Category: Globalism

Posted on

CV #30(E): Crestview Strategy, Danielle Peters, Lobbyists Behind $173 Million Grant To Medicago

Medicago received a grant of $173,000,000 to develop a CV-19 vaccine. Beyond that, a portion of the grant is to build a manufacturing facility, which presumably should be operational by 2040.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

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

2. Danielle Peters, Major Pharma Lobbyist

  • February 4, 2019
  • February 4, 2019
  • February 5, 2019
  • November 27, 2019
  • January 22, 2020
  • March 3, 2020
  • March 5, 2020
  • May 25, 2020
  • June 8, 2020
  • June 8, 2020
  • June 29 2020
  • July 13, 2020
  • July 15, 2020
  • July 29, 2020
  • July 30, 2020
  • August 6, 2020
  • August 7, 2020
  • August 26, 2020
  • August 27, 2020
  • September 1, 2020
  • September 10, 2020
  • September 16, 2020
  • September 29, 2020
  • October 10, 2020
  • October 10 2020
  • January 13, 2021
  • January 28, 2021

The above list only includes searches for Medicago, which Danielle Peters is featured prominently. She has been registered as a Medicago lobbyist since 2013. Those dates are when she met on behalf of Medicago to lobby for vaccines. If you only search her name, Peters is involved in other pharma lobbying, such as with Merck, Kalgene Pharmaceuticals, Therapure Biopharma, and the Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacies

3. Danielle Peters, Magnet Strategy Group

Dani Peters is President of Magnet Strategy Group, a consulting firm that manages public affairs strategies in Canada and the United States.

Prior to founding Magnet Strategy Group, Dani held senior roles in public affairs firms in the U.S. and Canada, concentrating on fields that include innovation, health and life sciences. Over the past decade, Dani has worked with groups in the health sector to develop and manage government, public policy, funding, advocacy and stakeholder strategies.

Dani is co-founder of the Cross-Border Health Foundation, an organization that fosters dialogue between Canada and the United States around common health priorities. In addition to operating Magnet Strategy Group, Dani serves on the Industry Advisory Board for Bloom Burton & Co., a healthcare investment advisory firm in Toronto. She is also a Health Leader-in-Residence for the World Health Innovation Network (WIN), within the University of Windsor’s Odette School of Business.

What else is there to say? She is clearly a very connected person. Considering that Medicago landed a $173 million contract, due largely to her lobbying, Peters was financially a great investment. This deal wasn’t just to fund vaccine research, it was to build a facility as well.

4. Peters Lobbied While With Rothwell

It worth pointing out that Peters also lobbied on behalf of Medicago when she was employed by the firm, Rothwell Group. Seems that not much has changed.

5. Peters Part Of Adjuvant Partners As Well

Look familiar? It should. This profile is almost identical to the Magnet profile, down to using the same photograph. Among other things, Adjuvant lists “gene therapy” as one area it’s involved with. This appears to be another lobbying firm, as they don’t do medical research themselves.

6. Peters’ LinkedIn Page

The profile of one of the main players behind the $173 million spending. However, she has not acted alone in this.

7. Blake Oliver Jumps Ship To Government

On February 26, 2020, Blake Oliver lobbied the Federal Government on behalf of Medicago, while still employed at Crestview Strategy. Days later, he was working for the Government, in the Ministry of Transportation. He also helped volunteer for the Liberals in the 2019 election.

8. Patricia Sibal, Liberal Party Volunteer

Also connected to this is Patricia Sabil. She has lobbied for Medicago, while working for Crestview Strategy. She is also a volunteer with the Liberals in Ontario and Quebec.

9. Susie Heath, Liberal With Wynne/McGuinty

Susie Heath spent years with the Liberal Government of Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne. She has also lobbied on behalf of Medicago, while with Crestview Strategy

10. Jennifer Babcock, Ex-Crestview Lobbyist

Babcock spent several years in Parliament, working for various politicians. She also lobbied on behalf of both Medicago and GAVI. Honourable mentions go out to Lucas Malinowski, and Joanna Carey, who appear to have since left Crestview.

Jason Clark is still with Crestview, and has acted for Medicago and GAVI. He volunteered in the 2015 election for Liberals in the Ottawa region. Crestview itself was co-founded by Rob Silver, husband of Katie Telford, Trudeau’s Chief-of-Staff.

Currently, Ashton Arsenault is registered as a lobbyist for both Medicago and GAVI. For some variety, he is a strategist with the Conservative Party of Canada.

For some background information into Crestview and other lobbying, please check here, here, here and here.

This is what they mean when they say “we’re all in it together”.

11. Conflicts Of Interest Ignored In Media

Given the heavy subsidization of the media in Canada, it’s no surprise that none of this is being reported. When outlets are dependent on the Government to prop them up, they are unlikely to do real research. But about that $173 million grant, people should know who is really pulling the strings.

Posted on

IBC #8(C): World Bank Gets Production Order Dismissed In 2013 SNC Lavalin Case

This is a case from several years ago. The World Bank Group (WBG) went to the Supreme Court to get an Order overturned, which compelled the organization to turn over documents in a criminal case. WBG itself was not being tried, but they had information that was potentially valuable to the accused defendants. They were charged under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, and some were employees of SNC Lavalin.

1. More On The International Banking Cartel

For more on the banking cartel, check this page. The Canadian Government, like so many others, has sold out the independence and sovereignty of its monetary system to foreign interests. BIS, like its central banks, exceed their agenda and try to influence other social agendas. See who is really controlling things, and the common lies that politicians and media figures tell. The bankers work with the climate mafia and pandemic pushers to promote mutual goals of control and debt slavery.

