Author: Ronnie

Posted on

5th Galati Pleading Struck As “Abuse Of Public Resources”, $190,000 Costs Ordered In Dorceus

[53] I have the distinct impression from reading the Amended Claim as a whole that its object is not to vindicate the employment rights of the plaintiffs so much as it is to mount a political crusade in which the court will be used as a grandstand to conduct an inquiry into the effectiveness of vaccines and the effectiveness of government measures in response to the Covid-19 pandemic by opponents of those measures.

[154] …. If this was not clear from the outset, it should have become clear by the time the British Columbia Supreme Court, the British Columbia Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, and the Federal Court of Appeal struck out similarly drafted statements of claim prepared by the same lawyer. While the interests of a free and democratic society may warrant leeway with respect to the pursuit of unconventional claims at the outset, when such claims continue to be pursued after being struck out by four courts, they amount to an abuse of public resources.

[157] …. Plaintiffs’ counsel is a sole practitioner with a different cost structure than that of counsel for the Non-Governmental Defendants and that this is the fifth time that Plaintiffs’ counsel has litigated a motion to strike with respect to a claim of this nature. I expect having done this four times before, that there were significant cost efficiencies for Plaintiffs’ counsel, especially with respect to the factum.

-Justice Koehnen, Ontario Superior Court Judge

This week, 473 Plaintiffs, who are current and former health care workers, saw their Statement of Claim struck completely. This was partly because it was so poorly crafted, but also because most had collective bargaining agreements which prohibited lawsuits. Of those litigants, 395 belonged to some sort of union, while the other 78 did not. They had been employed all across Ontario.

If this sounds familiar, it should. It’s yet another scam lawsuit that has come crashing down on duped litigants. And this will cost them $190,000 for doing so.

Interestingly, one Plaintiff decided to retain a real lawyer and have a proper Claim drafted. That person was given permission to file. More on that later.

Previous Critique On Galati Case Aged Very, Very Well

Back in July, this review was posted about the numerous defects in the Statement of Claim. And as predicted, jurisdiction was a fatal law, at least for the unionized Plaintiffs.

While the Statute of Limitations wasn’t really a concern of the Court here, it may be if Plaintiffs decide to try their luck elsewhere. However, every other item on this list made its way into Justice Koehnen’s ruling in some form.

  1. Failure To establish Jurisdiction of the Court
  2. Failure to seek Relief within Jurisdiction of the Court
  3. Failure to plead concise set of material facts
  4. Failure to keep evidence out of Claim
  5. Failure to remove argument from Claim
  6. Failure to plead facts which would support conclusions of law
  7. Failure to give Claim particulars
  8. Failure to specify who should pay damages
  9. Failure to properly plead s.2 (fundamental freedoms) Charter breaches
  10. Failure to properly plead s.6 (mobility rights) Charter breaches
  11. Failure to properly plead s.7 (security of the person) Charter breaches
  12. Failure to properly plead s.15 (equality) Charter breaches
  13. Failure to properly plead tort of intimidation
  14. Failure to properly plead tort of conspiracy
  15. Failure to properly plead tort of malfeasance
  16. Failure to state a Cause of Action
  17. Failure to appreciate Statute of Limitations
  18. Claim just a duplicate of other cases

Perhaps most notably, the Court finally called Galati out for recycling his earlier cases. It’s long overdue for this to happen.

Galati Called Out For REPEATEDLY Wasting Court Resources

(1) British Columbia Supreme Court (Justice Ross)
Action4Canada v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2022 BCSC 1507 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html

(2) British Columbia Court of Appeal (Justices Marchand, Dickson, Voith)
Action4Canada v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2024 BCCA 59 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2024/2024bcca59/2024bcca59.html

(3) Federal Court of Canada (Justice Fothergill)
Adelberg v. Canada, 2023 FC 252 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html

(4) Federal Court of Appeal (Justices Gleason, Boivin, LeBlanc)
Adelberg v. Canada, 2024 FCA 106 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2024/2024fca106/2024fca106.html

Now we have this gem, the 5th pleading to be struck:

(5) Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Justice Koehnen)
Dorceus v. Ontario et al., 2024 ONSC 7087 (CanLII)
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc7087/2024onsc7087.html

Worth noting: Justice Chalmers of the Ontario Superior Court weighed in a year ago when CSASPP was sued for defamation. He dismissed that case under anti-SLAPP laws, and awarded $132,000 in costs. He was scathing in his decision.

[74] In the e-mail to Mr. Dicks dated January 29, 2022, Mr. Gandhi supported the statement with hyperlinks to support the statements. The statements made in the FAQ are also supported by hyperlinks that provides that factual support for the statements. The statements made in the e-mail to Mr. Dicks and in the FAQ, that the Plaintiff has been criticized by the courts in other cases, is supported by the following decisions: Sivak v. Canada, at para. 55, Galati v. Harper, at para. 35, Da Silva Campos v. Canada, at para. 12, Wang v. Canada, 2016 FC 1052, at para. 31, and Al Omani v. Canada 2017 FC 786, at para. 94-95.

[75] In the e-mail to Mr. Dicks, Mr. Gandhi states that lawyers who reviewed the Ontario claim, “said it was very poorly drafted” and “will most likely get struck”. I am of the view that there is justification for this comment. The Ontario pleading is prolix and argumentative. The claim advances pseudo-legal concepts and conspiracy theories that the pandemic was pre-planned and executed by the WHO, Bill Gates, the World Economic Forum and unnamed billionaires and oligarchs. The similarly drafted A4C claim was struck by Justice Ross. In doing so, he described the pleading as “bad beyond argument”.

[88] Here, the action commenced in Ontario by the Plaintiff is prolix and contains bizarre conspiracy theories. The action he commenced in British Columbia is similar. I am of the view that “what is really going on” in this case is an attempt by the Plaintiff to stifle public criticism about a class action claim that is not properly pleaded and improperly asserts bizarre conspiracy theories that are ineffective and have little or no chance of success.

Factoring in Justice Chalmers, 10 different Judges in 6 separate Court hearings have made determinations that this type of litigation is frivolous, an abuse of the Court system, improperly pleaded, and has little to no chance of success.

Keep in mind, this list would be a lot longer, if not for several cases that were dropped. These include: (a) Vaccine Choice Canada; (b) Katanik / Take Action Canada; (c) Children’s Health Defense Canada; and (d) Sgt. Julie Evans / Police on Guard.

Arbitration/Grievance Requirement Bars Unionized Workers

[13] The plaintiffs’ core complaint is that their employment was suspended or terminated as a result of their employer’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. Suspension and termination are core elements within the jurisdiction of labour arbitrators under the labour relations regime. The fact that the plaintiffs also go on to characterize their claims as ones for conspiracy, intimidation, intentional infliction of mental anguish and breach of the Charter does not change the analysis. All of those complaints remain rooted in the employment relationship and its suspension and termination.

Despite attempts to frame this (Dorceus) as conspiracy, intimidation, and a variety of other torts, Justice Koehnen stated that this is really about litigants having their employment conditions altered to require these vaccines. This was essentially constructive dismissal.

This finding was fatal to the unionized Plaintiffs, who were barred from the Courts.

Once Again, No Material Facts Or Particulars Pleaded

Rules of Pleading — Applicable to all Pleadings
Material Facts
.
25.06 (1) Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies for the claim or defence, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

Rules of Pleading — Applicable to all Pleadings
Nature of Act or Condition of Mind
.
25.06(8) Where fraud, misrepresentation, breach of trust, malice or intent is alleged, the pleading shall contain full particulars, but knowledge may be alleged as a fact without pleading the circumstances from which it is to be inferred.

Regular readers will have heard the terms “pleading facts” and “pleading particulars”. While the numbering systems differ, the Rules are the same across Canada.

JURISDICTION PLEAD FACTS PLEAD PARTICULARS
Federal Court Rule 174 Rule 181
British Columbia Rule 3-1(2)(a) Rule 3-7(17)
Manitoba Rule 25.06(1) Rule 25.06(11)
Ontario Rule 25.06(1) Rule 25.06(8)
Nova Scotia Rule 38.02(2) and (3) Rule 38.03(3)

From the ruling, we get this information:

[49] The Amended Statement of Claim is, at best, unusually drafted. A statement of claim is supposed to contain material facts on which the action is based. The Amended Statement of Claim contains few material facts about the employment of any of the 473 plaintiffs or the circumstances of their suspension or termination. Mr. Galati explained in oral argument that if the claim contained such facts, it would run into the hundreds of pages and would be challenged as unwieldly. That perhaps speaks to the advisability of pleading this as a consolidated claim.

Galati sued on behalf of nearly 500 people. He was required to plead facts about each Plaintiff that would establish a case for everyone. He had to plead facts about all the (alleged) Charter violations for each Plaintiff. A proper suit for so many people would have been several hundred pages in length. Other than naming their specific employers, he provided no detail about any of them.

Instead, it was the Defendants who compiled a 13,000 page, 23 volume Motion Record in preparing their Motion to Strike.

Even if this were a Class Action — which it wasn’t — sufficient facts would still have to be pleaded for every Representative Plaintiff.

Another missing part was particulars. When alleging malice, bad faith, malfeasance, or a host of other torts, they must be spelled out in detail. Procedurally, Defendants cannot be left guessing what the case against them is.

Plaintiff Beth Ann Dick Goes Her Own Way

[146] The plaintiff Beth Ann Dick provides an example of the sorts of considerations at issue here when determining whether leave to amend should be granted. Ms. Dick was initially represented by Mr. Galati. She says that she was not informed about the specific claims that Mr. Galati made on her behalf, did not speak with him, and did not meet him to discuss the individual circumstances of her claim, nor was she aware of the types of legal argument that would be made on her behalf.

[147] She has since retained Mr. R. P. O’Connor who has delivered a more conventional fresh as amended statement of claim. It narrows the claim to solely that of Ms. Dick against her former employer, removes the allegations of Charter breaches, removes outlandish allegations of false pandemics and crimes against humanity, and clearly pleads the necessary facts underlying causes of action in tort, contract, and breach of statute that she advances.

[148] Mr. O’Connor’s proposed amended statement of claim is an example of a pleading that survives a challenge under Rule 21. I grant leave to Ms. Dick to file the amended pleading she proposes.

Beth Ann Dick was a Plaintiff in the original case, but bailed out and retained a real lawyer. Her new counsel, R.P. O’Connor sent in a proposed Amended Statement of Claim that actually pleaded valid Causes of Action. It is (more or less) straight breach of contract.

If other Plaintiffs had been represented by a competent lawyer, things could very well have ended differently for them.

While the non-unionized Plaintiffs were granted Leave to Amend, any who want to will likely need to hire a better lawyer.

Missed Opportunity: Bill Galati For The $190,000 In Costs

While the Plaintiffs were hit with $190,000 in Court costs, this could have ended differently. If Justice Koehnen was serious about lawyers not abusing the Court process with duplicate Claims, he could have ordered Galati himself to pay. Rest assured, such baseless litigation would virtually disappear if lawyers were personally responsible for what they file.

Instead, it’s always the clients who have to pay, regardless of how badly (or how often) their counsel screws up.

And on a final note, Action4Canada eventually submitted their Amended Notice of Civil Claim (NOCC), nearly a year after the Court of Appeal laughed them out of Court. While much shorter, it contains many of the same defects that Justice Ross mentioned, and adds new ones in. Expect another Application to Strike.

