide.”
So, where does the problem exist?
See paragraph #9.
“9. Although States parties may adopt measures designed to regulate terminations of pregnancy, (1) such measures must not result in violation of the right to life of a pregnant woman or her other rights under the Covenant, including the prohibition against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. Thus, (2) any legal restrictions on the ability of women to seek abortion must not, inter alia, jeopardize their lives or subject them to physical or mental pain or suffering which violates article 7. States (3) parties must provide safe access to abortion to protect the life and health of pregnant women, and in situations in which carrying a pregnancy to term would cause the woman (4) substantial pain or suffering, most notably where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or when the foetus suffers from fatal impairment. States parties may not regulate pregnancy or abortion in a manner that runs contrary to (5) their duty to ensure that women do not have to undertake unsafe abortions. [For example, they should not take measures such as (6) criminalizing pregnancies by unmarried women or applying criminal sanctions against women undergoing abortion or against physicians assisting them in doing so, when taking such measures is expected to significantly increase resort to unsafe abortions]. Nor should States parties (7) introduce humiliating or unreasonably burdensome requirements on women seeking to undergo abortion. The (8) duty to protect the lives of women against the health risks associated with unsafe abortions requires States parties to ensure access for women and men, and, in (9) particular, adolescents, to information and education about reproductive options, and to a wide range of contraceptive methods. States parties must also (10) ensure the availability of adequate prenatal and post-abortion health care for pregnant women.”
Now we get to the real problem,
UNBORN CHILDREN DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIFE
4. About The Bolded Comments
1/ States can “regulate” abortion, but not if it means violating her rights, or anything she may find cruel, inhumane or degrading. Screw the child.
2/ No legal restrictions if it jeopardises the “mental” health of the mother. Not the physical health or life, but the mental health, which can mean anything.
3/ States must provide access to abortion if it endangers health, and yes, that means mental health. I guess as long as the child in an inconvenience.
4/ Again, they consider “suffering” to be mental as well.
5/ States have to provide abortion to ensure that women won’t “unsafely” kill their children
6/ Remove any penalties for abortion, if it would lead to “unsafe” abortions.
7/ Unreasonably burdensome? Would a therapist or medical exam be considered burdensome? Would telling the mother to think it over be too much?
8/ Again, since women may engage in “unsafe” abortions, states are obligated to provide it.
9/ Why the hell are we giving children advice on reproductive options?
10/ Kill the child or birth it, we still have to give the same care to the mother?!?!
UN doesn’t seem to see how inconsistent this attitude is with other provisions of the same document.
22. The second sentence of paragraph 1 provides that the right to life “shall be protected by law”. This implies that States parties must establish a legal framework to ensure the full enjoyment of the right to life by all individuals. The duty to protect the right to life by law also includes an obligation for States parties to take appropriate legal measures in order to protect life from all foreseeable threats, including from threats emanating from private persons and entities.
24. States parties must enact a protective legal framework which includes effective criminal prohibitions on all forms of arbitrary deprivations of life by individuals, including intentional and negligent homicide, disproportionate use of firearms, infanticide, “honour” killings, lynching, violent hate crimes, blood feuds, death threats, terrorist attacks and other manifestations of violence or incitement to violence that are likely to result in a deprivation of life. The criminal sanctions attached to these crimes must be commensurate with their gravity, while remaining compatible with all provisions of the Covenant.
UN prohibits infanticide, unless it is being done by the mother.
Abortions for everyone.
Abortions for children.
Purpose
The scale, spread and speed of change brought about by digital technology is unprecedented, and the current means and levels of international cooperation are unequal to the challenge. Digital technologies make a significant contribution to the realisation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and cut uniquely across international boundaries, policy silos and professional domains. Cooperation across domains and across borders is therefore critical to realizing the full social and economic potential of digital technologies, mitigating the risks they pose, and curtailing any unintended consequences.
The High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation was convened by the UN Secretary-General to advance proposals to strengthen cooperation in the digital space among Governments, the private sector, civil society, international organizations, academia, the technical community and other relevant stakeholders.
The Panel is expected to raise awareness about the transformative impact of digital technologies across society and the economy, and contribute to the broader public debate on how to ensure a safe and inclusive digital future for all, taking into account relevant human rights norms.
A number of questions here:
1/ Is this “global cooperation” being used to advance Agenda 2030?
2/ Social potential as in what?
3/ Why strengthen cooperation? Is this a form of policing?
4/ Safe and inclusive digital future? Does this mean that opinions or ideas that don’t make people feel “safe and inclusive” will be banned?
5/ Human rights norms as in what? Censoring of ideas? Something like a global M103 (to ban criticism of Islam)?
6/ Seeing how Statistics Canada has no issue with privacy breaches, what kinds of safeguards can we expect here?
Process
The Panel will hold two in-person meetings in September 2018 and January 2019, and will meet virtually as required.
The Panel will also seek to gather the views and proposals of Member States, relevant industries, civil society and academia worldwide through a careful consultation process. It will draw expertise from expert communities across the globe through engagement at existing events, conferences and forums as well as call for contributions from the general public through virtual hubs and online participation platforms. Two regional consultations will be organized in Asia and in Africa.
The Panel will complete its deliberations and submit its final report, including actionable recommendations, within a nine-month period. The report will map trends in digital technologies, identify gaps and opportunities, and outline proposals for strengthening international cooperation in the digital space.
FAQs
Why was the Panel established?
Current means and levels of international cooperation are not commensurate with the scale and rapidity of changes brought about by digital technologies. Digital technologies cut uniquely across international boundaries. Cooperation across sectors and across borders is critical to realizing the full social and economic potential of digital technologies as well as mitigating the risks they could pose.
Why is it called High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation?
The term Digital Cooperation aims to frame discussions on digital issues in a cooperative framework; it also aims to break silos by encouraging thinking and action across domains, and build trust among various stakeholders.
What are the expected outcomes?
The Panel will submit a report that will provide a high-level independent contribution to the broader public debate on digital cooperation frameworks and support Member States in their consultations on these issues.
The report is expected to: 1) raise awareness about the transformative impact of digital technologies across society and the economy, 2) identify policy, research and information gaps as well as ways to improve interdisciplinary action on digital technologies, and 3) present concrete proposals to strengthen cooperation in the digital space in an effective and inclusive manner.
It is expected that the consultation process leading to the report will contribute to stimulating discussion among and between various stakeholder groups on how they can work together to maximize the potential of the digital transformation.
Guess what isn’t mentioned here?
Free speech, privacy.
How is this different from other panels, commissions and international forums on similar topics?
The Secretary-General welcomes the increased focus on the implications of digital technologies for our society and our economy through commissions, conferences and other forums. This signifies that the timing is ripe for the digital policy ecosystem to evolve to the next level of maturity.
The work of all these initiatives can and should be mutually reinforcing. Wherever possible, this Panel will work with other initiatives and seek to identify synergies and complementarities.
Word salad.
How is the Panel supported?
The Panel is supported by a small Secretariat funded by donor resources, and based in New York and Geneva.
How were the Panel members selected?
The Secretary-General invited 20 independent experts with a range of professional and academic backgrounds in fields related to technology and policy. All members serve in their personal capacity, not as representatives of their affiliated institutions.
The Panel’s composition represents a broad mix of disciplines and sectors, geographic, gender and age diversity in an effort to reflect the cross-boundary nature of the digital sphere. Given that young people will be disproportionately affected by the future impact of a digital society, the Panel includes several individuals under the age of 35.
Racial diversity.
Gender diversity.
Age diversity.
No mention of diversity of thought. Perhaps how some person think can be a bad idea.
Contact and More Information
Visit the dedicated website for further information, engagement opportunities and news: www.digitalcooperation.org
For updates about the Panel, follow on Twitter at @UNSGdigicoop or sign up for the mailing list.
To provide suggestions or comments, contact the High Level Panel Secretariat at: digitalcooperation [at] unops.org
Bios
3. Some Thought
To be frank, the idea that the UN is actually getting together for “digital cooperation” is downright scary. Which ones will be “enhanced” by digital cooperation?
UN Global Migration Compact
Paris Accord
Proposed UN Global Government
Agenda 21, Agenda 2030
Global Citizen Education Agenda
New Development Financing
Efforts to ban criticism of Islam
Any of the dozens of other initiatives?
Liberal Candidate for the Burnaby by-election, Richard Lee says that he supports having the UN regulate internet activity. And the UN openly supports “digital cooperation”.
Is this the next frontier?
What exactly will they cooperate on? This is disturbingly vague? Will there be “cooperation” to stifle unpopular opinions? Perhaps to censor ideas and beliefs deemed inappropriate? Will this be a way to monitor and prevent criticism of Islam?
Will this be a means to streamline continued mass migration, or to continue financing UN scams like
CLICK HERE, for the 1995 Firearms Act. CLICK HERE, for Bill C-19, Ending The Long Gun Registry Act CLICK HERE, for the 2015 Economic Action Plan Act
Here are some noteworthy changes
5(2) of Firearms Act
ORIGINAL
(c) has a history of behaviour that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the person against any person.
REPLACEMENT
(2) Subsection 5(2) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (b) and by replacing paragraph (c) with the following:
(c) has a history of behaviour that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence or threatening conduct on the part of the person against any person;
(d) is or was previously prohibited by an order — made in the interests of the safety and security of any person — from communicating with an identified person or from being at a specified place or within a specified distance of that place, and presently poses a threat or risk to the safety and security of any person;
(e) in respect of an offence in the commission of which violence was used, threatened or attempted against the person’s intimate partner or former intimate partner, was previously prohibited by a prohibition order from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition; or
(f) for any other reason, poses a risk of harm to any person.
For greater certainty
(2.1) For greater certainty, for the purposes of paragraph (2)(c), threatened violence and threatening conduct include threats or conduct communicated by the person to a person by means of the Internet or other digital network
19(1.1) and (2) of Firearms Act
ORIGINAL
Target practice or competition
(1.1) In the case of an authorization to transport issued for a reason referred to in paragraph (1)(a) within the province where the holder of the authorization resides, the specified places must include all shooting clubs and shooting ranges that are approved under section 29 and that are located in that province.
Marginal note:
Exception for prohibited firearms other than prohibited handguns
(2) Despite subsection (1), an individual must not be authorized to transport a prohibited firearm, other than a handgun referred to in subsection 12(6.1), between specified places except for the purposes referred to in paragraph (1)(b)
REPLACEMENT
4 (1) Subsections 19(1.1) and (2) of the Act are replaced by the following:
Target practice or competition
(1.1) In the case of an authorization to transport issued for a reason referred to in paragraph (1)(a) within the province where the holder of the authorization resides, the specified places must — except in the case of an authorization that is issued for a prohibited firearm referred to in subsection 12(9) — include all shooting clubs and shooting ranges that are approved under section 29 and that are located in that province.
Exception for prohibited firearms other than prohibited handguns
(2) Despite subsection (1), an individual must not be authorized to transport a prohibited firearm — other than a handgun referred to in subsection 12(6.1) or a prohibited firearm referred to in subsection 12(9) — between specified places except for the purposes referred to in paragraph (1)(b).
Section 23 of Firearms Act
ORIGINAL
Authorization to transfer non-restricted firearms
23 A person may transfer a non-restricted firearm if, at the time of the transfer,
(a) the transferee holds a licence authorizing the transferee to acquire and possess that kind of firearm; and
(b) the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee is not authorized to acquire and possess that kind of firearm.
1995, c. 39, s. 23; 2003, c. 8, s. 17; 2012, c. 6, s. 11; 2015, c. 27, s. 7.
Previous Version
Marginal note:
Voluntary request to Registrar
23.1 (1) A transferor referred to in section 23 may request that the Registrar inform the transferor as to whether the transferee, at the time of the transfer, holds and is still eligible to hold the licence referred to in paragraph 23(a), and if such a request is made, the Registrar or his or her delegate, or any other person that the federal Minister may designate, shall so inform the transferor.
Marginal note:
No record of request
(2) Despite sections 12 and 13 of the Library and Archives of Canada Act and subsections 6(1) and (3) of the Privacy Act, neither the Registrar or his or her delegate nor a designated person shall retain any record of a request made under subsection (1).
REPLACEMENT
5 Sections 23 and 23.1 of the Act are replaced by the following:
Authorization to transfer non-restricted firearms
23 (1) A person may transfer one or more non-restricted firearms if, at the time of the transfer,
(a) the transferee holds a licence authorizing the transferee to acquire and possess a non-restricted firearm;
(b) the Registrar has, at the transferor’s request, issued a reference number for the transfer and provided it to the transferor; and
(c) the reference number is still valid.
Information — transferee’s licence
(2) The transferee shall provide to the transferor the prescribed information that relates to the transferee’s licence, for the purpose of enabling the transferor to request that the Registrar issue a reference number for the transfer.
Reference number
(3) The Registrar shall issue a reference number if he or she is satisfied that the transferee holds and is still eligible to hold a licence authorizing them to acquire and possess a non-restricted firearm.
Period of validity
(4) A reference number is valid for the prescribed period.
Registrar not satisfied
(5) If the Registrar is not satisfied as set out in subsection (3), he or she may so inform the transferor.
Ending the Long Gun Registry Act of 2012
ORIGINAL
Non-application
(3) Sections 12 and 13 of the Library and Archives of Canada Act and subsections 6(1) and (3) of the Privacy Act do not apply with respect to the destruction of the records and copies referred to in subsections (1) and (2).
(4) If section 29 of the other Act comes into force before section 17 of this Act, then that section 17 is replaced by the following:
17. Paragraph 38(1)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(a) holds a licence to possess that kind of firearm and, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate and an authorization to transport the firearm; and
(5) If section 17 of this Act comes into force before section 29 of the other Act, then, on the day on which that section 29 comes into force, paragraph 38(1)(a) of the Firearms Act is replaced by the following:
(a) holds a licence to possess that kind of firearm and, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate and an authorization to transport the firearm; and
(6) If section 29 of the other Act comes into force on the same day as section 17 of this Act, then that section 17 is deemed to have come into force before that section 29 and subsection (5) applies as a consequence.
(7) On the first day on which both section 30 of the other Act and section 17 of this Act are in force, paragraphs 40(1)(b) and (c) of the Firearms Act are replaced by the following:
(b) the individual produces a licence authorizing him or her to possess that kind of firearm;
(c) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, the individual holds an authorization to transport it and satisfies the customs officer that the individual holds a registration certificate for the firearm; and
REPLACEMENT
Ending the Long-gun Registry Act
Amendments to the Act
2015, c. 36, s. 230
23 (1) Subsection 29(3) of the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act is deemed never to have been amended by section 230 of the Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1.
2015, c. 36, s. 230
(2) Subsections 29(4) to (7) of the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act are deemed never to have come into force and are repealed.
2015, c. 36, s. 231
24 Section 30 of the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act is deemed never to have come into force and is repealed.
Biggest takeaway here is that Bill C-71 is an effort to resurrect the Long Gun Registry
While there are some virtue signals about safety, the main objective is clearly undoing the 2011-2012 legislation.
(Apparently, science is “Colonial”, in S. Africa anyway)
(Science is so racist, apparently)
(One of the few times “White” science is good)
CLICK HERE, for the bill in its latest form, which is currently undergoing 3rd reading in House of Commons.
CLICK HERE, for 2012 version of Environmental Assessment Act. CLICK HERE, for the 1985 Navigation Protection Act. CLICK HERE, for Energy Regulator Handbook.
SUMMARY HERE
If nothing else, take these points away:
-Regulators have wide discretion to shut everything down
-Regulators have wide discretion to hand out fines and penalties
-Gender based analysis is lens which projects to be viewed though
-Indigenous rights ensure that any project can be stopped almost at will
-Advisory Board must include (a) FN; (b) Inuit; (c) Metis
-“White Science” and “Indigenous Knowledge” to both be considered
-“Indigenous Knowledge” is confidential, unless common knowledge
-“Indigenous Knowledge” given to regulator is private unless public interest to disclose.
-“Indigenous Knowledge” is some secret sauce that can shut down projects, but must be kept confidential to protect …. something.
-Special Tribunal can be set up for compensation in pipeline spills
THIS CAN BE CHALLENGED IN FEDERAL COURT
Federal Court
Appeal to Federal Court
138 The Minister or any person or entity to whom an order, as confirmed or varied by a review officer, is directed may, by filing a written notice of appeal within 30 days after the day on which the written reasons are provided by the review officer under section 135, appeal to the Federal Court from the review officer’s decision.
Order not suspended
139 The filing of a notice of appeal under section 138 does not suspend the operation of an order, as confirmed or varied by a review officer.
Injunctions
Court’s power
140 (1) If, on the Minister’s application, it appears to a court of competent jurisdiction that a person or entity has done, is about to do or is likely to do any act constituting or directed toward the commission of an offence under this Act, the court may issue an injunction ordering the person or entity who is named in the application to
(a) refrain from doing an act that, in the court’s opinion, may constitute or be directed toward the commission of the offence; or
(b) do an act that, in the court’s opinion, may prevent the commission of the offence.
Notice
(2) No injunction is to be issued under subsection (1) unless 48 hours’ notice is served on the party or parties who are named in the application or unless the urgency of the situation is such that service of notice would not be in the public interest.
*****************************************
Judicial Review
Grounds
170 Subject to section 168, every decision of a Tribunal is final and conclusive and is not to be questioned or reviewed in any court except in accordance with the Federal Courts Act on the grounds referred to in paragraph 18.1(4)(a), (b) or (e) of that Act.
Good to know…. this may come in handy later.
Also, there is a section on discrimination. Of course, with this government, no legislation would be complete without it. However, the terms here seem to suggest more of a “price fixing” nature than actual discrimination. Read for yourself.
Discrimination
No unjust discrimination
235 A company must not make any unjust discrimination in tolls, service or facilities against any person or locality.
Burden of proof
236 If it is shown that a company makes any discrimination in tolls, service or facilities against any person or locality, the burden of proving that the discrimination is not unjust lies on the company.
Prohibition
237 (1) A company or shipper, or an officer, employee or agent or mandatary of a company or shipper, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction if they
(a) offer, grant, give, solicit, accept or receive a rebate, concession or discrimination that allows a person to obtain transmission of hydrocarbons or any other commodity by a company at a rate less than that named in the tariffs then in effect; or
(b) knowingly are party or privy to a false billing, false classification, false report or other device that has the effect set out in paragraph (a).
Due diligence
(2) A person is not to be found guilty of an offence under paragraph (1)(a) if they establish that they exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.
Prosecution
(3) No prosecution may be instituted for an offence under this section without leave of the Commission.
Introduction To The Bill Preamble
Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing an impact assessment and regulatory system that Canadians trust and that provides safeguards to protect the environment and the health and safety of Canadians;
Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to enhancing Canada’s global competitiveness by building a system that enables decisions to be made in a predictable and timely manner, providing certainty to investors and stakeholders, driving innovation and enabling the carrying out of sound projects that create jobs for Canadians;
Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to achieving reconciliation with First Nations, the Métis and the Inuit through renewed nation-to-nation, government-to-government and Inuit-Crown relationships based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership;
Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to using transparent processes that are built on early engagement and inclusive participation and under which the best available scientific information and data and the Indigenous knowledge of the Indigenous peoples of Canada are taken into account in decision-making;
And whereas the Government of Canada is committed to assessing how groups of women, men and gender-diverse people may experience policies, programs and projects and to taking actions that contribute to an inclusive and democratic society and allow all Canadians to participate fully in all spheres of their lives;
Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1/ Safeguards to protect the environment, and H&S of Canadians? Okay, few could disagree with that.
2/ Promoting competitiveness sounds great, if that is what the Bill does.
3/ Committed to reconciliation? Okay, here is where we start to have issues. Will development be blocked or rerouted in the name of “reconciliation”? Or will there be extra “taxes” attached?
4/ Inclusive participation? Isn’t that redundant? And best scientific information and data “and” the Indigenous knowledge of the Indigenous peoples are taken into account?
*** So is there Indigenous knowledge and non-Indigenous science and data? See the above video on “decolonizing science”
5/ Committed to assessing how groups of women, men and gender-diverse people may experience things? Okay, back to the gender obsession. And is “gender diverse” a reference to trannies, or just mixed men/women?
6/ I thought this was a science based approach. Now it’s being infiltrated by (a) Indigenous knowledge and (b) Gender politics.
Okay, now we get to “another” preamble,
PART 1
Impact Assessment Act
Enactment of Act
Enactment
1 The Impact Assessment Act, whose Schedules 1 to 4 are set out in the schedule to this Act, is enacted as follows:
An Act respecting a federal process for impact assessments and the prevention of significant adverse environmental effects
Preamble
Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to fostering sustainability;
Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that impact assessments provide an effective means of integrating scientific information and Indigenous knowledge into decision-making processes related to designated projects;
Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of public participation in the impact assessment process, including the planning phase, and is committed to providing Canadians with the opportunity to participate in that process and with the information they need in order to be able to participate in a meaningful way;
Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that the public should have access to the reasons on which decisions related to impact assessments are based;
Whereas the Government of Canada is committed, in the course of exercising its powers and performing its duties and functions in relation to impact, regional and strategic assessments, to ensuring respect for the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and to fostering reconciliation and working in partnership with them;
Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;
Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of cooperating with jurisdictions that have powers, duties and functions in relation to the assessment of the effects of designated projects in order that impact assessments may be conducted more efficiently;
Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that a transparent, efficient and timely decision-making process contributes to a positive investment climate in Canada;
Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that impact assessment contributes to Canada’s ability to meet its environmental obligations and its commitments in respect of climate change;
Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of encouraging innovative approaches and technologies to reduce adverse changes to the environment and to health, social or economic conditions;
And whereas the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of regional assessments in understanding the effects of existing or future physical activities and the importance of strategic assessments in assessing federal policies, plans or programs that are relevant to conducting impact assessments;
Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1/ The Government of Canada is committed to sustainability? Okay, sounds nice, but that can get very expensive. See Agenda 21, signed in 1992 by Brian Mulroney, and Agenda 2030, signed in 2015 by Stephen Harper. Interestingly, Mulroney and Harper both “identify” as Conservatives.
2/ Integrating scientific information and Indigenous knowledge? Again, is there a separate set of scientific principles depending on skin colour or ethnicity? Science is so racist.
3/ Committed to public participation, yet this is an omnibus bill rammed though parliament
4/ Fostering reconciliation and inclusion? So will protests be shutting down any projects? Will “payments” be demanded?
5/ You support UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights? Okay, that agreement means that virtually any work can be shut down at any time, for any reason.
6/ Meet it’s international efforts regarding climate change? Silly me, thinking Paris Accord was “non-binding”
Note: There is a preamble for the Energy Regulator Act, and it’s wording is almost identical.
Rights of Indigenous peoples of Canada
3 For greater certainty, nothing in this Act is to be construed as abrogating or derogating from the protection provided for the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Again, any project can be shut down on a whim.
Purpose
Purpose of Act
6 The purpose of this Act is to regulate certain energy matters within Parliament’s jurisdiction and, in particular,
(a) to ensure that pipelines and power lines as well as facilities, equipment or systems related to offshore renewable energy projects, are constructed, operated and abandoned in a manner that is safe, secure and efficient and that protects people, property and the environment;
(b) to ensure that the exploration for and exploitation of oil and gas, as defined in section 2 of the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, is carried out in a manner that is safe and secure and that protects people, property and the environment;
(c) to regulate trade in energy products; and
(d) to ensure that regulatory hearings and decision-making processes related to those energy matters are fair, inclusive, transparent and efficient.
(a) No problem with this.
(b) No problem with this.
(c) Stop. Government shouldn’t be regulating trade. It just makes things more expensive.
(d) Make decisions that are inclusive? Getting back into the gender politics again?
Mandate
11 The Regulator’s mandate includes
(a) making transparent decisions, orders and recommendations with respect to pipelines, power lines, offshore renewable energy projects and abandoned pipelines;
(b) overseeing the construction, operation and abandonment of pipelines, interprovincial power lines and international power lines and overseeing work and activities authorized under Part 5 as well as abandoned facilities;
(c) making orders with respect to traffic, tolls and tariffs and overseeing matters relating to traffic, tolls and tariffs;
(d) making decisions and orders and giving directions under Part 8 with respect to oil and gas interests, production and conservation;
(e) advising and reporting on energy matters;
(f) providing alternative dispute resolution processes;
(g) exercising powers and performing duties and functions that are conferred on the Regulator under any other Act of Parliament; and
(h) exercising its powers and performing its duties and functions in a manner that respects the Government of Canada’s commitments with respect to the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada.
On the surface, this doesn’t look objectionable. However, it is unclear just how much authority the Energy Regulator will have to make unilateral decisions.
Board of Directors
Establishment and composition
14 (1) The Regulator is to have a board of directors consisting of at least five but not more than nine directors, including a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson.
Indigenous representation
(2) At least one of the directors must be an Indigenous person.
Of course, it wouldn’t be a Liberal bill without a racial or gender quota.
Matters of law and fact
(3) For the purposes of this Act, the Commission has full jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters, whether of law or of fact.
Power to act on own initiative
33 The Commission may on its own initiative inquire into, hear and determine any matter that under this Act it may inquire into, hear and determine.
Orders and prohibitions
34 The Commission may
(a) order any person to do, immediately or within or at any specified time and in any specified manner, anything that the person is or may be required to do under this Act, under a condition of a document of authorization, or under any order made or direction given by the Commission or a designated officer under this Act; and
(b) prohibit the doing or continuing of anything that is contrary to this Act, to a condition of the document of authorization or to the order or direction.
Okay, now we are getting into some actual enforcement. However it is unclear what all these added levels of bureaucracy will actually accomplish. It just seems to slow things down.
Wasn’t part of this bill to ensure speedy startup and process?
Exercise of Commission’s Powers and Performance of Its Duties and Functions by Designated Officers
Regulations
54 The Governor in Council may make regulations that specify
(a) powers, duties and functions of the Commission that are technical or administrative in nature and may be exercised or performed by designated officers;
(b) any circumstances in which those powers are to be exercised and those duties and functions are to be performed only by designated officers; and
(c) the procedures and practices that apply to the exercise of those powers and the performance of those duties and functions by designated officers.
Good in a way, delegate matters the powers at hand don’t understand to underlings who would know more.
Also a bit concerning. There is no requirement to actually have any education, experience or training in the industry. Wouldn’t this invite mistake from incompetent, politically driven leaders?
Rights and Interests of the Indigenous Peoples of Canada
Duty to consider — Commission
56 (1) When making a decision, an order or a recommendation under this Act, the Commission must consider any adverse effects that the decision, order or recommendation may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Duty to consider — designated officers
(2) When making a decision or an order under this Act, a designated officer must consider any adverse effects that the decision or order may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Advisory committee
57 (1) The Regulator must establish an advisory committee for the purpose of enhancing the involvement, under Part 2, of the Indigenous peoples of Canada and Indigenous organizations in respect of pipelines, power lines and offshore renewable energy projects as well as abandoned pipelines.
Membership
(2) The membership of the advisory committee must include at least
(a) one person recommended by an Indigenous organization that represents the interests of First Nations;
(b) one person recommended by an Indigenous organization that represents the interests of the Inuit; and
(c) one person recommended by an Indigenous organization that represents the interests of the Métis.
Confidentiality — Indigenous knowledge
58 (1) Any Indigenous knowledge that is provided in confidence to the Regulator under this Act or any other Act of Parliament that confers powers, duties or functions on the Regulator is confidential and must not knowingly be, or be permitted to be, disclosed without written consent.
Exception
(2) Despite subsection (1), the Indigenous knowledge referred to in that subsection may be disclosed if
(a) it is publicly available;
(b) the disclosure is necessary for the purposes of procedural fairness and natural justice or for use in legal proceedings; or
(c) the disclosure is authorized in the circumstances set out in the regulations made under section 59.