2. Court Rulings On World Bank

Kevin Wallace v. H.M.Q., 2014 ONSC 7449 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2014/2014onsc7449/2014onsc7449.html

World Bank Group v. Kevin Wallace, et al., 2015 CanLII 38342 (SCC)
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2015/2015canlii38342/2015canlii38342.html

World Bank Group v. Wallace, 2016 SCC 15 (CanLII), [2016] 1 SCR 207
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2016/2016scc15/2016scc15.html

3. Ontario Superior Court Ruling

NORDHEIMER J.:
.
[1] The applicants are all charged with an offence under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, S.C. 1998, c. 34. They bring this application for an order requiring a third party, the World Bank Group, to produce various documents. In furtherance of that application, the applicants had subpoenas issued to two employees of the World Bank Group requiring them to appear before this court and bring with them various documents that were detailed in an appendix to the subpoenas. Neither of those individuals appeared in response to the subpoenas. I will address certain issues regarding these subpoenas later.

Background
.
[2] Some degree of factual background is necessary to understand the reason for this application. The applicants are jointly charged with one count of bribing foreign public officials, namely, officials within the government of The People’s Republic of Bangladesh. Three of the accused persons are former employees of SNC-Lavalin. Mohammad Ismail was Director, International Projects. Mr. Ismail reported to Ramesh Shah who was Vice-President of the International Division. Mr. Shah reported to Kevin Wallace who was Vice-President, Energy and Infrastructure, and was the senior SNC-Lavalin executive assigned to the Padma Project. Zulfiquar Ali Bhuiyan is a Bangladeshi and Canadian Citizen. It is alleged that Mr. Bhuiyan was the representative of Abul Chowdhury, a senior Bangladeshi official, who was alleged to also be involved in this matter.

[3] The background to this matter dates back to 2010 when the World Bank began receiving information suggesting that there might be corruption involving foreign public officials and company representatives in respect of a bid by SNC-Lavalin for a construction supervision contract related to the planned construction of the Padma Bridge in Bangladesh. The World Bank Group was a primary lender in relation to the Padma Bridge project.

[4] The Word Bank Group has a unit that is charged with the investigation of allegations of fraud, corruption, collusion and other improper activities in relation to World Bank financed projects. It is called the Vice Presidency for Integrity (“the INT”). In March, 2011, an officer with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was approached by an INT investigator concerning allegations that had come to the INT’s attention regarding possible corruption involving SNC-Lavalin and the Padma Bridge project.

Conclusion
.
[67] In summary, I conclude that:
(i) the subpoenas for Christopher Kim and Paul Haynes were validly served;
.
(ii) the World Bank Group has, on the particular facts of this case, waived their immunity such that this court has jurisdiction to order production of documents in their possession;
.
(iii) the applicants have satisfied the first stage for the production of records in the hands of a third party as set out in R. v. O’Connor;
.
(iv) the World Bank Group must produce to this court the documents set out in paragraphs a, b, c and e of the Appendix to the subpoenas so that the review contemplated in the second stage of the R. v. O’Connor procedure can take place;
.
(v) if the applicants still wish to pursue the documents referred to in paragaraphs d and f of the Appendix to the subpoenas, a further hearing should be arranged to address the relevance of those documents.

The details of the criminal fraud itself isn’t what’s so interesting here. It’s the fact that the Defendants attempted to force the WBG to produce documents which they claimed was relevant to their defense. Was this really about privacy, and exerting their immunities privilege? Or, was there some other, more basic reason WBG wouldn’t want this information to be public record?

4. Supreme Court Motion For Leave

The motion to expedite the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Number CR-13-90000727, 2014 ONSC 7449, dated December 23, 2014, is granted.

The Supreme Court of Canada granted the application to appeal and expedite the challenge from the Ontario Superior Court. Rather than comply, WBG decided to get the Order thrown out instead.

5. Supreme Court Overturns ONSC Ruling

Two issues were raised on the application: (1) whether the World Bank Group could be subject to a production order issued by a Canadian court given the immunities accorded to the IBRD and the IDA, and (2) if so, whether in the context of a challenge to the wiretap authorizations pursuant to Garofoli, the documents sought met the test for relevance.

With respect to the first issue, the trial judge found that the immunities and privileges claimed were prima facie applicable to the archives and personnel of the INT. However, he determined that the World Bank Group had waived these immunities by participating in the RCMP investigation. In any event, he was not persuaded that the documents at issue were “archives”. Moreover, in his view, the term “inviolable” in the Articles of Agreement connoted protection from search and seizure or confiscation, but not from production for inspection. On the second issue, the trial judge concluded that the documents were likely relevant to issues that would arise on a Garofoli application. Accordingly, he ordered that the documents be produced for review by the court.
.
Held: The appeal should be allowed and the production order set aside.

The trial judge erred in assessing the accused’s arguments. Although he correctly placed the burden on the accused, he did not properly assess the relevance of the documents being sought. In particular, he blurred the distinction in a Garofoli application between the affiant’s knowledge and the knowledge of others involved in the investigation. In this case, that distinction is crucial. While the documents sought may be relevant to the ultimate truth of the allegations in the affidavits, they are not reasonably likely to be of probative value to what Sgt. D knew or ought to have known since he did not consult them. The accused have not shown that it was unreasonable for him to rely on the information he received from the INT and other officers. Furthermore, accepting the argument that the INT’s records should be presumed relevant because first party documents were lost or not created would require a significant change to the O’Connor framework. Such a change is not necessary. Any loss of information must be addressed through the remedial framework set forth in R. v. La, 1997 CanLII 309 (SCC), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 680, which may well be the appropriate framework for addressing any prejudice resulting from the World Bank Group’s assertion of its immunities. The accused did not argue these issues on this appeal, and they are best left to the trial judge.

[6] First, the World Bank Group submits that the Schedules of the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-7 (“Bretton Woods Act”), grant immunity to the archives and personnel of certain constituent organizations of the World Bank Group, including the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (“IBRD”) and the International Development Association (“IDA”). Under Schedules II and III of the Bretton Woods Act, the IBRD’s and the IDA’s “archives . . . shall be inviolable” (“archival immunity”), and “[a]ll [g]overnors, [e]xecutive [d]irectors, [a]lternates, officers and employees . . . (i) shall be immune from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity except when the [IBRD or IDA] waives this immunity” (“personnel immunity”) (Sch. II, art. VII, ss. 5 and 8; Sch. III, art. VIII, ss. 5 and 8).

[7] Accordingly, the World Bank Group submits that the documents ordered produced by the trial judge are immune from production.

[12] SNC-Lavalin was one of several companies bidding for a contract to supervise the construction of the bridge (the “Supervision Contract”). A committee of Bangladeshi officials evaluated the bids. The respondents allegedly conspired to bribe the committee to award the contract to SNC-Lavalin. Three of the respondents are former employees of SNC-Lavalin: Kevin Wallace, Ramesh Shah and Mohammad Ismail. The fourth, Zulfiquar Bhuiyan, was allegedly a representative of Abul Chowdhury, a Bangladeshi official alleged to be involved in this matter. They are all charged with an offence under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

[13] The INT is responsible for investigating allegations of fraud, corruption and collusion in relation to projects financed by the World Bank Group. The INT is an independent unit within the World Bank Group, reporting directly to its President. Mr. Haynes and Mr. Kim were senior investigators with the INT. Mr. Haynes was the primary investigator in this matter.

V. Conclusion
.
[148] The World Bank Group’s immunities cover the records sought and its personnel, and they have not been waived. Moreover, the INT’s records were not disclosable under Canadian law. In the result, we would dismiss the respondents’ motion to strike, allow the appeal and set aside the production order.

[149] In the circumstances, given the issues raised, we would make no order as to costs. In doing so, we wish to make it clear that we do not accept Mr. Bhuiyan’s submission as to the World Bank Group’s conduct in this case.

The Supreme Court of Canada ultimately found that the World Bank Group hadn’t waived its immunities, and was within its rights to refuse a request for production in a criminal case. The claim was that Canada’s membership with WBG came with certain conditions, and that this was still intact.

6. Relevance To What’s Happening Today

Considering that the World Bank Group is heavily involved in promoting the “pandemic” narrative, getting them to turn over material in any potential litigation will be very tricky. There are many, MANY things that real journalists and the public as a whole would want to see. This organization has power over Canadians, yet, we are not allowed to see the inner workings of how it operates.

This unfortunately is a very bad precedent, in terms of getting some transparency. And given the political connections Lavalin has, one has to wonder if there was interference in these proceedings.

Posted on

IBC #8(B): Various Bonds, Enterprises, The World Bank Group Is Running

The World Bank tries to portray itself as an organization devoted to the welfare of humankind globally. However, the organization is involved in many bond schemes that most people are completely unaware of. It’s quite the lucrative side operation.

1. More On The International Banking Cartel

For more on the banking cartel, check this page. The Canadian Government, like so many others, has sold out the independence and sovereignty of its monetary system to foreign interests. BIS, like its central banks, exceed their agenda and try to influence other social agendas. See who is really controlling things, and the common lies that politicians and media figures tell. The bankers work with the climate mafia and pandemic pushers to promote mutual goals of control and debt slavery.

2. Important Links

5 Organizations Make Up The World Bank

World Bank Launches “Blockchain Bond” In 2018
Second Round Of Blockchain Bonds In 2019
Video Explaining Blockchain Implementation In New Bonds
Seychelles Launches Blue Bonds In 2018
Blue Bonds Partially Financed By Rockefeller Foundation
Video Explaining Blue (Water) Bonds Concept
Rockefeller Foundation Financing Green Bonds
Founders And Partners Of Climate Bonds
“Pandemic Bonds” Started in 2017 By World Bank Group
Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility
World Bank Won’t Pay Out Pandemic Bonds
Video Explaining Pandemic Bonds Concept
World Bank Launching Social Impact Bonds
Lukashenko Claims IMF & World Bank Offered Bribe

3. About The World Bank Group

  • IBRD, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  • IDA, The International Development Association
  • IFC, The International Finance Corporation
  • MIGA, The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency
  • ICSID, The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Dispute

Partnering With Governments
Together, IBRD and IDA form the World Bank, which provides financing, policy advice, and technical assistance to governments of developing countries. IDA focuses on the world’s poorest countries, while IBRD assists middle-income and creditworthy poorer countries.
.
Partnering With The Private Sector
IFC, MIGA, and ICSID focus on strengthening the private sector in developing countries. Through these institutions, the World Bank Group provides financing, technical assistance, political risk insurance, and settlement of disputes to private enterprises, including financial institutions.
.
One World Bank Group
While our five institutions have their own country membership, governing boards, and articles of agreement, we work as one to serve our partner countries. Today’s development challenges can only be met if the private sector is part of the solution. But the public sector sets the groundwork to enable private investment and allow it to thrive. The complementary roles of our institutions give the World Bank Group a unique ability to connect global financial resources, knowledge, and innovative solutions to the needs of developing countries.

Most people don’t know this, but the World Bank is actually the partnership of 5 organizations. Strangely, an outside search of them reveals nothing about them, other than being part of the World Bank Group. A deep dive is needed into the inner workings of the World Bank, and is coming in a future article.

4. Types Of Bonds World Bank Involved With

Here are some of the programs the World Bank has been mixed up in. It’s quite the varied and lucrative enterprise. People can become very wealthy with these schemes, although, it’s dependent on others playing along.

  • Blockchain Bonds
  • Blue (Water) Bonds
  • Green Bonds
  • Pandemic Bonds
  • Social Bonds
  • Vaccine Bonds

5. World Bank & Blockchain Bonds

WASHINGTON/SYDNEY, August 23/24, 2018 – The World Bank launched bond-i (blockchain operated new debt instrument), the world’s first bond to be created, allocated, transferred and managed through its life cycle using distributed ledger technology. The two-year bond raised $110 million, marking the first time that investors have supported the World Bank’s development activities in a transaction that is fully managed using the blockchain technology.

The World Bank mandated Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) as arranger for the bond on August 10. The announcement was followed by a two-week consultation period with the market, with key investors indicating strong support for the issuance.

Investors in the bond include CBA, First State Super, NSW Treasury Corporation, Northern Trust, QBE, SAFA, and Treasury Corporation of Victoria. CBA and the World Bank will continue to welcome investor interest in the bond throughout its life cycle, and inquiries from other market participants in relation to the platform.

The bond is part of a broader strategic focus of the World Bank to harness the potential of disruptive technologies for development. In June 2017, the World Bank launched a Blockchain Innovation Lab to understand the impact of blockchain and other disruptive technologies in areas such as land administration, supply chain management, health, education, cross-border payments, and carbon market trading.

The World Bank Group started “blockchain bonds” in 2018. Rather than the more traditional methods, this would, as the name implies, use Blockchain technology as an alternative. The next round of bonds came in 2019.

6. World Bank & Blue (Water) Bonds

The Republic of Seychelles start the first sovereign “blue bond” in 2018. The Rockefeller Foundation, Standard Chartered Bank and Bank of New York Mellon helped with payments. The bonds themselves were placed with the private investors: Nuveen, Prudential and Calvert Impact Capital.

7. World Bank & Green/Climate Bonds

Climate Bonds, or “Green Bonds“, is yet another growing industry that the Rockefellers and other environmental groups are trying to pump up. This is an industry that is potentially worth $100 trillion or more. However, the money likely won’t be going where people think it will.

8. World Bank, PEFF & Pandemic Bonds

Washington, DC, June 28, 2017 – The World Bank (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) today launched specialized bonds aimed at providing financial support to the Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF), a facility created by the World Bank to channel surge funding to developing countries facing the risk of a pandemic.

This marks the first time that World Bank bonds are being used to finance efforts against infectious diseases, and the first time that pandemic risk in low-income countries is being transferred to the financial markets.

The PEF will provide more than $500 million to cover developing countries against the risk of pandemic outbreaks over the next five years, through a combination of bonds and derivatives priced today, a cash window, and future commitments from donor countries for additional coverage.

The transaction, that enables PEF to potentially save millions of lives, was oversubscribed by 200% reflecting an overwhelmingly positive reception from investors and a high level of confidence in the new World Bank sponsored instrument. With such strong demand, the World Bank was able to price the transaction well below the original guidance from the market. The total amount of risk transferred to the market through the bonds and derivatives is $425 million.

In June 2017, the World Bank started up “Pandemic Bonds“, which would be a sort of insurance policy against infectious diseases. Of course, one has to wonder how far ahead they saw in starting this.

The PEFF, or Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility, will determine if there is a pandemic, according to certain criteria. But early in 2020, the World Bank was accused of “waiting for people to die”, by refusing to pay out this money.

9. World Bank & Social Impact Bonds

In February 2019 “Social Impact Bonds” were started up. They are marketed as a sort of social investment driver, to improve the quality of live for people in the 3rd World, particularly women. They are also supposed to help with the financing of the UNSDA, or United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda.

10. World Bank, IFFM & Vaccine Bonds

This was addressed in the Planned-emic series. Instead of giving money directly to GAVI, there is a convoluted scheme that involves making pledges to IFFIm, the International Finance Facility for Immunizations. Those pledges are then used to generate bonds which are sold to the World Bank. The World Bank then re-sells those bonds on the open market. The money from sales goes to GAVI, who uses it to finance their vaccine agenda.

Note: IFFIm is actually financed by GAVI (who is financed by Gates), so there isn’t really any independence here.

Of course, these means that donor pledges end up costing much more than originally told, or it means only a portion of that money is put to use.

11. Some Thoughts On These Bonds

In early 2020, the President of Belarus claimed that the IMF (International Monetary Fund), and World Bank, offered him a bribe of almost $1 billion if he would impose pandemic measures on his country. He refused. While that seemed like an absurd conspiracy theory at the time, more and more questions need to be answered.

What are the IMF and World Bank up to, and are these bonds connected to their push for drastic (and forced) social changes?

While all of these projects have nice enough sounding names, a question keeps coming up: why is it necessary to use these bonds at all? Instead of selling, and reselling bonds, shouldn’t the money go directly to the people who will be impacted? After all, the average person doesn’t benefit from increased bond values, only the bond holders do.

It’s interesting that the Rockefeller Foundation is so supportive of all of this. After all, they drafted the Lockstep Narrative in 2010. They lay out in broad strokes how to force social change under the false pretense of a global health crisis.

Of course, companies that don’t play along with the agenda, such as “non-green” industries, will soon be forced out of business. The threats have been openly made for a long time now.

Posted on

Bill C-21: Firearms Bill Adding “Transborder Criminality” To IRPA

This Bill redefines replica firearms, and brings Red Flag and Yellow Flag Laws onto Canadian gun owners, regardless of how law abiding these people may be. It also makes changes to IRPA, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Immigration & Refugee Protection Act
Canada Criminal Code
Text Of Bill C-21

1. Canada Immigration & Refugee Protection Act

Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
.
(2) The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is responsible for the administration of this Act as it relates to
(a) examinations at ports of entry;
(b) the enforcement of this Act, including arrest, detention and removal;
(c) the establishment of policies respecting the enforcement of this Act and inadmissibility on grounds of security, organized criminality or violating human or international rights; or
(d) declarations referred to in section 42.1.

Criminality
.
36(2) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for
.
(a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by way of indictment, or of two offences under any Act of Parliament not arising out of a single occurrence;
.
(b) having been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament, or of two offences not arising out of a single occurrence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute offences under an Act of Parliament;
.
(c) committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament; or
.
(d) committing, on entering Canada, an offence under an Act of Parliament prescribed by regulations.

Bill C-21 would add Section 36(2.1) or “transborder criminality” onto this section. Presumably this refers to things like weapons smuggling, but a more precise definition would be appreciation

[SERIOUS CRIMINALITY]
36(3) The following provisions govern subsections (1) and (2):
.
(a) an offence that may be prosecuted either summarily or by way of indictment is deemed to be an indictable offence, even if it has been prosecuted summarily;
.
(b) inadmissibility under subsections (1) and (2) may not be based on a conviction in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered and has not been revoked or ceased to have effect under the Criminal Records Act, or in respect of which there has been a final determination of an acquittal;
.
(c) the matters referred to in paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) and (2)(b) and (c) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of a permanent resident or foreign national who, after the prescribed period, satisfies the Minister that they have been rehabilitated or who is a member of a prescribed class that is deemed to have been rehabilitated;
.
(d) a determination of whether a permanent resident has committed an act described in paragraph (1)(c) must be based on a balance of probabilities; and
.
(e) inadmissibility under subsections (1) and (2) may not be based on an offence
.
(i) designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act,
.
(ii) for which the permanent resident or foreign national is found guilty under the Young Offenders Act, chapter Y-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, or
.
(iii) for which the permanent resident or foreign national received a youth sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

36(3)(b) is changed to include transborder criminality in grounds, if a person has been pardoned, or acquitted finally. Similarly, 36(3)(e) brings transborder criminality into consideration for young offenders. These are just a few quotes from IRPA, the Immigration & Refugee Protection Act.

2. Changes Bill C-21 Would Make To IRPA

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
44 Paragraph 4(2)‍(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is replaced by the following:

(c) the establishment of policies respecting the enforcement of this Act and inadmissibility on grounds of security, organized criminality, violating human or international rights or transborder criminality; or

45 (1) Paragraphs 36(1)‍(a) to (c) of the French version of the Act are replaced by the following:

a) être déclaré coupable au Canada d’une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans ou d’une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale pour laquelle un emprisonnement de plus de six mois est infligé;
.
b) être déclaré coupable, à l’extérieur du Canada, d’une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans;
.
c) commettre, à l’extérieur du Canada, une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.

(2) Paragraphs 36(2)‍(a) to (c) of the French version of the Act are replaced by the following:

a) être déclaré coupable au Canada d’une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation ou de deux infractions prévues sous le régime de toute loi fédérale qui ne découlent pas des mêmes faits;
.
b) être déclaré coupable, à l’extérieur du Canada, d’une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation ou de deux infractions qui ne découlent pas des mêmes faits et qui, commises au Canada, constitueraient des infractions sous le régime de toute loi fédérale;
.
c) commettre, à l’extérieur du Canada, une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation;

(3) Subsection 36(2) of the Act is amended by adding “or” at the end of paragraph (b), by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (c) and by repealing paragraph (d).

(4) Section 36 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

Transborder criminality
(2.‍1) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of transborder criminality for committing, on entering Canada, a prescribed offence under an Act of Parliament.

(5) The portion of subsection 36(3) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
Application

(3) The following provisions govern subsections (1) to (2.‍1):

(6) Paragraph 36(3)‍(b) of the English version of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) inadmissibility under subsections (1) to (2.‍1) may not be based on a conviction in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered and has not been revoked or ceased to have effect under the Criminal Records Act, or in respect of which there has been a final determination of an acquittal;

(7) The portion of paragraph 36(3)‍(e) of the English version of the Act before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following:

(e) inadmissibility under subsections (1) to (2.‍1) may not be based on an offence

46 Paragraph 37(1)‍(a) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

a) être membre d’une organisation dont il y a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu’elle se livre ou s’est livrée à des activités faisant partie d’un plan d’activités criminelles organisées par plusieurs personnes agissant de concert en vue de la perpétration d’une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation ou de la perpétration, hors du Canada, d’une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une telle infraction, ou se livrer à des activités faisant partie d’un tel plan;

47 Paragraph 55(3)‍(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) has reasonable grounds to suspect that the permanent resident or the foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality, criminality, transborder criminality or organized criminality.

48 Paragraph 58(1)‍(c) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(c) the Minister is taking necessary steps to inquire into a reasonable suspicion that they are inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality, criminality, transborder criminality or organized criminality;

49 Subsection 68(4) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Termination and cancellation
(4) If the Immigration Appeal Division has stayed a removal order against a permanent resident or a foreign national who was found inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality, criminality or transborder criminality, and they are convicted of another offence referred to in subsection 36(1), the stay is cancelled by operation of law and the appeal is terminated.

50 Paragraph 100(2)‍(b) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

b) il l’estime nécessaire, afin qu’il soit statué sur une accusation pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.

51 Paragraphs 101(2)‍(a) and (b) of the French version of the Act are replaced by the following:

a) une déclaration de culpabilité au Canada pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans;
b) une déclaration de culpabilité à l’extérieur du Canada pour une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.

52 Paragraph 103(1)‍(b) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

b) il l’estime nécessaire, afin qu’il soit statué sur une accusation pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.

53 Subsection 105(1) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

Sursis
105 (1) La Section de la protection des réfugiés ou la Section d’appel des réfugiés sursoit à l’étude de l’affaire si la personne est visée par un arrêté introductif d’instance pris au titre de l’article 15 de la Loi sur l’extradition pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement d’une durée maximale égale ou supérieure à dix ans tant qu’il n’a pas été statué en dernier ressort sur la demande d’extradition.

54 Paragraph 112(3)‍(b) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

b) il est interdit de territoire pour grande criminalité pour déclaration de culpabilité au Canada pour une infraction prévue sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans ou pour toute déclaration de culpabilité à l’extérieur du Canada pour une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans;

55 (1) Subparagraph 113(e)‍(i) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(i) an applicant who is determined to be inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality with respect to a conviction in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years for which a term of imprisonment of less than two years — or no term of imprisonment — was imposed, and

(2) Subparagraph 113(e)‍(ii) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

(ii) celui qui est interdit de territoire pour grande criminalité pour déclaration de culpabilité à l’extérieur du Canada pour une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction sous le régime d’une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans, sauf s’il a été conclu qu’il est visé à la section F de l’article premier de la Convention sur les réfugiés.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations
58 The portion of section 19 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Transborder crime
19 For the purposes of subsection 36(2.‍1) of the Act, indictable offences under the following Acts of Parliament are prescribed:

It says that certain indictable offences under the following Acts are prescribed, but then it doesn’t list them. Is there an oversight here?

59 Paragraph 229(1)‍(d) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:
(d) a deportation order, if they are inadmissible under paragraph 36(2)‍(b) or (c) of the Act on grounds of criminality or under subsection 36(2.‍1) of the Act on grounds of transborder criminality;
60 Paragraph 230(3)‍(c) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:
(c) is inadmissible under subsection 36(1) of the Act on grounds of serious criminality, under subsection 36(2) of the Act on grounds of criminality or under subsection 36(2.‍1) of the Act on grounds of transborder criminality;

This Bill would add “transborder criminality” as a reason to prevent someone from entering Canada, to imprison, or to deport. While this sounds fine, some clarity would be appreciated.

3. IRPA Also Lets Inadmissibles In Legally

Temporary resident permit
.
24 (1) A foreign national who, in the opinion of an officer, is inadmissible or does not meet the requirements of this Act becomes a temporary resident if an officer is of the opinion that it is justified in the circumstances and issues a temporary resident permit, which may be cancelled at any time.

Public policy considerations
.
25.2 (1) The Minister may, in examining the circumstances concerning a foreign national who is inadmissible or who does not meet the requirements of this Act, grant that person permanent resident status or an exemption from any applicable criteria or obligations of this Act if the foreign national complies with any conditions imposed by the Minister and the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations.

As addressed here, here, here and here, there are at least 2 provisions in IRPA that allow people who are otherwise inadmissible to be LEGALLY let it. This happens daily.

4. Confusion Around Sentencing Range

Bill C-21 includes increasing the range of sentences for several gun crimes from a 10 year maximum, to a 14 year maximum. This is one of the truly reasonable sections of the legislation.

Replacement of “10” and “ten” with “14”
14 The Act is amended by replacing “10” and “ten” with “14” in the following provisions:
(a) paragraph 95(2)‍(a);
(b) paragraph 96(2)‍(a);
(c) the portion of subsection 99(2) before paragraph (a) and subsection 99(3);
(d) the portion of subsection 100(2) before paragraph (a) and subsection 100(3); and
(e) the portion of subsection 103(2) before paragraph (a) and subsection 103(2.‍1).

That being said, Bill C-22 (another piece before Parliament), seeks to eliminate the mandatory minimum sentences on many serious gun crimes. Overall, these are very strange, and somewhat conflicting portions.

Posted on

Bill C-21: Yellow Flag Laws To Temporarily (Or Indefinitely) Suspend A Gun License

Red Flag Laws were covered previously. Bill C-21, would also allow for a Chief Firearms Officer to suspend or revoke the license of a person based on “reasonable grounds”. However, the wording is vague, and a reasonable interpretation is that a suspension could be renewed indefinitely. It also calls into question the due process options the person would have.

1. Gun Rights Are Essential, Need Protecting

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

2. What The Firearms Act Currently Says On This

Refusal to Issue and Revocation
Marginal note: Licences and authorizations
.
68 A chief firearms officer shall refuse to issue a licence if the applicant is not eligible to hold one and may refuse to issue an authorization to carry or authorization to transport for any good and sufficient reason.

Marginal note: Registration certificates
.
69 The Registrar may refuse to issue a registration certificate, authorization to export or authorization to import for any good and sufficient reason including, in the case of an application for a registration certificate, where the applicant is not eligible to hold a registration certificate.

Marginal note: Revocation of licence or authorization
.
70 (1) A chief firearms officer may revoke a licence, an authorization to carry or an authorization to transport for any good and sufficient reason including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(a) where the holder of the licence or authorization
(i) is no longer or never was eligible to hold the licence or authorization,
(ii) contravenes any condition attached to the licence or authorization, or
(iii) has been convicted or discharged under section 730 of the Criminal Code of an offence referred to in paragraph 5(2)(a); or
(b) where, in the case of a business, a person who stands in a prescribed relationship to the business has been convicted or discharged under section 730 of the Criminal Code of any such offence.

Marginal note: Registrar
.
(2) The Registrar may revoke an authorization to export or authorization to import for any good and sufficient reason.

Previous Version
Marginal note: Revocation of registration certificate
.
71 (1) The Registrar
.
(a) may revoke a registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm for any good and sufficient reason; and
.
(b) shall revoke a registration certificate for a firearm held by an individual where the Registrar is informed by a chief firearms officer under section 67 that the firearm is not being used for a purpose described in section 28.

Marginal note: Automatic revocation of registration certificate
.
(2) A registration certificate for a prohibited firearm referred to in subsection 12(3) (pre-August 1, 1992 converted automatic firearms) is automatically revoked on the change of any alteration in the prohibited firearm that was described in the application for the registration certificate.

Marginal note:Notice of refusal to issue or revocation
.
72 (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), if a chief firearms officer decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a licence or authorization to transport or the Registrar decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a registration certificate, authorization to export or authorization to import, the chief firearms officer or Registrar shall give notice of the decision in the prescribed form to the applicant for or holder of the licence, registration certificate or authorization.

Marginal note: When notice not required
.
(1.1) Notice under subsection (1) need not be given in any of the following circumstances:
.
(a) if the holder has requested that the licence, registration certificate or authorization be revoked; or
.
(b) if the revocation is incidental to the issuance of a new licence, registration certificate or authorization.

Marginal note: Material to accompany notice
.
(2) A notice given under subsection (1) must include reasons for the decision disclosing the nature of the information relied on for the decision and must be accompanied by a copy of sections 74 to 81.

Marginal note: Non-disclosure of information
.
(3) A chief firearms officer or the Registrar need not disclose any information the disclosure of which could, in the opinion of the chief firearms officer or the Registrar, endanger the safety of any person.

Marginal note: Disposal of firearms
.
(4) A notice given under subsection (1) in respect of a licence must specify a reasonable period during which the applicant for or holder of the licence may deliver to a peace officer or a firearms officer or a chief firearms officer or otherwise lawfully dispose of any firearm, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition that the applicant for or holder of the licence possesses and during which sections 91, 92 and 94 of the Criminal Code do not apply to the applicant or holder.

Marginal note: Disposal of firearms — registration certificate
.
(5) A notice given under subsection (1) in respect of a registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm must specify a reasonable period during which the applicant for or holder of the registration certificate may deliver to a peace officer or a firearms officer or a chief firearms officer or otherwise lawfully dispose of the firearm to which the registration certificate relates and during which sections 91, 92 and 94 of the Criminal Code do not apply to the applicant or holder.

Marginal note: Reference
.
(6) If the applicant for or holder of the licence or registration certificate refers the refusal to issue it or revocation of it to a provincial court judge under section 74, the reasonable period of time does not begin until after the reference is finally disposed of.

The Chief Firearms Officer or the Registrar already have significant powers in the Firearms Act to suspend or revoke licenses and authorizations for “any good and sufficient” reason”. Of course, this is very vague, and open to interpretation.

There is also the option to refuse to disclose information that could “endanger a person”. In practice, this can mean the person who made such a complaint to get the gun seizure would not have to be confronted by the person they accuse.

This Bill will go even further, and allow for 30 day suspensions of licences. Of course, nothing says that a suspension can’t be renewed — or another one handed out — 30 days later.

3. What Bill C-21 Would Change To Firearms Act

28 The heading before section 68 of the Act is replaced by the following:

Refusal to Issue, Suspension and Revocation

29 Section 68 of the Act is replaced by the following:

Refusal to issue — chief firearms officer
68 (1) A chief firearms officer shall refuse to issue a licence if the applicant is not eligible to hold one and may refuse to issue an authorization to carry referred to in paragraph 20(b) or an authorization to transport for any good and sufficient reason.

Refusal to issue — Commissioner
(2) The Commissioner may refuse to issue an authorization to carry referred to in paragraph 20(a) for any good and sufficient reason.

30 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 69:

Suspension
69.‍1 (1) If a chief firearms officer has reasonable grounds to suspect, on the basis of information that they have collected or received from any person, that the holder of a licence is no longer eligible to hold the licence, they may suspend, in respect of a licence, the holder’s authorization to use, acquire and import firearms for a period of up to 30 days.
.
Notice
(2) A chief firearms officer shall give notice in writing of the suspension to the holder of the licence. The notice shall include reasons for the decision, the nature of the information relied on for the decision, the period of the suspension and a copy of this section and sections 69.‍2 and 70.
.
Non-disclosure of information
(3) A chief firearms officer need not disclose any information the disclosure of which could, in their opinion, endanger the safety of any person.
.
Termination of suspension
(4) A chief firearms officer shall terminate the suspension at the expiry of the period referred to in subsection (2) or, if they are satisfied that the grounds for the suspension no longer exist, at any time before the expiry of that period. The chief firearms officer shall give notice in writing of the termination of the suspension to the holder of the licence.

Prohibition on use, acquisition and importation
69.‍2 The holder of a licence shall not use, acquire or import firearms while their authorizations to do so are suspended under subsection 69.‍1(1).

31 (1) The portion of subsection 70(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Revocation of licence or authorization
70 (1) A chief firearms officer may revoke a licence, an authorization to carry referred to in paragraph 20(b) or an authorization to transport — and the Commissioner may revoke an authorization to carry referred to in paragraph 20(a) — for any good and sufficient reason including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(2) Subsection 70(1) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (a) and by adding the following after paragraph (a):
(a.‍1) where the holder of the licence uses, acquires or imports a firearm while their authorizations to do so are suspended under subsection 69.‍1(1); or

32 Section 71 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

Automatic revocation of registration certificate
(3) A registration certificate for a handgun is automatically revoked on the failure of the holder to provide to a chief firearms officer, during the 180 day period referred to in subsection 58.‍01(2), the information required to update the registration certificate for that handgun.

33 Subsection 72(6) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Reference
(6) If the applicant for or holder of a licence or registration certificate refers the refusal to issue it or revocation of it to a provincial court judge under section 74 they shall, within 30 days after referring the matter, deliver to a peace officer or otherwise lawfully dispose of any firearm that they possess. Sections 91, 92 and 94 of the Criminal Code do not apply to the applicant or holder during that time.

Order — return of firearm
(7) If the decision of the chief firearms officer or the Registrar is confirmed, the judge shall, if a firearm was delivered to a peace officer under subsection (6), order the return of the firearm to the applicant for or holder of the licence or registration certificate, in order for the applicant or holder to lawfully dispose of it.

A Chief Firearms Officer can revoke a license for any “good and sufficient” reason. The information can come from anyone, and there is no requirement that the person be named, if done for safety reasons. In short, there is no real right to confront the accuser.

A license can be suspended for 30 days. However, it doesn’t look like there is anything that would prevent necessarily the suspension from being renewed.

While this portion of Bill C-21 is pretty bad, a lot of these rules were already on the books. This just seems to make it easier to issue a 30 day suspension without a real investigation.

4. Challenging Case In Provincial Court

74(2) Limitation period
.
(2) An applicant or holder may only refer a matter to a provincial court judge under subsection (1) within thirty days after receiving notice of the decision of the chief firearms officer, Registrar or provincial minister under section 29, 67 or 72 or within such further time as is allowed by a provincial court judge, whether before or after the expiration of those thirty days.

75(3) Burden of proof
.
(3) At the hearing of the reference, the burden of proof is on the applicant or holder to satisfy the provincial court judge that the refusal to issue or revocation of the licence, registration certificate or authorization, the decision or the refusal to approve or revocation of the approval was not justified.
.
Marginal note: Where hearing may proceed ex parte
.
(4) A provincial court judge may proceed ex parte to hear and determine a reference in the absence of the applicant or holder in the same circumstances as those in which a summary conviction court may, under Part XXVII of the Criminal Code, proceed with a trial in the absence of the defendant.

A few things to point out when challenging this is court:

First, there is a 30 day time limit to initiate the proceedings. While the Court “may” allow an extension for applications filed after that, they don’t have to, and there is no guarantee they will. So, be aware of this.

Second, the burden is on the Applicant to prove that the revocation or refusal to issue is unjust. The Firearms Officer doesn’t have to prove anything.

Third, in limited cases, the Judge can proceed ex-parte, which means “without the Parties”. In practice, this will mean the person who applied may not be able to attend.

An overall impression: while this 30 day suspension is certainly bad news, the Firearms Act was already pretty stacked against the rights of gun owners. This certainly doesn’t help.

Posted on

Conservatives Whine About Sexual Assault During Quarantine, Not The Forced Quarantines Themselves

This is a new level of moral relativity. Apparently, authorities detaining people for 14 days under the false pretense of public safety is okay. The forcible confinement is not the issue. Nor is the nasal rape that comes in the form of PCR tests. However, the entire experience is suddenly a human rights violation if a sexual assault is committed during that time.

1. Rempel Supports House Arrest In Principle

https://twitter.com/GregMcLeanYYC/status/1358115105683066881

This is from February 6, 2021. At the 28 second mark, Michelle Rempel-Garner explicitly states that everyone (presuming her party included), supports the idea of forcing people into their homes for 14 days at a time.

In her usual “Canada last” ways, she does ask for exemptions for Temporary Foreign Workers from quarantine, at a time when unemployment in Canada is still extremely high.

To reiterate, the “Official Opposition” doesn’t have a problem with imprisoning people. Their complaints are limited to some of the details of implementing such policies.

2. Fake Outrage Over Assault In Quarantine

https://twitter.com/MichelleRempel/status/1365032919866118147

On February 25, Rempel pretended to be outraged that people coming into Canada were being forced into quarantine against their will, and not knowing where they are going. Keep in mind, on February 6, she was okay with this, according to her own statement.

Does any of this mean that Conservatives now have a problem with this sort of confinement? Keep in mind, it would be illegal in any other circumstances. No. Instead, all that is asked is for a review, and to do a better job of vetting the guards holding them prisoner.

“The Liberal government must take action now. We call for the Liberals to suspend the hotel quarantine requirement until they have put measures in place to ensure the safety of Canadians and institute a system for verifying at-home quarantine that doesn’t involve security agents who have not been properly vetted. During this necessary pause, the federal government should continue with on-arrival testing and the 14-day at-home quarantine for all international travelers to protect the public health of Canadians.”

Even in her statement, there is no principled objection to the quarantine camps themselves (or internment camps). There is no objection to forcing people into house arrest. In fact, they seem content to re-establish these detention centers once better screening methods are in place.

The National Post mentioned that there was a call to suspend the program, which is not the same thing as cancelling it altogether.

3. Vaccine Agenda: They’re All In It Together

(See 1:30 mark in this, or original video). Trudeau claims that “normalcy will not return without a vaccine that is widely available, and that could be a very long way off”.

https://twitter.com/erinotoole/status/1356966419934683138

This is Erin O’Toole, the leader of the so-called “Conservative” Party of Canada, which claims to be the main opposition to Trudeau. Problem is: they don’t actually oppose anything ideologically. They whine about vaccines and tests not arriving fast enough, but don’t object on moral or ethical grounds.

There’s no way to describe this other than as a dog and pony show. These “leaders” are just going through the motions.