DORCEUS DOCUMENTS:
(1) Grifters Main Page
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest
(3) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(4) Dorceus Statement Of Claim
(5) Dorceus Amended Statement Of Claim
(6) Dorceus Defendant Moving Party Factum SJM Government
(7) Dorceus Defendant Moving Party Factum SJM Hospitals
(8) Dorceus Plaintiff Responding Factum SJM
(9) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc7087/2024onsc7087.html

PREVIOUS DECISIONS:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc1507/2022bcsc1507.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2024/2024bcca59/2024bcca59.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2024/2024fca106/2024fca106.html

ACTION4CANADA:
(1) A4C Amended Notice Of Civil Claim

Posted on

Bill S-210: Age Restricting Pornography, Yukon Status of Women Council Opposed

This is a follow up to the previous article, which covered Women’s LEAF, the Women’s Legal Action and Education Fund. It’s not the only group opposed to this legislation. Bill S-210 passed through the Senate in the Spring of 2023, and has yet to undergo Third Reading in the House of Commons, after the hearings concluded. It was introduced by Quebec Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne.

The Bill itself is titled: An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material. As the name implies, the substance is about age restricting access to pornography. Quite simply, this is to limit the access of minors to this content.

The Yukon Status of Women Council (YSWC) is the group that sent in this paper in opposition to Bill S-210. The majority of it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

One of their current efforts is SWAPY, Supporting Worker’ Autonomy Project Yukon. While claiming to be against human trafficking and exploitation, they call for support and legalization of sex work, which is inherently exploitative.

They note that:

“It is critical to note that sex work and exploitation and trafficking are often conflated, which has far reaching impacts on policies and services which cause harm to those engaging in sex work, which is consensual (vs. exploitation, which is not consensual). Part of our work aims to counter these misconceptions and increase safety and options for peers.”

The argument is beyond the scope of this article, but it’s also irrelevant here. It’s also repeated in their submissions to the House of Commons. Bill S-210 is about implementing an age-restriction regime for accessing adult content. It’s about whether or not there should be some sort of screening to prevent minors from getting access.

While this seems broad, the Bill does have a “Defences” section within.

Defence — legitimate purpose
(2) No organization shall be convicted of an offence under section 5 if the act that is alleged to constitute the offence has a legitimate purpose related to science, medicine, education or the arts.

To be clear, Bill S-210 puts in a number of exemptions, such as: (a) science; (b) medicine; (c) education; and the “arts”. While the exact definitions are not spelled out, at least the first 4 are pretty obvious. It’s more subjective as to what “the arts” would encompass.

YSWC states several times that it’s trying to refute the narrative which conflates “consensual work” with overt “trafficking and exploitation”. It’s unclear how that applies here. Minors shouldn’t be permitted access, which is the goal of Bill S-210. Whether or not there’s exploitation at the other end is beside the point.

“The impact of this censorship extends beyond mere content moderation, affecting the livelihoods and autonomy of those who rely on online platforms for income and community building. Independent content creators, including sex workers and artists, face the threat of financial hardship and even more avenues for stigmatization and criminalization as a result of increased content restrictions and platform censorship, while larger adult websites would remain unaffected.”

How would implementing some age-verification system “create financial hardship” unless the content was (at least in part) directed at minors? Seems like those are the kinds of operations that SHOULD be closed down.

The group also claims that the alphabet “community” needs access to sexually explicit material for education and expression. This is identical to what Women’s LEAF argues. Assuming this is true, why then would this be detrimental, unless it was aimed at minors?

YSWC argues that Bill S-210 infringes on the “right to work” for sex workers. It does no such thing, but merely requires some effort to ensure all the customers are actually adults.

YSWC points out that requirements could be bypassed by using a VPN, and setting it to indicate that the device is located in another country. While true, it doesn’t really give a reason to abandon the Bill altogether.

As an aside, YSWC is also involved in a Court challenge against the Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods (SCAN) legislation. It allows for evictions of tenants on 5 days notice in the event of certain illegal activities. These include:

  • drug trafficking
  • bootlegging
  • prostitution

In early 2022, the Yukon Government committed to reviewing the SCAN Act.

While it could be argued the YSWC does valid advocacy work for women who’ve fallen on hard times, it still doesn’t explain the opposition to Bill S-224. Perhaps more general privacy concerns would gut their online businesses if people had to use their real identities to gain access.

BILL S-210, (AGE RESTRICTING PORNOGRAPHY):
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-210
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-210/third-reading
(4) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/miville-dechene-julie/
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/SECU/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12521982
(6) Women’s LEAF Submission Against Implementing Bill S-210
(7) Yukon Status Of Women Council Against Implementing Bill S-210

BILL S-224, (HUMAN TRAFFICKING):
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-224
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-224/third-reading
(4) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/ataullahjan-salma/
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12111640

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(1) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(2) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(3) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(4) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(5) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(6) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(7) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(8) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(9) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(10.1) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(10.2) Bill C-293: Concerns Raised In Hearings Over Food Supplies
(10.3) Bill C-293: Lobbying Interests Behind Nathaniel Erskine-Smith
(11) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(12) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(13) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(14) Bill C-373: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism 2.0
(15) Bill C-388: Fast Tracking Weapons, Energy, Gas To Ukraine
(16) Bill C-390: Expanding Euthanasia Into PROVINCIAL Frameworks
(17) Bills C-398/C-399: Homeless Encampments, Immigration “Equity”
(18) Bill C-413: Prison Time Proposed For Residential School “Denialism”
(19) Bill S-210: Women’s Legal Action & Education Fund
(20) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(21) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(22) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(23) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights
(24) Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

Posted on

Bill S-210: Age Restricting Pornography, Women’s LEAF Opposed To It

Bill S-210 passed through the Senate in the Spring of 2023, and has yet to undergo Third Reading in the House of Commons, after the hearings concluded. It had been introduced by Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne of Quebec.

The Bill itself is titled: An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material. As the name implies, the substance is about age restricting access to pornography.

What’s interesting about this Bill is some of the groups that work to oppose it, and all while claiming to fight for women’s rights. One such organization is Women’s LEAF, the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund. Leslyn Lewis was once a National Board Member of it.

LEAF describes itself as:

a national, charitable, non-profit organization that works towards ensuring the law guarantees substantive equality for all women, girls, trans, and non-binary people. LEAF has developed expertise in the gendered and intersectional impact of technology-facilitated violence through intervening in landmark cases before the Supreme Court of Canada and making submissions to Parliament to highlight gender equity implications of online hate.

At the hearings before the House of Commons, LEAF made submissions, arguing against Bill S-210. The reasons are baffling.

In fairness, LEAF is hardly the only one to argue against Bill S-210. We’ll get into some of the others as well in subsequent articles.

Rather than implement age-restriction specifically for obscene material, LEAF instead defers to the much broader Bill C-63. While decrying possible invasions of privacy, the group recommends something more expansive.

***NCDII stands for non-consensual distribution of intimate images.

LEAF also has a rather convoluted objection to age-verification, under the guise of victims’ rights. While hundreds of underage people (mostly girls) have been victimized, requiring identification would make it harder for them to access their own images.

This means that LEAF is well aware of that the content of minors is often published, but age-verification can’t be allowed in order to allow victims some recourse. Perhaps a more stringent screening process beforehand would be helpful.

LEAF also adds that “To steer clear of such an inordinate penalty, tech companies are likely to over-moderate content on their sites. 2SLGBTQIA+ community members will bear the brunt of this change: through sexual content moderation, queer and trans content is already disproportionately targeted, banned, restricted, and demonetized on social media platforms“.

While denying that the “community” is full of groomers, LEAF argues that age-verification will disproportionately impact these people.

Defence — legitimate purpose
(2) No organization shall be convicted of an offence under section 5 if the act that is alleged to constitute the offence has a legitimate purpose related to science, medicine, education or the arts.

Keep in mind, section 6(2) of Bill S-210 makes it clear that legitimate purposes related to: (a) science; (b) medicine; (c) education; or (d) “the arts” is a full defence. And “arts” is presumably a broad category. Nonetheless, LEAF still opposes age-verification.

DEPARTMENT/MINISTRY YEAR AMOUNT
Canadian Heritage (PCH), Court Challenges 2022 $25,000.00
Canadian Heritage (PCH), Court Challenges 2023 $54,475.05
Canadian Heritage (PCH), Court Challenges 2024 $54,475.05
Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) 2022 $8,911.00
Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) 2023 $8,400.00
Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) 2024 $8,400.00
Justice Canada (JC) 2023 $33,712.34
Justice Canada (JC) 2024 $33,712.34
Women and Gender Equality (WAGE) 2022 $362,668.00
Women and Gender Equality (WAGE) 2023 $364,183.53
Women and Gender Equality (WAGE) 2024 $364,183.53

This is just some of their more recent financing.

The Canadian Court Challenges Program is an initiative set up with public money in order for various “independent” groups to bring lawsuits challenging public policy. In other words, taxpayers have to finance lawfare against their own institutions.

For an idea of the kind of litigation that LEAF brings, check out some of their earlier work. It’s not a stretch to describe them as anti-family, anti-woman, and anti-humanity.

Lately, LEAF has been using a lobbying firm called Counsel Public Affairs. Bridget Howe, Ben Parsons, Sheamus Murphy, and Laila Hawrylyshyn (all Liberals) have been making their rounds. Counsel P.A. also employs Amber Ruddy, drug lobbyist and former CPC National Secretary.

Women’s LEAF, like so many groups, is also significantly subsidized by taxpayers, across different Ministries. They then hire lobbyists to lean on politicians to implement their agendas. In other words, organizations like these are using public money to pressure politicians against implementing safeguards for what children view online.

You don’t hate these people enough.

BILL S-210, (AGE RESTRICTING PORNOGRAPHY):
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-210
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-210/third-reading
(4) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/miville-dechene-julie/
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/SECU/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12521982
(6) Women’s LEAF Submission Against Implementing Bill S-210

BILL S-224, (HUMAN TRAFFICKING):
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/s-224
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-224/third-reading
(4) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/ataullahjan-salma/
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12111640

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(1) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(2) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(3) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(4) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(5) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(6) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(7) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(8) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(9) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(10.1) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(10.2) Bill C-293: Concerns Raised In Hearings Over Food Supplies
(10.3) Bill C-293: Lobbying Interests Behind Nathaniel Erskine-Smith
(11) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(12) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(13) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(14) Bill C-373: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism 2.0
(15) Bill C-388: Fast Tracking Weapons, Energy, Gas To Ukraine
(16) Bill C-390: Expanding Euthanasia Into PROVINCIAL Frameworks
(17) Bills C-398/C-399: Homeless Encampments, Immigration “Equity”
(18) Bill C-413: Prison Time Proposed For Residential School “Denialism”
(19) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(20) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(21) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(22) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights
(23) Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

Posted on

Citizens Alliance Of Nova Scotia (CANS) Mootness Motion To Be Heard Friday

On Friday, Citizens Alliance of Nova Scotia (CANS) will argue against a Motion to have their case declared “moot” in a Yarmouth Court. This isn’t a determination on the merits, but to get the it thrown out regardless. This comes after the organization was denied public interest standing earlier this year.

Interestingly, CANS is doing this without formal representation. Their papers are being drafted by a few of their members, which is quite impressive. At the hearing for public interest standing, William Ray — author of the Stormhaven website — presented their case. The other co-Applicant, J.M., is a minor who does have a lawyer.

The Attorney General’s office is claiming that it’s a waste of time and money, as so long has elapsed, and there are no live issues. The usual “scarcity of judicial resources” justification has been pleaded. Unsurprisingly, CANS opposes the Motion, in part because Robert Strang is still in office. Part of CANS’ mission is to ensure this type of activity never happens again. The Briefs are well worth reading.

To support their Motion, the Government included an Affidavit from Tara Walsh, Senior Executive Director at Public Health. CANS filed Affidavits sworn by Chris Milburn and Shelly Hipson, along with her extensive research. J.M. didn’t submit one, which the lawyer is using to demonstrate that there’s no live issue to try.

In its current form, the case is an Application for Judicial Review. In theory, even if declared “moot”, it may still be okay to refile as an Action, with a Statement of Claim. There is far more latitude with those kinds of proceedings, whereas Applications are more restrictive. That is, after all, what happened with the travel mandates cases — although the idiot lawyers appealed.

The Friday hearing is to be available virtually. Anyone wishing to watch the hearing can contact the Court, or CANS directly. Information is also in their pinned Tweet.

COURT DOCUMENTS (MOOTNESS MOTION):
(1) CANS Walsh Affidavit Mootness Motion
(2) CANS Milburn Affidavit Mootness Motion
(3) CANS Hipson Affidavit Mootness Motion
(4) CANS Hipson Affidavit Mootness Motion More Attachments
(5) CANS Government Arguments Mootness Motion
(6) CANS Applicants Arguments Mootness Motion
(7) CANS Government REPLY Arguments Mootness Motion

COURT DOCUMENTS (PUBLIC INTEREST STANDING):
(1) CANS Applicants Brief For Public Interest Standing Augst 25 2023
(2) CANS Applicants Book Of Authorities August 25 2023
(3) CANS Respondents’ Brief respecting Public Interest Standing Motion
(4) CANS Applicants Rebuttal Brief For Public Interest Standing Motion November 20 2023
(5) CANS Applicants Book Of Documents Volume 1 Of 2 December 11 2023
(6) CANS Applicants Book Of Documents Volume 2 Of 2 December 11 2023
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nssc/doc/2024/2024nssc253/2024nssc253.html

ABOUT THE GROUP:
(1) https://www.thecans.ca/
(2) https://www.thecans.ca/call-to-action-letters-of-support/
(3) Citizens Alliance Of Nova Scotia Quick Fact Sheet (pdf)

Posted on

Bill C-293: Who’s Pulling Nathaniel Erskine-Smith’s Strings?

Previously, this site covered Bill C-293, the Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act, from Liberal M.P. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith. See here and here for background information on the legislation.

In essence, it amounts to domestic implementation of the proposed Pandemic Preparedness Treaty that the World Health Organization wants all countries to adopt. Just as the Quarantine Act and subsequent Provincial Health Acts came from the International Health Regulations, this is more of the same. See Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

January 2022, Erskine-Smith introduced M-43, to address “vaccine equity”. If implemented, this would:

(a) donate at least 200 million doses, as promised, to vulnerable populations around the world through COVAX by the end of 2022, and ensure that all excess doses pursuant to Canada’s contracts are transferred as soon as possible;
(b) deliver an additional $1.1 billion as a net addition to the International Assistance Envelope and existing departmental resources to address global vaccine equity in Budget 2022, including:
(i) $780 million to Act-Accelerator partners to purchase vaccines, tests, treatments, PPR and oxygen in developing countries,
(ii) $290 million to strengthen pandemic preparedness and response capacity, including support for in-country delivery costs;
(c) contribute to a significant increase in global manufacturing capabilities for vaccines and other tools to fight COVID-19, including by:
(i) supporting the temporary waiver of intellectual property rights related to prevention, containment or treatment of COVID-19 at the World Trade Organization,
(ii) facilitating the transfer of technology to manufacture COVID-19 vaccines around the world, including financial support for regional hubs such as the South Africa Technology Transfer Hub; and

M-43 appears to create a giant slush fund that would pour billions of taxpayer dollars into “vaccine equity” arrangements around the world. It’s unclear what — if any — oversight there would be.

As with so many of these bills, some very important questions aren’t being asked: who’s actually behind it? Who are the people that are really writing them?

Here are some possible answers.

Daniel Kelter, Former Legislative Assistant, Now Lobbyist

According to his profile, from December 2015 until September 2018 — nearly 3 years — he worked for Erskine-Smith.

• Briefed the Member of Parliament on policy issues, including debates in front of the house, proposed legislation, and committee reports/issues
• Liaised and maintained relationships with Minister’s offices, constituency residents, parliamentary staff, and relevant special interest groups
• Designed and created communication products across social media and traditional media platforms, and created subsequent analytical reports on their impact
• Managed an office budget of $359,590 and provided accurate financial accounting to comply with House of Commons by-laws

If Kelter is to be believed, he essentially wrote Erskine-Smith’s speeches and various media appearances. He was a handler. The last several months, Kelter not only worked for him, but was the Director of Operations. His duties at this point were that he:

• Advised the Member on all policy issues before the House of Commons, and prepared briefs on issues and legislation when necessary
• Planned, in conjunction with the Member, legislative priorities and assisted with the development of speeches, press releases, media lines, QP card messages, key messages etc
• Managed a whole-of-organization approach to completing Member’s business, while overseeing an office team consisting of staff, interns, and volunteers
• Managed and reconciled a budget of $368,720 that included procurement, salaries, travel, and constituency or parliamentary events

Kelter then went on to take a similar role for Jane Philpott, who was Minister of Health. She also was a Treasury Board Member, and on the Cabinet Committee on Intelligence and Emergency Management.

Kelter’s current position is with a group called Carbon Removal Canada. They explain what their goals are, and why.

What does Carbon Removal Canada do?
Carbon Removal Canada collaborates with governments, local communities, Indigenous groups, innovators, advocacy organisations, and companies to grow the carbon removal sector in Canada.

Our goal is to advance responsible carbon removal solutions by educating stakeholders about using them to reduce CO₂ in the atmosphere while focusing on community well-being and social equity. We also assist in developing policies that increase the demand for and supply of carbon removal projects, ensuring that these projects are credible and impactful. Additionally, our policy research supports the growth of carbon removal by providing insights that meet the sector’s current needs and help shape effective policies.

Why Canada for carbon removal?
Canada has the right ingredients to be a global leader in the carbon removal sector, including natural resources, carbon storage infrastructure, a trained workforce, and a thriving innovation ecosystem.

Canada’s ambitious goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 reflects its climate leadership as a nation — which will require a broad suite of solutions, including carbon removal, for goal achievement. With the right policies in place, the Canadian government, technology and business leaders have all the tools they need to seize this opportunity, spearhead the global growth of a brand-new sector, and build it from the ground up.

Why does Carbon Removal Canada advocate using carbon removal alongside emission reduction efforts?
Carbon removal is essential for a global clean energy transition, but it should complement, not replace, emissions reduction efforts. Carbon removal can help address emissions that are too challenging or cost-prohibitive to reduce with current technology on the path to net-zero. Importantly, after reaching net-zero, carbon removal can be used to eliminate historical emissions, getting global temperatures back to safer levels. The potential for carbon removal to contribute to a net-negative emissions world demands that it be used in addition to emissions reduction efforts.

Although Bill C-293 is the “pandemic prevention and preparedness”, at least officially, we’ve already seen the climate change industry getting into bed it. Many will claim that there’s a “mutual solution” in adopting environmental practices and preventing more outbreaks.

Teodora Durca, Former Parliamentary Intern, Now Lobbyist

For nearly a year in 2021/2022, Teodora Durca was an intern in Erskine-Smith’s office. Since then, she’s moved on to Sussex Strategy Group, a lobbying firm with offices in Toronto and Ottawa.

According to the Federal Lobbying Registry, her recent clients include:

  • Alectra Utilities Corporation
  • Association of Power Producers of Ontario
  • Atlantic Power
  • BluEarth Renewables Inc.
  • Canadian Power-to-X-Partners Inc.
  • Capstone Infrastructure Corporation
  • Electricity Distributors Association
  • Energy Storage Canada
  • Hydrostor Inc.
  • Invenergy Renewables Canada Development ULC
  • Kanin Energy Inc.
  • Next Hydrogen Solutions
  • Northland Power Inc.
  • Potentia Renewables Inc.

A quick look through the profiles shows that these companies are interested in legislative changes around renewable energy. Several are asking about subsidies and tax changes.

A few sections of Bill C-293 read as follows:

2(l)(iii) promote commercial activities that can help reduce pandemic risk, including the production of alternative proteins, and

include the following information, to be provided by the Minister of the Environment:
.
2(m)(i) after consultation with relevant provincial ministers, a summary of changes in land use in Canada, including in relation to disturbed habitats, that could contribute to pandemic risk, such as deforestation, encroachment on wildlife habitats and urbanization and that were made, in the case of the first plan, since the last report on changes in land use published under the Federal Sustainable Development Act or, in the case of the updated plans, during the reporting period for the updated plan

Why this matters is that changes made as a result of this legislation could easily lead to (more) money being funneled into “green energy” schemes. Durca’s clients stand to be made wealthy depending on what regulatory changes are made.

Erskine-Smith Met With ONE Global (Canada)

June 2022, Erskine-Smith introduced Bill C-293. A month later, he formally met with Elise Legault of ONE Global (Canada). This is a group that probably few have heard of. Previously, Legault had worked for UNESCO.

The ONE Campaign is a 501(c)(3) registered non-profit in the United States. Their donor lists contains many prominent names.

  • Aliko Dangote Foundation
  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  • Bloomberg LP
  • Bloomberg Philanthropies
  • Iger Bay Foundation
  • Bono
  • Cargill
  • Cary and Katya Pinkowski
  • Cindy and Ryan Beedie
  • David Geffen Foundation
  • Eleanor Crook Foundation
  • Elvia Arguelles Trust
  • Ford Foundation
  • Ann and John Doerr
  • Ann and Joshua Bolten
  • Hobson/Lucas Family Foundation
  • Dr. Mo Ibrahim
  • Open Society Foundations
  • The Rockefeller Foundation
  • The Ron Conway Family
  • Sheryl Sandberg & Tom Bernthal
  • Skoll Foundation
  • Sherwood Foundation
  • Tableau Foundation
  • Coca-Cola
  • Theresia Gouw and Matthew McIntyre
  • Tom Freston

The ONE Campaign is financed, in part, by the Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. This is important because of other parts of Bill C-293.

2(i) identify preparedness strategies for public health services across Canada including in respect of
.
(i) the protection of vulnerable and marginalized populations,
(ii) working conditions of essential workers across all sectors,
(iii) the availability and management of relevant stockpiles, including testing equipment and personal protective equipment,
(iv) the surge capacity of human resources required for the testing and contact tracing of persons exposed to infectious diseases, and
(v) communication of risk to the public;

Both Gates and Rockefeller are heavily involved in the pharmaceutical industry. It stands to reason that these organizations would support legislation that sees more taxpayer money diverted to finance production. This site has extensively covered the lobbying connections with GAVI, Zakery Blais, Ashton Arsenault and Cameron Doherty.

Calling Lauren Chen A “Traitor” For Taking Russian Money

November 5th, 2024, Erskine-Smith trolled Lauren Chen (a.k.a. “Roaming Millennial”) for her being paid to push Russian propaganda. It’s at 11:46 in the video. He asked what would you call someone who takes outside money to push foreign interests.

By his own logic, Erskine-Smith could be viewed as a traitor for promoting legislation that subverts Canadian interests, on behalf of outside ones.

But this is what happens when lobbying is so prevalent. It’s never clear who actually writes what, and whose money made that happen.

In his online profile, Daniel Kelter claims that he “briefed [Erskine-Smith] on policy issues, including debates in front of the house, proposed legislation, and committee reports/issues”. This wouldn’t be nearly as concerning without all the lobbyist connections. It’s not a stretch to think that he’s been involved in drafting legislation as well.

So then, who wrote Bill C-293?

Was it Daniel Kelter? Teodora Durca? Bill Gates? Or some other handler?

BILL C-293:
(1) https://eppc.org/publication/the-whos-pandemic-treaty/
(2) WHO Constitution, Full Document
(3) https://www.who.int/about/governance/constitution
(4) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills?chamber=1&page=3
(5) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-293
(6) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/nathaniel-erskine-smith(88687)
(7) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Erskine-Smith
(8) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/43-1/c-235
(9) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/43-1/c-236

OTHER:
(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/nathaniel-erskine-smith(88687)/motions/11522893

LOBBYING INTERESTS:
(1) https://www.linkedin.com/in/dkelter/
(2) https://archive.is/THvzu
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch
(4) https://carbonremoval.ca/
(5) https://carbonremoval.ca/faqs/
(6) https://carbonremoval.ca/team/
(7) https://www.linkedin.com/in/teodoradurca/
(8) https://www.sussex-strategy.com/people/teodora-durca
(9) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?searchCommand=navigate&time=1733004385111
(10) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=539796
(11) https://www.linkedin.com/in/elise-legault-58a81132/details/experience/
(12) https://www.one.org/ca/one-global-canada/
(13)https://www.one.org/ca/about/financials/
(14) https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/
(15) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/SECU/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12884001
(16) https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(1) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(2) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(3) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(4) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(5) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(6) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(7) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(8) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(9) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(10.1) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(10.2) Bill C-293: Concerns Raised In Hearings Over Food Supplies
(11) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(12) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(13) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(14) Bill C-373: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism 2.0
(15) Bill C-388: Fast Tracking Weapons, Energy, Gas To Ukraine
(16) Bill C-390: Expanding Euthanasia Into PROVINCIAL Frameworks
(17) Bills C-398/C-399: Homeless Encampments, Immigration “Equity”
(18) Bill C-413: Prison Time Proposed For Residential School “Denialism”
(19) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(20) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(21) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(22) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights
(23) Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

Posted on

Free Speech In Canada Apparently Worth Just $16,000 (Haverbeck V. Waugh)

A week ago, Ursula Haverbeck died. She was the 96 year old German woman who had gone to prison for publicly denying the Holocaust. While the major media coverage about her is overwhelmingly negative, she chose to stand for her beliefs. It’s really rare to see something like that these days.

Kevin Waugh, a “Conservative” Member of Parliament in Canada, introduced Bill C-250 back in 2022. This would put people in prison for up to 2 years for Holocaust denial. Far from being condemned, his actions were publicly lauded.

Leah Gazan, of the New Democratic Party, introduced Bill C-413 in October 2024. It was heavily modeled on Bill C-250, and would imprison people for up to 2 years for Residential School “denialism”.

At all levels of government in this country, politicians work to strip away freedom of speech under the guise of “fighting hatred”. This cuts across party lines, and isn’t limited to just a few. It also seems that outside influences appear to be guiding these efforts.

According to records from Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Waugh, and his wife, Ann, received a trip in 2018 worth $16,244.42 to Israel. This kind of travel is promoted as “fostering professional/cultural understanding, and meeting counterparts”.

Yes, this was just $16,000. The breakdown is as follows:

  • Transportation: $7,503.50
  • Accommodation: $2,928.84
  • Other: $5,812.09

This was sponsored by CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. It’s essentially the Canadian equivalent of AIPAC. Previously, the Canada-Israel Committee organized such annual trips, and their roster is full of prominent names. Believe it or not, this sort of thing isn’t illegal at all. In fact, it appears that Members of Parliament from all parties take part in it. By comparison, Trudeau ended up getting fined for his vacation with Aga Khan.

Waugh met with CIJA on February 15th, 2022. He had introduced Bill C-250 just days earlier, on February 9th. He’d probably deny the connection, but this is extremely unlikely to be any sort of coincidence. The Bill was ultimately abandoned when the substance was embedded into a Budget Bill.

Waugh takes a free trip to Israel in 2018. A few years later, he does the bidding of CIJA to introduce criminal penalties to Holocaust denial. Coincidence?

While it’s certainly true that Canadian politicians accept paid travel to other countries, none appear to even come close to the scale that occurs with Israel.

Germany lost a woman who was willing to go to prison for her beliefs. By contrast, Canadian politicians are implementing similar laws here in return for a free vacation. These people are nothing alike.

Yves-François Blanchet (Bill C-367) and Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Bill C-373) of the Bloc Québécois get honourable mentions for their work in eroding religious freedoms.

Maxime “The U.N. needs to shut up” Bernier has been completely silent on these issues, despite reinventing himself as a populist and free speech champion in 2018.

NUMBER NAME PARTY YEAR VALUE
1 DeBellefeuille, Claude BQ 2007 $8,661.12
2 Dykstra, Rick CPC 2007 $8,602.30 (USD)
3 Godin, Yvon NDP 2007 $4,094.83 (USD)
4 Pearson, Glen LPC 2007 $8,728.18
5 Savage, Michael LPC 2007 $5,612.54
6 Simard, Raymond LPC 2007 $8,188.00 (USD)
7 Smith, Joy CPC 2007 $8,661.12
8 Stoffer, Peter NDP 2007 $8,728.18
9 Sweet, David CPC 2007 $7,374.72 (USD)
10 Van Kesteren, Dave CPC 2007 $8,728.18
11 Warkentin, Chris CPC 2007 $7,973.54
NUMBER NAME PARTY YEAR VALUE
1 Allison, Dean CPC 2008 $9,411.00
2 Bennett, Carolyn LPC 2008 $7,961.00
3 Breitkreuz, Garry CPC 2008 $7,963.00
4 Brunelle, Paule BQ 2008 $7,961.00
5 Crête, Paul BQ 2008 $10,944.00
6 Dhaliwal, Sukh LPC 2008 $8,758
7 Duceppe, Gilles BQ 2008 $17,577.56
8 Goodyear, Gary CPC 2008 $10,944.00
9 Guimond, Michel BQ 2008 $8,728.18
10 Ignatieff, Michael LPC 2008 $8,602.30
11 Kramp, Daryl CPC 2008 $9,446.00
12 Lunney, James CPC 2008 $7,961.00
13 Martin, Pat LPC 2008 $7,961.00
14 McCallum, John LPC 2008 $10,944.00
15 Ménard, Serge BQ 2008 $7,971.00
16 Mulcair, Thomas NDP 2008 $7,963.00
17 Nash, Peggy NDP 2008 $9,411.00
18 Neville, Anita LPC 2008 $7,961.00
19 Redman, Karen LPC 2008 $11,785
20 Roy, Jean-Yves BQ 2008 $7.961.00
21 Silva, Mario LPC 2008 $7,992.33
22 Sweet, David CPC 2008 $7,961.00
23 Wasylycia-Leis,
Judy		 NDP 2008 $7,961.00
NUMBER NAME PARTY YEAR VALUE
1 Brown, Gord CPC 2009 $6,440.00
2 Cannan, Ron CPC 2009 $9,446.00
3 Coderre, Denis LPC 2009 $10,239.22
4 Cotler, Irwin LPC 2009 $1,439.30
5 Dechert, Bob CPC 2009 $3,983.00
6 Desnoyers, Luc BQ 2009 $5,520.00
7 Devolin, Barry CPC 2009 $9,446.00
8 Garneau, Mar LPC 2009 $7,843.00
9 Glover, Shelly CPC 2009 $7,843.66
10 Hoback, Randy CPC 2009 $7,493.62
11 Hoeppner, Candice CPC 2009 $7,843.00
12 Holland, Mark LPC 2009 $9,446.00
13 Laforest, Jean-Yves BQ 2009 $9,086.22
14 Lemieux, Pierre CPC 2009 $7,493.62
15 Marston, Wayne NDP 2009 $7,493.62
16 Mendes, Alexandra LPC 2009 $7,253.64
17 Oliphant, Robert LPC 2009 $10,602.00
18 Rae, Bob LPC 2009 $3,804.80
19 Uppal, Tim CPC 2009 $7,843.00
NUMBER NAME PARTY YEAR VALUE
1 Block, Kelly CPC 2010 $8,451.30
2 Del Mastro, Dean CPC 2010 $7,956.22
3 Duncan, John CPC 2010 $6,435.34
4 Fast, Ed CPC 2010 $9,006.68
5 Laforest, Jean-Yves BQ 2010 $9,086.22
6 Paillé, Daniel BQ 2010 $7,904.51
7 Rathgeber, Brent CPC 2010 $9,078.16
8 Saxton, Andrew CPC 2010 $8,684.01
9 Simms, Scott LPC 2010 $8,770.68
10 Thibeault, Glenn NDP 2010 $8,906.68
11 Watson, Jeff CPC 2010 $9,586.18
NUMBER NAME PARTY YEAR VALUE
1 Adler, Mark CPC 2011 $5,920.31
2 Bezan, James CPC 2011 $10,781.52
3 Brison, Scott LPC 2011 $8,820.48
4 Cotler, Irwin LPC 2011 $5,700.00
5 Cuzner, Rodger LPC 2011 $9,397.33
6 Foote, Judy LPC 2011 $5,030.08
7 LeBlanc, Dominic LPC 2011 $14,680.00
8 Miller, Larry CPC 2011 $10,525.04
9 Murray, Joyce LPC 2011 $8,580.00
10 Ravignat, Mathieu NDP 2011 $7,281.39
11 Shipley, Bev CPC 2011 $5,370.04
NUMBER NAME PARTY YEAR VALUE
1 Ambler, Stella CPC 2012 $10,238.84
2 Blanchette-Lamothe, Lysane NDP 2012 $9,209.84
3 Caron, Guy NDP 2012 $8,226.84
4 Chisholm, Robert NDP 2012 $10,016.28
5 Cleary, Ryan NDP 2012 $6,030.00
6 Davies, Don NDP 2012 $10,677.68
7 James, Roxanne CPC 2012 $7,059.14
8 Lapointe, François NDP 2012 $11,740.46
9 Larose, Jean-François NDP 2012 $9,031.84
10 Lunney, James CPC 2012 $3,992
11 Nicholls, Jamie NDP 2012 $7,808.28
12 Papillon, Annick NDP 2012 $9,031.84
13 Rafferty, John NDP 2012 $10,161.68
14 Trottier, Bernard CPC 2012 $9,856.28
15 Williamson, John CPC 2012 $9,961.96
16 Young, Terence CPC 2012 $10,389.22
NUMBER NAME PARTY YEAR VALUE
1 Aspin, Jay CPC 2013 $11,165.60
2 Bateman, Joyce CPC 2013 $7,915.48
3 Bruinooge, Rod CPC 2013 $9,937.98
4 Clarke, Rob CPC 2013 $11,165.60
5 Easter, Wayne LPC 2013 $9,786.96
6 Lamoureux, Kevin LPC 2013 $10,053.40
7 Lunney, James CPC 2013 $5,032.71
8 Menegakis, Costas CPC 2013 $10,490.70
9 Michaud, Élaine NDP 2013 $8,185.48
10 Scott, Craig NDP 2013 $10,892.92
11 Young, Wai CPC 2013 $12,683.80
NUMBER NAME PARTY YEAR VALUE
1 Bélanger, Mauril LPC 2014 $9,537.50
2 Bennett, Carolyn LPC 2014 $3,981.61
3 Byrne, Gerry LPC 2014 $12,580.74
4 Falk, Ted CPC 2014 $12,450.71
5 Hoback, Randy CPC 2014 $5,092.21
6 Jones, Yvonne LPC 2014 $11,935
7 Morin, Isabelle NDP 2014 $9,782.96
8 Opitz, Ted CPC 2014 $5,026.24
9 Sandhu, Jasbir NDP 2014 $14,679.57
10 Sweet, David CPC 2014 $4,915.36
11 Wilks, David CPC 2014 $8,608.12
NUMBER NAME PARTY YEAR VALUE
1 Lunney, James INDEPENDENT 2015 $3,285.89
NUMBER NAME PARTY YEAR VALUE
1 Albas, Dan CPC 2016 $12,750
2 Blaney, Steven CPC 2016 $5,616.78
3 Di Iorio, Nicola LPC 2016 $6,930.36
4 Dubé, Matthew NDP 2016 $12,342.24
5 Fillmore, Andy LPC 2016 $10,294.97
6 Fuhr, