Can Plaintiffs/Defendants Testify As Expert Witnesses In Their Own Cases?

This piece is going to be a bit different. It’s an effort to answer a question: can interested parties also serve as experts in the same case? It will look at an example, using Ontario as a model.

The instinctive answer would be no, this is a serious conflict of interest. But let’s look a bit deeper. Remember, this is just for information, and there’s no need for anyone to overreact.

1. Important Links

Ontario Rules Of Civil Procedure
Ontario Law Society: Rule 3.4 (Conflicts Of Interest)
Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, 2013 SCC 39
Vaccine Choice Canada Lawsuit, October 2019
Vaccine Choice Canada Lawsuit, July 2020

2. Ontario Rules Of Civil Procedure

RULE 4.1 DUTY OF EXPERT
.
DUTY OF EXPERT
.
4.1.01 (1) It is the duty of every expert engaged by or on behalf of a party to provide evidence in relation to a proceeding under these rules,
.
(a) to provide opinion evidence that is fair, objective and non-partisan;
.
(b) to provide opinion evidence that is related only to matters that are within the expert’s area of expertise; and
.
(c) to provide such additional assistance as the court may reasonably require to determine a matter in issue. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 8.
.
Duty Prevails
.
(2) The duty in subrule (1) prevails over any obligation owed by the expert to the party by whom or on whose behalf he or she is engaged. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 8.

According to Rule 4.1.01(1) and (2), the answer likely is no. A person who is a Plaintiff or Defendant is by nature an interested party. If the person has a vested interest (financial or otherwise), then overcoming that conflict of interest would be difficult.

3. What Expert Reports Will Include (Ontario)

(2.1) A report provided for the purposes of subrule (1) or (2) shall contain the following information:
.
1. The expert’s name, address and area of expertise.
.
2. The expert’s qualifications and employment and educational experiences in his or her area of expertise.
.
3. The instructions provided to the expert in relation to the proceeding.
.
4. The nature of the opinion being sought and each issue in the proceeding to which the opinion relates.
.
5. The expert’s opinion respecting each issue and, where there is a range of opinions given, a summary of the range and the reasons for the expert’s own opinion within that range.
.
6. The expert’s reasons for his or her opinion, including,
i. a description of the factual assumptions on which the opinion is based,
ii. a description of any research conducted by the expert that led him or her to form the opinion, and
iii. a list of every document, if any, relied on by the expert in forming the opinion.
.
7. An acknowledgement of expert’s duty (Form 53) signed by the expert. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 48.

Rule 53.03 of Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure outlines what is expected by expert witness to submit in their reports to the Court, in advance of trial. It’s a pretty good outline for the contents.

4. OLS Rules Of Professional Conduct

SECTION 3.4 CONFLICTS
Duty to Avoid Conflicts of Interest
3.4-1 A lawyer shall not act or continue to act for a client where there is a conflict of interest, except as permitted under the rules in this Section.

Commentary
[1] As defined in rule 1.1-1, a conflict of interest exists when there is a substantial risk that a lawyer’s loyalty to or representation of a client would be materially and adversely affected by the lawyer’s own interest or the lawyer’s duties to another client, a former client, or a third person. Rule 3.4-1 protects the duties owed by lawyers to their clients and the lawyer-client relationship from impairment as a result of a conflicting duty or interest. A client’s interests may be seriously prejudiced unless the lawyer’s judgment and freedom of action on the client’s behalf are as free as possible from conflicts of interest.

[2] In addition to the duty of representation arising from a retainer, the law imposes other duties on the lawyer, particularly the duty of loyalty. The duty of confidentiality, the duty of candour and the duty of commitment to the client’s cause are aspects of the duty of loyalty. This rule protects all of these duties from impairment by a conflicting duty or interest.

[7] A bright line rule has been developed by the courts to protect the representation of and loyalty to current clients. c.f. Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 649. The bright line rule holds that a lawyer cannot act directly adverse to the immediate legal interests of a current client, without the clients’ consent. The bright line rule applies even if the work done for the two clients is completely unrelated. The scope of the bright line rule is limited. It provides that a lawyer cannot act directly adverse to the immediate legal interests of a current client. Accordingly, the main area of application of the bright line rule is in civil and criminal proceedings. Exceptionally, the bright line rule does not apply in circumstances where it is unreasonable for a client to expect that the client’s law firm will not act against the client in unrelated matters.

Consent
3.4-2 A lawyer shall not represent a client in a matter when there is a conflict of interest unless there is consent, which must be fully informed and voluntary after disclosure, from all affected clients and the lawyer reasonably believes that he or she is able to represent each client without having a material adverse effect upon the representation of or loyalty to the other client.

Having an expert witness as a Plaintiff or Defendant is a conflict. It gets even trickier when there are other clients involved in the same case. The duty of the expert is to the court first and foremost. The Ontario Law Society, (a.k.a. Law Society of Upper Canada), has strict rules against members engaging in conflicts of interest.

5. Supreme Court: Bright Red Line Rule

Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, 2013 SCC 39

Cases Cited
.
Referred to: R. v. Neil, 2002 SCC 70, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 631; MacDonald Estate v. Martin, 1990 CanLII 32 (SCC), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1235; R. v. Cunningham, 2010 SCC 10, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 331; Cholmondeley v. Clinton (1815), 19 Ves. Jun. 261, 34 E.R. 515; Bricheno v. Thorp (1821), Jacob 300, 37 E.R. 864; Taylor v. Blacklow (1836), 3 Bing. (N.C.) 235, 132 E.R. 401; Rakusen v. Ellis, [1912] 1 Ch. 831; Strother v. 3464920 Canada Inc., 2007 SCC 24, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 177; Bolkiah v. KPMG, [1999] 2 A.C. 222; Moffat v. Wetstein (1996), 1996 CanLII 8009 (ON SC), 29 O.R. (3d) 371; Canadian Pacific Railway v. Aikins, MacAulay & Thorvaldson (1998), 1998 CanLII 5073 (MB CA), 23 C.P.C. (4th) 55; De Beers Canada Inc. v. Shore Gold Inc., 2006 SKQB 101, 278 Sask. R. 171; Toddglen Construction Ltd. v. Concord Adex Developments Corp. (2004), 34 C.L.R. (3d) 111.

(f) The Bright Line Rule
.
[27] In Neil, this Court (per Binnie J.) stated that a lawyer may not represent a client in one matter while representing that client’s adversary in another matter, unless both clients provide their informed consent. Binnie J. articulated the rule thus:

The bright line is provided by the general rule that a lawyer may not represent one client whose interests are directly adverse to the immediate interests of another current client — even if the two mandates are unrelated — unless both clients consent after receiving full disclosure (and preferably independent legal advice), and the lawyer reasonably believes that he or she is able to represent each client without adversely affecting the other. [Emphasis in original; para. 29]

[28] The rule expressly applies to both related and unrelated matters. It is possible to argue that a blanket prohibition against concurrent representation is not warranted with respect to unrelated matters, where the concrete duties owed by the lawyer to each client may not actually enter into conflict. However, the rule provides a number of advantages. It is clear. It recognizes that it is difficult — often impossible — for a lawyer or law firm to neatly compartmentalize the interests of different clients when those interests are fundamentally adverse. Finally, it reflects the fact that the lawyer-client relationship is a relationship based on trust. The reality is that “the client’s faith in the lawyer’s loyalty to the client’s interests will be severely tried whenever the lawyer must be loyal to another client whose interests are materially adverse”: Restatement of the Law, Third: The Law Governing Lawyers (2000), vol. 2, § 128(2), at p. 339

The “bright red line” has been explicitly stated to lawyers who represent clients with opposing interests. However, the idea of representing an expert witness is an interesting twist.

Though the language differs across jurisdictions, experts are considered “Friends of the Court”, neutral people who can provide unbiased information and opinion for a Judge and/or Jury.

True, experts are paid for their time by someone. That alone does not render them useless, as they do have a role to play. But what happens when the Expert has a vested interest in the outcome of the case?

While the Lawyer’s Clients (the Experts and non-Experts) could conceivably agree that this conflict of interest should be set aside, what about opposing Parties? Could it not result in an unfair Trial by stacking the deck against them?

Something seems off about this.

6. Such A Conflict In Ongoing Case?!?!

Pages 39-43 of the Statement of Claim spell out the qualifications and education of Denis Rancourt. And yes, it is quite impressive. However, no facts are pleaded to demonstrate that Rancourt has been harmed in any way by these restrictions, or that he has suffered any losses. He is clearly being introduced as an expert witness.

It’s not just that Rancourt is to be paid a fee for his time and trouble. That would be one thing. Here, he is a Plaintiff in an $11 million lawsuit — which he doubles as an Expert in. It stands to reason that he could make $1 to $2 million is the case is successful, which is a conflict of interest. Even if he is unbiased, this conflict will not be lost on the Court — or the other lawyers.

Is this normal? Are Experts typically interested Parties in the cases they participate in? Is there some exception or clause in the law that allows for this to happen? Is this a common practice that just isn’t discussed much? This appears to be the sort of thing that would jeopardize fair proceedings, but who knows?

Note: this is not an attempt to defend the nonsense that has gone on Federally, Provincially, Municipally and even in other countries. All of those people should be tried for crimes against humanity. The CV hoax is extensively outlined in this series. However, all problems need to be called out.

There are of course other issues, such as missing service addresses, and no defenses filed, but they have been addressed elsewhere.

The Statement of Claim was released publicly, but with most Plaintiff names redacted. Anyone who wants the unedited version can get a copy for free from the Ontario Superior Court (Civil Division) in Toronto.

IBC #10(G): Federal Reserve Joins NGFS; Sustainable Banking Network; Climate-Related Financial Disclosures; IFC Green Banking Academy

The Federal Reserve, the largest central bank in the world, has announced it is joining the Network of Central Banks & Supervisors for Greening the Financial System.

Network For Greening The Financial System
Sustainable Banking Network
Task Force On Climate Related Financial Disclosures
IFC – Green Banking Academy

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. Now, the bankers work with the climate mafia and pandemic pushers to promote their mutual goals of control and debt slavery.

2. Debunking The Climate Change Scam

The entire climate change industry, (and yes, it is an industry) is a hoax perpetrated by the people in power, run by international bankers. Plenty has also been covered on the climate scam, the propaganda machine in action, and some of the court documents in Canada. Carbon taxes are just a small part of the picture, and conservatives are intentionally sabotaging their court cases.

3. U.S. Federal Reserve Joins The NGFS

The Federal Reserve Board announced on Tuesday that it has formally joined the Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System, or NGFS, as a member. By bringing together central banks and supervisory authorities from around the world, NGFS supports the exchange of ideas, research, and best practices on the development of environment and climate risk management for the financial sector. The Board began participating in NGFS discussions and activities more than a year ago.

“As we develop our understanding of how best to assess the impact of climate change on the financial system, we look forward to continuing and deepening our discussions with our NGFS colleagues from around the world,” said Federal Reserve Board Chair Jerome H. Powell.

On December 15, the Federal Reserve announced it was joining the NGFS, the Network for Greening the Financial System. This makes is the last major central bank to do so. The rationale for all of this is that stopping climate change is necessary to stabilizing monetary systems.

4. Sustainable Banking Network

The Sustainable Banking Network (SBN) is a unique, voluntary community of financial sector regulatory agencies and banking associations from emerging markets committed to advancing sustainable finance in line with international good practice. It is a platform for knowledge sharing and capacity building that facilitates the mobilization of practical support for members to design and implement national sustainable finance policies and principles.

The 41 member-countries represent US$43 trillion (86 percent) of the total banking assets in emerging markets. SBN members are committed to moving their financial sectors towards sustainability, with the twin goals of improved Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) risk management (including disclosure of climate risks) and increased capital flows to activities with positive climate impact.

This is a group of banking associations and regulatory agencies who fully support the climate change agenda. They want to work it into every aspect of banking.

5. Climate Related Financial Disclosures

Climate change poses both risks and opportunities for business, now and in the future. As the Earth’s temperature rises, increasingly common natural disasters are disrupting ecosystems and human health, causing unanticipated business losses, and threatening assets and infrastructure. In response, governments and private sector entities are considering a range of options for reducing global emissions, which could result in disruptive changes across economic sectors and regions in the near term.

Currently, however, investors, lenders, and insurers don’t have a clear view of which companies will endure or even flourish as the environment changes, regulations evolve, new technologies emerge, and customer behavior shifts — and which companies are likely to struggle.

Without reliable climate-related financial information, financial markets cannot price climate-related risks and opportunities correctly and may potentially face a rocky transition to a low-carbon economy, with sudden value shifts and destabilizing costs if industries must rapidly adjust to the new landscape.

The goal here, as the name implies, is to make “carbon and environmental costs” a part of all major business decisions, and to have the impacts released to the public. Think of it as a social credit score, just with carbon credits.

6. Int’l Finance Corp: Green Banking Academy

What is IFC’s Green Banking Academy?
Our Green Banking Academy (IFC-GBAC) is a knowledge and capacity-building initiative of IFC’s Financial Institutions Group. IFC has more than 20 years’ experience in the climate business.

What do we offer?
IFC-GBAC supports Latin American and Caribbean banks with specialized advice and training to accelerate their green transformation, strengthen their businesses, and enable them to contribute to a more sustainable world.

IFC-GBAC is focused on the knowledge needs of banks and bankers. Academic content is customized to specific types of banking professionals, including C-level executives, product specialists, credit and risk officers, the sales force, and more.

Climate change is not only a global challenge; it is also a business opportunity.
In Latin America and the Caribbean alone, climate investment is estimated to have a potential value of $2.6 trillion through 2030. IFC’s Green Finance Latin-America Report explored the challenges and opportunities in the space.

So-called “climate finance“, is the ideology of sinking money into green projects, regardless of whether or not they actually work. Industries that they don’t ideologically agree with are to be allowed to die off.

7. World Bank Partnerships

The World Bank Group works in every major area of development. We provide a wide array of financial products and technical assistance, and we help countries share and apply innovative knowledge and solutions to the challenges they face.

Sounds so harmless, doesn’t it? The World Bank is involved in financing projects across the globe. Many of them involve the climate change agenda, and transferring wealth under various eco-programs.

The big take away from all of this is that there is no real separation between the banking system, and the climate change movement. In fact, bankers have realized that there is some real money to be made, all under the guise of environmentalism.

TSCE #16(B): More On World Borders Congress — Monetizing The Open Borders Industry

The World Border Security Congress will hold its convention in June 2021, and presumably most of it will be online. One of the co-hosts is the Ministry of Immigration and Asylum of Greece. Certainly an interesting choice, considering how Greece has been the main entry point of the migration flood into Europe.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

2. Important Links

World Borders Congress, Main Page
Greece & Southeast Europe, Smuggling Routes
Greece World Border Congress 2021 Conference
World Border Congress Exhibition/Exhibitors
NGO: Europe Without Barriers

3. Greece & Southeast Europe

Greece has been in the forefront of the global migration crisis since it started in 2015. When you look at the map it is easy to see why.

Greece lies at the crossroads of East and West, Europe and the Middle East. It lies directly opposite Libya so along with Italy is the primary destination for migrants coming from that conflict zone and is a short boat trip from Turkey, the other principal migrant route for Syrians fleeing there conflict there.

Greece has over sixteen thousand kilometres of coastline and six thousand islands, only two hundred and twenty-seven of which are inhabited. The islands alone have 7,500 km of coastline and are spread mainly through the Aegean and the Ionian Seas, making maritime security incredibly challenging.

The sheer scale of the migrant crisis in late 2015 early 2016 had a devastating impact on Greek finances and its principle industry, tourism. All this in the aftermath of the financial crisis in 2009. Despite this, both Greece and Italy, largely left to handle the crisis on their own, managed the crisis with commendable determination and humanity.

Things are now improving with initiatives from the EU and help from Frontex but the migrant crisis is not yet over, and many challenges remain. According to UNHCR nearly 60,000 refugees remain stranded in Greece, spread out between three main islands — Lesbos, Chios and Samos.

Other critical issues include returning jihadi fighters, international terrorism and organized crime both exploiting crisis and using it as a cover for their other activities. These are challenges not just for the entire Mediterranean region but for the entire global border community.

With their experience of being in the frontline of the migration crisis, Greece is the perfect place re-convene for the next meeting of the World Border Security Congress.

Something must be pointed out here. World Border Security Congress doesn’t have an ideological issue with open borders. Rather, they just want to be the ones to “manage” the crisis.

Two major topics are omitted from this site: (a) the Kalergi Plan, a scheme to demographically replace Europe; and (b) people like Erdogan using threats of open borders as a weapon and war tactic.

4. Sales Pitch For June 2021 WBC Conference

Dear Colleague,
Continuing the Discussion and Dialogue for Building Trust and Co-operation
Greece has been in the forefront of the global migration crisis since it started in 2015.
.
2015/16 saw the escalation of the global migration crisis, with mass movements of people fleeing the war zones of the Middle East as well as illegal economic immigration from Africa and elsewhere. International terrorism shows every sign of increasing, posing real threats to the free movement of people. Today, these incidents see the continuation of the migration challenges for the border management and security community, as little sign of peace and security in the Middle East is apparent and porous borders in Africa continue to provide challenges.
.
We need to continue the discussion, collaboration and intelligence sharing.
.
Co-hosted by the Ministry of Immigration & Asylum for Greece and supported by the Organisation for Security & Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the European Association of Airport and Seaport Police (EAASP), African Union Economic, Social and Cultural Council (AU-ECOSOCC), National Security & Resilience Consortium, International Security Industry Organisation and International Association of CIP Professionals, the World Border Security Congress is the premier multi-jurisdictional global platform where the border protection policy-makers, management and practitioners together with security industry professionals, convene to discuss the international challenges faced in protecting borders.

Strangely absent is any suggestion that countries like Greece simply CLOSE THEIR BORDERS while taking a hardline stance on illegal entries. While illegal entries is a serious problem, this is something that could be fixed quite quickly, if parties were committed to doing that. Also consider this quote from page 4:

Controlling and managing international borders in the 21st Century continues to challenge the border control and immigration agencies around the world. It is generally agreed that in a globalised world borders should be as open as possible, but threats continue to remain in ever evolving circumstances and situations.

This is by no means any nationalist (or nationalist leaning) group. They fully support the open borders agenda. Instead, this is just about how to implement it more efficiently.

5. Critical Issues Cited By WBC Group

Greece World Border Congress 2021 Conference

– Migration Crisis Tests European Consensus and Governance
– Migrants and refugees streaming into Europe from Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia
– Big Business of Smuggling Enables Mass Movement of People for Enormous Profits
– Climate Change and Natural Disasters Displace Millions, Affect Migration Flows
– Europe and the United States Confront Significant Flows of Unaccompanied Child Migrants
– Tackling Southeast Asia’s Migration Challenge
– ISIS threatens to send 500,000 migrants to Europe
– Border Skirmishes Resonate in National Domestic Politics
– Women’s Labour Migration from Asia and the Pacific

– Migration Crisis Tests European Consensus and Governance
It certainly does. This is not what Europeans were told that they were getting into with the various European Union schemes. This has proven to be quite the bait and switch.

– Migrants and refugees streaming into Europe from Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia
Welcome to the Kalergi Plan, a century old scheme to replace the people’s of Europe, and breed them out of existence. Mass migration from the 3rd World is central to this plot.

– Big Business of Smuggling Enables Mass Movement of People for Enormous Profits
This lowers the standards of living of people in the host countries by importing people who will work for less, and thus driving down wages.

– Climate Change and Natural Disasters Displace Millions, Affect Migration Flows
Natural disasters, sure, but climate change is a hoax used to tax people endlessly. In any event, it shouldn’t be an excuse to overrun the borders of other countries.

– Europe and the United States Confront Significant Flows of Unaccompanied Child Migrants
Many of these “children” are in their 30s and 40s.

– Tackling Southeast Asia’s Migration Challenge
Simple solution: close the borders.

– ISIS threatens to send 500,000 migrants to Europe
This is an act of war, and should be treated as such. Flooding a country with large numbers of hostile, foreign nationals — of incompatible cultures — is essentially an invading army.

– Border Skirmishes Resonate in National Domestic Politics
Stronger borders all around would be a much better option.

– Women’s Labour Migration from Asia and the Pacific
Economic migration, used by big business to drive down wages. While the plight of these women is understandable, it should not come at the expense of the wages and opportunities in the host countries.

Once again, the World Border Security Congress doesn’t recommend closing borders to the greatest extent possible. Instead, it promotes “open, but managed” borders. No wonder that these problems don’t ever seem to get fixed.

6. Exhibitors At WBC Conference

Regula Forensics, document authentication

Rapiscan, X-ray technology

BioRugged, fingerprint technology

Blighter Surveillance Systems

Dermalog, temperature detection

There are more, of course, but this should provide an idea of the kinds of companies drawn to it. Come to think of it, World Border Congress can perhaps best be described as a trade show or industry promotion for the open borders business.

7. Speakers At WBC Conference

“Europe Without Barriers” (EWB) was established in 2009 in Kyiv, Ukraine. Since then we perform simultaneously as classic think tank and civic organization doing analytics, monitoring, advocacy and informing.

Activities of the organization are aimed at facilitating and promoting human right for freedom of movement and support of significant reforms in the fields of European integration, rule of law, migration and border management, transport, protection of personal data, public order and combating discrimination.

https://english.europewb.org.ua/

Established in 1951, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) is the leading intergovernmental organization in the field of migration and is committed to the principle that humane and orderly migration benefits migrants and society. IOM is part of the United Nations system, as a related organization.

IOM supports migrants across the world, developing effective responses to the shifting dynamics of migration and, as such, is a key source of advice on migration policy and practice. The organization works in emergency situations, developing the resilience of all people on the move, and particularly those in situations of vulnerability, as well as building capacity within governments to manage all forms and impacts of mobility.

The Organization is guided by the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, including upholding human rights for all. Respect for the rights, dignity and well-being of migrants remains paramount.

The organization’s work is guided by several core frameworks. The 12-point strategy, adopted by IOM’s Council in 2007, outlines the core objectives of the Organization, and provides an effective description of the scope of IOM’s work. In 2015, IOM Member States endorsed the Migration Governance Framework (MiGOF), which sets out overarching objectives and principles which, if fulfilled and enacted, form the basis for an effective approach to migration governance.

https://www.iom.int/

There are more of course, but these are just a few noteworthy ones.

8. WBC Is Open Borders Trade Show

Just a reminder, that this group does not actually oppose the open borders movement. Instead, the members want to be the ones managing, controlling, and profiting from it. A true commitment to border security would involve closing borders as much as possible. However, this bunch has no interest in such things.

As long as it’s done legally, there seem to be no moral issues with this organization. Nationalists should be horrified.

These people will have their convention next June, but just remember the underlying ideology:

“Controlling and managing international borders in the 21st Century continues to challenge the border control and immigration agencies around the world. It is generally agreed that in a globalised world borders should be as open as possible, but threats continue to remain in ever evolving circumstances and situations.”

Bill C-405: Erin O’Toole Tried To Make It Easier For Companies To Transfer Employee Pensions In 2018

In 2018, the CPC MP for Durham, Erin O’Toole, introduced C-405, a Private Member’s Bill to make changes regarding employee pension plans. While touted as some great overhaul for workers, things are not what they appear to be.

1. Pensions, Benefits, Worker Entitlements

The public is often unaware of what is happening with their pensions and other social benefits. Often, changes are made with little to no input from the people who are directly impacted by it. Unfortunate, but we need to constantly be on top of these things.

2. Important Links

Private Member’s Bill C-405 Introduced By Erin O’Toole
Text Of Bill C-405 (First Reading)
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985
Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act
Open Parliament: Announcement From Erin O’Toole
Open Parliament: Debate On Bill C-405

3. Bill C-405 Introduced In June 2018

Bill for Private Members rarely get far in the House of Commons, let alone pass. Often, they are just a way to signal to the sponsor that efforts are being made. O’Toole’s Bill didn’t get anywhere in Parliament, but it’s unclear how serious he was about pushing it.

4. Pension Benefits Standards Act

Termination and Winding-up of Pension Plans
Marginal note:Deemed termination
.
29 (1) The revocation of registration of a pension plan shall be deemed to constitute termination of the plan.

Effect of termination on assets
.
(8) On the termination of the whole of a pension plan, all assets of the plan that are to be used for the purpose of providing pension benefits or other benefits continue to be subject to this Act.

The language of section 29(8) of the Pension Benefits Standards Act is quite clear. Once a pension plan is terminated, the funds must be dispersed to those who have contributed to the plan. Here is part of what O’Toole wanted to add.

Amendment — liquidation, assignment or bankruptcy of the employer
(8.‍1) If an employer is the subject of proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act or Part III of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the amount required to permit a pension plan to satisfy all obligations with respect to pension benefits and other benefits to be provided under the plan is greater than the assets of the plan, the administrator may
.
(a) despite subsection 10.‍1(2) and the terms of the plan, amend the plan to change the nature or form of the pension benefits and other benefits to be provided under the plan; or
.
(b) apply to the Superintendent for permission to transfer or permit the transfer of any part of the assets or liabilities of the pension plan to another pension plan.
Consent to amendment
.
(8.‍2) Before a pension plan may be amended or part of its assets or liabilities transferred in accordance with subsection (8.‍1),
.
(a) the administrator must provide any prescribed information, in the prescribed manner, to the members or former members, to any other persons entitled to pension benefits and to the representatives of the members or former members and of any other persons entitled to pension benefits; and
.
(b) the amendment or transfer must be approved by more than one third of the members or former members and of any other persons entitled to pension benefits or by the representatives of more than one third of the members or former members and of any other persons entitled to pension benefits.
.
No action against administrator
(8.‍3) No action lies against any administrator for amending a plan or for transferring or permitting the transfer of any part of the assets or liabilities of a pension plan to another pension plan in compliance with subsections (8.‍1) and (8.‍2).

Bill C-405 would have allowed employers to transfer the pension funds rather than pay out if the company were in serious financial difficulties.

As for the consent, that is an extremely low threshold. Forget a super majority, or even a simple majority. Only 1/3 would have to approve for this to happen. Even worse, the “representatives”, or people claiming to represent the workers could simply approve on their behalf. This seems ripe for abuse.

While transferring pension funds to another company may make that more solvent, the reality is, those employees did not sign up for it initially. An argument can be made that they should simply be allowed to collect on their entitlements, and walk away. If an opt-out were provided so individual members could cash out, it would nullify a lot of the criticism.

5. Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act

Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act
.
3 The Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act is amended by adding the following after section 11.‍52:
.
Limitation — pension plans
11.‍53 No order may be made under this Part respecting the approval of a plan offering incentives to certain directors, officers or employees to remain in the employ of the debtor company for the period during which the com­pany is expected to be subject to proceedings under this Act unless the court is satisfied
.
(a) if the debtor company participates in a prescribed pension plan for the benefit of its employees, that the relevant parties have entered into an agreement, approved by the relevant pension regulator, respecting the payment of the amounts referred to in subparagraphs 6(6)‍(a)‍(ii) and (iii);
.
(b) that the directors, officers or employees are necessary for the successful restructuring or liquidation of the debtor company or for the protection and the maximization of the value of the company’s property;
.
(c) that the directors, officers or employees have received a job offer from another person than the debtor company and the offering of the incentives is necessary for their retention in the employ of the debtor company; and
.
(d) that the amount of the incentive offer
.
(i) is not greater than ten times the amount of a similar incentive offer given to an employee of the debtor company for any purpose during the previous calendar year; or
.
(ii) if no incentive referred to in subparagraph (i) was offered, is not greater than an amount equal to 25% of the amount of any similar incentive given to a director or officer of the debtor company for any purpose during the previous calendar year.

Incentives and bonuses (primarily aimed at officers and directors), would still be allowed to be offered, and not be vulnerable to a court order. However, those incentives would be capped. Seems strange that heads of failing companies should be offered any type of incentives.

6. Does This Bill Benefit Workers?

If a company is failing, and going under, the right thing to do is to pay out its pension holdings to the people who have contributed to it. Transferring elsewhere, especially with such a low threshold, seems like shifting the goal posts. At a minimum, those who have contributed should be able to just take a pay out and leave.

People who run failing companies shouldn’t be getting bonuses, even if they are capped. This just rewards incompetence, often at the cost of other assets of the company.

The legislation was promoted as a way to protect pensions and to keep them going. However, such transfers (possible with just a minority of support), potentially remove all control from workers. And as with everything, the devil is in the details.

For now, it appears to be dead.

Guest Post: Blaise Vanne On Marxist Sympathies Of Black Lives Matter

BLM founders Patrisse Cullors, Cullors, “ We are trained Marxists” see here in her own words; and Alicia Garza said at a public forum in 2015 Left Forum May 29 – 31, at John Jay College “It’s not possible for a world to emerge where black lives matter if it’s under capitalism. And “it’s not possible to abolish capitalism without a struggle against national oppression and gender oppression. (See the 26 min mark)

Opal Tometi tweeted in 2015, from Venezuela: “ Currently in Venezuela. Such a relief to be in a place where there is intelligent political discourse.” And a few months later wrote: In these last 17 years, we have witnessed the Bolivarian Revolution champion participatory democracy and construct a fair, transparent election system recognized as among the best in the world …We offer this expression of our unwavering solidarity with the progressive and revolutionary Venezuelan people as they reflect, regroup and rectify to defend the Bolivarian Revolution.

If you would like Venezuela here, yes, by all means support BLM, Antifa, and by extension Biden. If you like communism, which the Black Book of Communism, Coutois, et al, Harvard Univ. Press says murdered almost 100 million last century or see also the late Dr. RJ Rummel of Univ. of Hawaii – tough job, but someone has to do it! –who has has similar figures, by all means support them.

If you disagree, the time for action is now. As Churchill said, appeasement is just hoping the crocodile eats you last.

Extra credit: in typical Red October (Russia, 1917) fashion, the communists sow chaos, out of which they hope to take power. The preceding link gives you a primer. E.g. from the Hate has no home here” leftists: Secret Service Intercepts ‘Highly Toxic’ Poison Ricin Mailed To White House Violence ? Princeton Study Finds BLM (and Antifa) Responsible For 91% Of Riots Over Last 3 Months – A new study by Princeton University’s US Crisis Monitor shows that the U.S. experienced 637 riots between May 26 and Sept. 12, and 91% of those riots were linked to the Black Lives Matter movement.

TSCE #14(B): Reminder, Bill S-240 Didn’t Pass, Would Criminalize Leaving Canada For Trafficked Organs

Senate Bill S-240 would make it a crime to go abroad for the purposes of receiving trafficked organs. The rationale being, if it’s illegal here, leaving to do it should be treated the same way. In part, Bill S-240 has been in response to revelations that China has been involved in forced organ harvesting.

This is the 4th version of the idea to come forward. Yet again, it did not pass before the session ended.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

2. Important Links

Senate Introduces Bill S-240, Criminal Code, Organ Trafficking
Bill S-240 Transcript Of Hearings
Senate Bill S-240: Going Abroad To Obtain Illegal Organs
Open Parliament On MP Speeches, Quotes
House Committee Hearings On Bill S-240
The Conversation: Canada Complicit In Chinese Organ Trafficking
EndTransplantAbuse.Org

3. From 2018 Senate Hearings

Bills don’t always have to originate in the House of Commons. Many come from the Senate as well, and Bill S-240 is just one of them. It would have amended the Criminal Code to make it a crime to go abroad to obtain an organ where there has been no informed consent. It’s already a crime to leave the country to participate in terrorism or child sex offences, so it’s not much of a stretch.

The Senate adopted it on June 14, 2018. However, it would be another year before the House of Commons would hold hearings on it.

4. Audio From Parliamentary Hearings

February 26, 2019 — House Committee

February 27, 2019 — House Committee

From the House of Commons hearings.

5. Most Recent Text Of Bill S-240

BILL S-240
An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs)
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
.
R.‍S.‍, c. C-46
Criminal Code
1 (1) Section 7 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (4.‍11):
Offence outside Canada
.
(4.‍2) Despite anything in this Act or any other Act, a person who commits an act or omission outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be an offence under section 240.‍1 is deemed to commit that act or omission in Canada if the person is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
.
(2) Subsection 7(4.‍3) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Consent of Attorney General
.
(4.‍3) Proceedings with respect to an act or omission deemed to have been committed in Canada under subsection (4.‍1) or (4.‍2) may only be instituted with the consent of the Attorney General.
.
2 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 240:
Trafficking in Human Organs
Removal without informed consent
.
240.‍1 (1) Everyone commits an offence who
(a) obtains an organ to be transplanted into their body or into the body of another person, knowing that the person from whom it was removed did not give informed consent to the removal, or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave informed consent;
.
(b) carries out, participates in or facilitates the removal of an organ from the body of another person, knowing that the person from whom it was removed did not give informed consent to the removal, or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave informed consent; or
.
(c) acts on behalf of, at the direction of or in association with a person who removes an organ from the body of another person, knowing that the person from whom it was removed did not give informed consent to the removal, or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave informed consent.

The Bill underwent some changes along the way, but that is the latest version. Not only would a person receiving a trafficked organ be exposed to prosecution for leaving Canada, but others involved in facilitating it would be as liable as well.

6. S-204 A Response To China’s Trafficking

The clock is ticking on Canada’s chance to enact important measures against organ trafficking.

For the past two decades, the Chinese regime has been killing prisoners of conscience for their organs. The purchase and sale of human lives has become an industry, and Canada, among other developed countries, has been supporting it.

Bill S-240 seeks to put a stop to Canadian complicity by criminalizing organ tourism. The bill has received unanimous consent from both the Senate and the House of Commons, and is awaiting final Senate approval before the end of the parliamentary session before it can be passed.

This is a critical moment of decision for Canada.

As a member of the Canadian Committee of the International Coalition To End Transplant Abuse In China, I have been among those advocating for Bill S-240, an act that brings important changes to the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in order to combat organ tourism.

Several articles available call this what is: fighting back largely against the forced organ harvesting that China is involved with.

This should be a pretty straightforward issue to get on board with. But like the other times this was introduced, it never quite made it through Parliament. Plenty of lesser and symbolic pieces of legislation have, but not this.