Consultation
(2.1) Before disclosing Indigenous knowledge under paragraph 2(b) for the purposes of procedural fairness and natural justice, the Regulator must consult the person or entity who provided the Indigenous knowledge and the person or entity to whom it is proposed to be disclosed about the scope of the proposed disclosure and potential conditions under subsection (3).
Further disclosure
(3) The Regulator may, having regard to the consultation referred to in subsection (2.1), impose conditions with respect to the disclosure of Indigenous knowledge by any person or entity to whom it is disclosed under paragraph (2)(b) for the purposes of procedural fairness and natural justice.
Duty to comply
(4) The person or entity referred to in subsection (3) must comply with any conditions imposed by the Regulator under that subsection.
Protection from civil proceeding or prosecution
(5) Despite any other Act of Parliament, no civil or criminal proceedings lie against the Regulator or the Minister — or any person acting on behalf of, or under the direction of, either of them — and no proceedings lie against the Crown or the Regulator, for the disclosure in good faith of any Indigenous knowledge under this Act or any other Act of Parliament that confers powers, duties or functions on the Regulator or for any consequences that flow from that disclosure.
Regulations
59 The Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing the circumstances in which Indigenous knowledge that is provided to the Regulator under this Act in confidence may be disclosed without written consent.
Once again, this seems designed to fail.
1/ If any indigenous person or group can shut down an entire project, or at least delay it for years, development will come to a standstill.
2/ Duty to consult: Again sounds nice, but written in such a way as to ensure nothing gets through.
3/ Committee must include:
(a) First Nations
(b) Inuit
(c) Metis
So not only is there “one” representative, but there are to be “three” each from different groups.
4/ Indigenous Knowledge provided to regulator is confidential.
What? So it cannot be challenged if we don’t know what it is.
5/ Before “disclosing Indigenous Knowledge”, the Regulator must discuss with person who provided it.
6/ No punishment for disclosing “Indigenous Knowledge” if it was done in good faith? Great, but if this knowledge is so powerful, why “wouldn’t” we want to share it
7/ So where is all this transparency, if “Indigenous Knowledge” is kept secret?
Public Engagement
Public engagement
74 The Regulator must establish processes that the Regulator considers appropriate to engage meaningfully with the public — and, in particular, the Indigenous peoples of Canada and Indigenous organizations — when public hearings are held under section 52 or subsection 241(3).
Participant funding program
75 For the purposes of this Act, the Regulator must establish a participant funding program to facilitate the participation of the public — and, in particular, the Indigenous peoples of Canada and Indigenous organizations — in public hearings under section 52 or subsection 241(3) and any steps leading to those hearings.
Public hearings are good, but the incessant pandering to Indigenous groups gets tiring.
Regulation of Construction, Operation and Abandonment
Orders
95 (1) To promote the safety and security of the operation of a regulated facility, the Commission may, by order, direct the holder to repair, reconstruct or alter part of the regulated facility and direct that, until the work is done, that part of the regulated facility not be used or be used in accordance with any conditions specified by the Commission.
Other measures
(2) The Commission may, by order, direct any of the following persons or bodies to take measures in respect of a regulated facility, an abandoned facility or any work or activity authorized under Part 5 that the Commission considers necessary for the safety and security of persons, the safety and security of the regulated facility or abandoned facility or the protection of property or the environment:
(a) an Indigenous governing body;
(b) the holder or any other person;
(c) the federal government or a federal Crown corporation;
(d) a provincial government or a provincial Crown corporation;
(e) a local authority.
This sounds nice, but in practice, anyone on the list can start making demands and delay or shut down any major project. Again, pandering to Indigenous bodies.
Offence and punishment — duty to assist and orders
112 (1) Every person who contravenes subsection 103(4) or fails to comply with an order under section 109 is guilty of an offence and is liable
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or to both; or
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year or to both.
Defence — no notice
(2) A person must not be found guilty of an offence for failing to comply with an order under section 109 unless the person was given written notice of the order in accordance with paragraph 109(3)(a).
Offence and punishment — obstruction
(3) Every person who contravenes section 106 is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable, for a first offence, to a fine of not more than $100,000 and, for any subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than $300,000.
This is one of many references in the Bill which criminalise certain actions. If nothing else, the bill does have teeth in it.
Pipeline Claims Tribunal
Establishment
Establishment of Tribunal
143 (1) The Governor in Council may, by order, after a designation is made under subsection 141(1), establish a pipeline claims tribunal whose purpose is to examine and adjudicate, as expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness permit, the claims for compensation made under this Act in relation to the release that occurred from the designated company’s pipeline and specify the location of its head office.
Reasons
(2) However, the Governor in Council may establish a pipeline claims tribunal only if, having regard to the extent of the compensable damage caused by the release, the estimated cost of paying compensation in respect of that damage and the advantages of having claims dealt with by an administrative tribunal, the Governor in Council considers it in the public interest to do so.
Claims treated equitably
(3) A Tribunal must exercise its powers and perform its duties and functions with respect to claims for compensation in an equitable manner, without discrimination on the basis of nationality or residence.
Now adding even more bureaucracy. The Governor in Council may establish a tribunal to specifically rule on pipeline compensation.
This bill goes on and on. Feel free to read the entire document
But the main take away is that it creates more and more levels of bureaucracy for any sort of development projects, such as pipelines. The only plausible explanation is that the Bill seems designed to prevent anything from getting off the ground.
CLICK HERE, for full text for the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
THE UNDERSTANDING
From the opening of the agreement
EMPHASIZING that the United States and Canada offer generous systems of refugee protection, recalling both countries’ traditions of assistance to refugees and displaced persons abroad, consistent with the principles of international solidarity that underpin the international refugee protection system, and committed to the notion that cooperation and burden-sharing with respect to refugee status claimants can be enhanced;
DESIRING to uphold asylum as an indispensable instrument of the international protection of refugees, and resolved to strengthen the integrity of that institution and the public support on which it depends;
NOTING that refugee status claimants may arrive at the Canadian or United States land border directly from the other Party, territory where they could have found effective protection;
CONVINCED, in keeping with advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its Executive Committee, that agreements among states may enhance the international protection of refugees by promoting the orderly handling of asylum applications by the responsible party and the principle of burden-sharing;
AWARE that such sharing of responsibility must ensure in practice that persons in need of international protection are identified and that the possibility of indirect breaches of the fundamental principle of non-refoulement are avoided, and therefore determined to safeguard for each refugee status claimant eligible to pursue a refugee status claim who comes within their jurisdiction, access to a full and fair refugee status determination procedure as a means to guarantee that the protections of the Convention, the Protocol, and the Torture Convention are effectively afforded;
The wording is pretty clear here. Canada and the United States view each other as safe countries. If you land in one country, you “should” not be able to hop to the other and claim refugee status.
It is of interest to read in particular, articles 4, 5, 6
ARTICLE 4
Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, the Party of the country of last presence shall examine, in accordance with its refugee status determination system, the refugee status claim of any person who arrives at a land border port of entry on or after the effective date of this Agreement and makes a refugee status claim.
Responsibility for determining the refugee status claim of any person referred to in paragraph 1 shall rest with the Party of the receiving country, and not the Party of the country of last presence, where the receiving Party determines that the person:
-Has in the territory of the receiving Party at least one family member who has had a refugee status claim granted or has been granted lawful status, other than as a visitor, in the receiving Party’s territory; or
-Has in the territory of the receiving Party at least one family member who is at least 18 years of age and is not ineligible to pursue a refugee status claim in the receiving Party’s refugee status determination system and has such a claim pending; or
-Is an unaccompanied minor; or
-Arrived in the territory of the receiving Party:
With a validly issued visa or other valid admission document, other than for transit, issued by the receiving Party; or
Not being required to obtain a visa by only the receiving Party.
The Party of the country of last presence shall not be required to accept the return of a refugee status claimant until a final determination with respect to this Agreement is made by the receiving Party.
Neither Party shall reconsider any decision that an individual qualifies for an exception under Articles 4 and 6 of this Agreement.
Makes clear about a formal point of entry. However, those who value sovereignty will note with concern there are many exceptions to keep alleged “refugees” in Canada far longer.
ARTICLE 5
In cases involving the removal of a person by one Party in transit through the territory of the other Party, the Parties agree as follows:
Any person being removed from Canada in transit through the United States, who makes a refugee status claim in the United States, shall be returned to Canada to have the refugee status claim examined by and in accordance with the refugee status determination system of Canada.
Any person being removed from the United States in transit through Canada, who makes a refugee status claim in Canada, and:
whose refugee status claim has been rejected by the United States, shall be permitted onward movement to the country to which the person is being removed; or
who has not had a refugee status claim determined by the United States, shall be returned to the United States to have the refugee status claim examined by and in accordance with the refugee status determination system of the United States.
It appears clear cut. You cannot country shop from one to another, and there is a specific agreement to remove those people who try.
ARTICLE 6
Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement, either Party may at its own discretion examine any refugee status claim made to that Party where it determines that it is in its public interest to do so.
So, either Canada or the United States could remove anyone at any time if deemed in national interest.
Where the Agreement is in effect The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.:
-at Canada-U.S. land border crossings
-by train or
-at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S.
As if plain and obvious, this only applies to border crossings entries. This means that fake refugees can bypass the agreement simply by entering anyplace other than an official border crossing.
That has been happening, by the thousands. See HERE, see HERE, and HERE.
One obvious solution would be to declare the “ENTIRE BORDER” a point of entry. However, there seems to be little willpower in Ottawa to do that.
In fact, Prime Minister Trudeau has no issues with calling a racist anyone who questions the open border.
