Following our revision of currently available information and jurisprudence, our position that Thelieve it would be exceptional to trivialize the relationships in such a © Human Rights Commissions - I am requesting a publically referenceable
Irving Shipbuilding is not a federal works, underlakings of businesses (FWUE) remains valid. quantified example. Consider OPC, ESDC, Miaisters, and Irving Legal have very ET Conia Wm Saree Sass acid th ean PISEDA cave
We did not find anything to support the fact that conkachng) with the federal goverment to likely presented legal ar ents. OPC said it would defend this standued in the H aid F) day a =
build ships would, by itself, make Irving Shipbuilding’ activiies an integral part of a FWUB. - Federal Court of es So without clear federal exemptions, how could these number, associated attachments, and any correspondence. Please,
On Fri, Mar 19,2021 at 4:35 PM - PIPEDA-040565 i %
NR RD ed ‘parties support these same definitions used to legislate less quantified examples, possible provide a case number on thread, reply to all
“federal work, undertaking or business...” FWUB) such as smaller private companies or fishermen, especially seasonal ones who © Qoders in Council Division - Can you please Provide any Orders, Dates
can’t protect themselves? I've added fishermen and ministers so they can and information relating to exemptions for Irving Shipbuilding, Halifax
[IEDR EGR) meray (Sra LEE (BR) ea ay nak reference this “Federal Precedent” - PIPEDA-040565. **If ESDC rejects Part Shipyard, National Shipbuilding Program, PIPEDA, Privacy La,
work, undertaking or business that is within undertaking or business that is within the I of the Canada Labour Code, it requires clearly defining Jurisdiction and so y . y
the legislative authority of Parliament. Jt | Legislative authority of Parliament , including, orp A fp roy ee Canada Labour Code and or Privacy Standards for employees.
includes...” without restricting the generality of the d i © Daniel Therrien please clearly explain Jurisdiction, and confirm the State
Joregoing, Possible Exemptions Closing Statement & Requests of Privacy for Employees and HR, past and present within 48 Hours.
PIPEDA omits"including, without Canada Labour Code (CLC) explicitly makesa | p © If anyone else would care to provide resources, or answer then please do
restricting the generality of the foregoing,” | legal point of expressing the restriction. Suggesting OPC Website “All businesses that operate in Canad and handle personal information that as it would be sincerely appreciated.
Note how OPC added integralto the | tis used to specify INTEGRAL. This supports that ae a hao fe TE ‘This is of my own volition. I haven't collaborated with anyone and have no
efintion, but t doesa't exist in n | the definitions that followin PIPEDA are to be territory they are based in.
& fi . TEN na fegilati [ria me pe | fk corporate affiliation or Political affiliation. I do not have a legal background and I
i—" . OPC States Irving Shipbuilding is registered in NB. But operating in NS. And from what I can ‘have not spoken with or engaged legal counsel. I believe by not answering, it's a
ae men violation of my chartered rights. Scott Jewers ~ 9022209106
Both PIPEDA and CLC then list 10 almost identical definitions. Upon evaluating = W—— Rents x ” Cs op TE a ee ere 5
Vancouver, NS. 30d Ottawa(MAP). All data / metadata from the employee and non-
the day to day relationships of this Private Company (to Generalize). OPC states employee perspective were requested from Parent (NB), Child (NS/ NB) and 3rd Party (NS) under If I'm wrong it's okay I'll face it. But if im right this is fair. -
the following work, undertaking or business AND OR CORE / Integral work, PIPEDA and All have been rejected by OPC, also You'llnote that in their Reply, they only https //youtu be DQTCS6aWRSC?=9
undertaking or business and asset relationships, combined or individual are by mentioned Irving Shipbuilding
Federal Cont 16 be considered tivial of exceptional (OPC once stated this was all (OPC refused to provide the orders and ignored the
‘within the legislative authority of Parliament Floating Federal Cities, Core federal exemptby “Executive order” | question several times on follow up. L aso could find no
(Halifax Shipyard) > Provision] | infrastructure Public Safety Canada Critical which I assume & “Orderin. Orders. Regardless, the provisions sill apply to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1567. Class of Subject | Infrastructure & Federal Economic Initiative, Council” operations, industry and assets of this Private company
Provision 91(7) 7. Militia, Military and Nava] | incredibly interconnected and dependent on 7 R le of T ad io ight get them there”. PIPEDA omits
z : ak iplings Fakes sapsariing Gal and (example of common And said “oh you might get them there’ A om
Service, and Defence OR Class of Subject disciplines, trades, supporting staff . 3
EE facilities. Can't be mass produced such as interpretation) OPC Manager ‘including, without restricting the generaliy of the &
Erovision 91(10) 10. Navigation and ‘planes, tanks or basic “ships” and defend these (PIPEDA) read Provision A in CLC foregoing”
Shipping. pote
+ + I believe I have met any burden of proof. and the burden
“(a) awork, undertaking or business that is ‘Marine Installation or Structures (MIS) 5
operated or carried on for or in connection | (Ships) Oceans Act and Accord Act, Workplace now lies on OPC
ES eaten od ne mini Rule doen Ac ARP sratemalitel. How can anyone ever interpret this, OPC can’t even answer the question! And to be
or maritime, including the operation of ships | installations (Sovereign sights and jurisdiction of
od amgeriion by Hs phere ae | CaRad) Wilk iy Botan Rsv clear - The complexity required to exclude does not equate to an exemption, if's a
Canada; actions in NFLD, PEL Vancouver and Ottawa very specific and non-trivial instance and set of relationships. And as that work
“GLa work, undertaking or business to which Sees harm memes 2d 2 Tent progressed they only became more and more applicable both as Private and Integral
federal laws, within the meaning of section 2 | Eaciity (Government Abstraction Including N
ri airy jh pe rb hl) tt ach Goi for Gopal Ech So when do you draw the line and who draws the line?
that dct and any regulations mad under in North America. Thave a suspicion, You'll draw the line when you want to broadly use these
paragraph 26()t) of that det” definitions.
Im requesting the following be provided on thread:
Irving Shipbuilding is not a federal works, underlakings of businesses (FWUE) remains valid. quantified example. Consider OPC, ESDC, Miaisters, and Irving Legal have very ET Conia Wm Saree Sass acid th ean PISEDA cave
We did not find anything to support the fact that conkachng) with the federal goverment to likely presented legal ar ents. OPC said it would defend this standued in the H aid F) day a =
build ships would, by itself, make Irving Shipbuilding’ activiies an integral part of a FWUB. - Federal Court of es So without clear federal exemptions, how could these number, associated attachments, and any correspondence. Please,
On Fri, Mar 19,2021 at 4:35 PM - PIPEDA-040565 i %
NR RD ed ‘parties support these same definitions used to legislate less quantified examples, possible provide a case number on thread, reply to all
“federal work, undertaking or business...” FWUB) such as smaller private companies or fishermen, especially seasonal ones who © Qoders in Council Division - Can you please Provide any Orders, Dates
can’t protect themselves? I've added fishermen and ministers so they can and information relating to exemptions for Irving Shipbuilding, Halifax
[IEDR EGR) meray (Sra LEE (BR) ea ay nak reference this “Federal Precedent” - PIPEDA-040565. **If ESDC rejects Part Shipyard, National Shipbuilding Program, PIPEDA, Privacy La,
work, undertaking or business that is within undertaking or business that is within the I of the Canada Labour Code, it requires clearly defining Jurisdiction and so y . y
the legislative authority of Parliament. Jt | Legislative authority of Parliament , including, orp A fp roy ee Canada Labour Code and or Privacy Standards for employees.
includes...” without restricting the generality of the d i © Daniel Therrien please clearly explain Jurisdiction, and confirm the State
Joregoing, Possible Exemptions Closing Statement & Requests of Privacy for Employees and HR, past and present within 48 Hours.
PIPEDA omits"including, without Canada Labour Code (CLC) explicitly makesa | p © If anyone else would care to provide resources, or answer then please do
restricting the generality of the foregoing,” | legal point of expressing the restriction. Suggesting OPC Website “All businesses that operate in Canad and handle personal information that as it would be sincerely appreciated.
Note how OPC added integralto the | tis used to specify INTEGRAL. This supports that ae a hao fe TE ‘This is of my own volition. I haven't collaborated with anyone and have no
efintion, but t doesa't exist in n | the definitions that followin PIPEDA are to be territory they are based in.
& fi . TEN na fegilati [ria me pe | fk corporate affiliation or Political affiliation. I do not have a legal background and I
i—" . OPC States Irving Shipbuilding is registered in NB. But operating in NS. And from what I can ‘have not spoken with or engaged legal counsel. I believe by not answering, it's a
ae men violation of my chartered rights. Scott Jewers ~ 9022209106
Both PIPEDA and CLC then list 10 almost identical definitions. Upon evaluating = W—— Rents x ” Cs op TE a ee ere 5
Vancouver, NS. 30d Ottawa(MAP). All data / metadata from the employee and non-
the day to day relationships of this Private Company (to Generalize). OPC states employee perspective were requested from Parent (NB), Child (NS/ NB) and 3rd Party (NS) under If I'm wrong it's okay I'll face it. But if im right this is fair. -
the following work, undertaking or business AND OR CORE / Integral work, PIPEDA and All have been rejected by OPC, also You'llnote that in their Reply, they only https //youtu be DQTCS6aWRSC?=9
undertaking or business and asset relationships, combined or individual are by mentioned Irving Shipbuilding
Federal Cont 16 be considered tivial of exceptional (OPC once stated this was all (OPC refused to provide the orders and ignored the
‘within the legislative authority of Parliament Floating Federal Cities, Core federal exemptby “Executive order” | question several times on follow up. L aso could find no
(Halifax Shipyard) > Provision] | infrastructure Public Safety Canada Critical which I assume & “Orderin. Orders. Regardless, the provisions sill apply to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1567. Class of Subject | Infrastructure & Federal Economic Initiative, Council” operations, industry and assets of this Private company
Provision 91(7) 7. Militia, Military and Nava] | incredibly interconnected and dependent on 7 R le of T ad io ight get them there”. PIPEDA omits
z : ak iplings Fakes sapsariing Gal and (example of common And said “oh you might get them there’ A om
Service, and Defence OR Class of Subject disciplines, trades, supporting staff . 3
EE facilities. Can't be mass produced such as interpretation) OPC Manager ‘including, without restricting the generaliy of the &
Erovision 91(10) 10. Navigation and ‘planes, tanks or basic “ships” and defend these (PIPEDA) read Provision A in CLC foregoing”
Shipping. pote
+ + I believe I have met any burden of proof. and the burden
“(a) awork, undertaking or business that is ‘Marine Installation or Structures (MIS) 5
operated or carried on for or in connection | (Ships) Oceans Act and Accord Act, Workplace now lies on OPC
ES eaten od ne mini Rule doen Ac ARP sratemalitel. How can anyone ever interpret this, OPC can’t even answer the question! And to be
or maritime, including the operation of ships | installations (Sovereign sights and jurisdiction of
od amgeriion by Hs phere ae | CaRad) Wilk iy Botan Rsv clear - The complexity required to exclude does not equate to an exemption, if's a
Canada; actions in NFLD, PEL Vancouver and Ottawa very specific and non-trivial instance and set of relationships. And as that work
“GLa work, undertaking or business to which Sees harm memes 2d 2 Tent progressed they only became more and more applicable both as Private and Integral
federal laws, within the meaning of section 2 | Eaciity (Government Abstraction Including N
ri airy jh pe rb hl) tt ach Goi for Gopal Ech So when do you draw the line and who draws the line?
that dct and any regulations mad under in North America. Thave a suspicion, You'll draw the line when you want to broadly use these
paragraph 26()t) of that det” definitions.
Im requesting the following be provided on thread: