This Is What An "Omnibus Bill' Looks Like

www.osc.gov.on.ca... www.bcsc.bc.ca... www.bcsc.bc.ca...

This allows "advisers" to be exempt from Domestic and Foreign financial regulations.

The Ontario Securities Commission and every federal regulatory body has thus far refused to release and or publish publicly the appendix' that amend every existing piece of legislation in Canada and in Alberta.

Fig 1

Appendix A refers you to NI 13-102 in which the term "X" refers to "X" in NI 43-103, but is only effective
if the term "X" is active in Appendix X in NI 34.103

etc..

This is our current political system

Fresh from the Chicago Play Book.

Or should I say.. stale?

I have already contacted my Member of Parliament. This "Bill" or Appendix Aggregate is merely a
clever method of hiding legislation and wrapping it around the heads of those
who don't have the time to read it and compile it.

Fig 2

www.albertasecurities.com...
“consultant” has the same meaning as in National Instrument 45-106 Prospectus and
Registration Exemptions;

- Following:

“consultant” means, for an issuer, a person, other than an employee, executive officer, or director of the issuer or of a related entity of the issuer, that (a) is engaged to provide services to the issuer or a related entity of the issuer, other than services provided in relation to a distribution, (b) provides the services under a written contract with the issuer or a related entity of the issuer, and (c) spends or will spend a significant amount of time and attention on the affairs and business of the issuer or a related entity of the issuer and includes, for an individual consultant, a corporation of which the individual consultant is an employee or shareholder, and a partnership of which the individual consultant is an employee or partner;

Which thus far states that any "adviser" who is exempt or not exempt, registered, or un registered, audited, or un audited under the Financial Administration Act can provide and sell products which are directly or indirectly acted upon by a first, second or third party for the purpose of necessity, or non-necessity in the best interest of the corporation, adherent to the respective Acts:

Corporations Interest Clause (ABC Benefits Act); Exerpt Only (Example Figure)
Financial Administration Act

It sounds like a Juggernaut, take over, subversion or incompetence to the nth degree. I am not up on legalese, but as the plain english language falls from the legislation only high paid specialists and translators are left to decode the rules.

On the surface it looks like another attempt of corporate take over and privatization of government. With out actually understanding what any of it means I am left rather clueless. So one important question, is this obscurity intentional to slip some favors through the back door or is it just bad bureaucracy getting out of control and losing touch with its original intentions?

One problem that I have noticed with the legislator that is similar with the computer programming world is the value put on the amount of code, rather than the quality of the code.

LOL...WHAT?! It's just a bunch of contradicting definitive bs over and over again...no wonder capital hill can't ever decide on anything...sheesh!

Originally posted by Gltichy
LOL...WHAT?! It's just a bunch of contradicting definitive bs over and over again...no wonder capital hill can't ever decide on anything...sheesh!

This is like Bill Clinton's Welfare Reform.

Or the national instruments they passed in Argentina during the 1970's

I mentioned this to a man at the dollar store, and he laughed and said "well now that you understand
variables, you can manipulate the flow of money in the stock market!" This reminded me of the
scenario "The Piranhas." who made a killing in the stock market. I replied "Well who has the money?"
and he said: "Yeah. That's a problem."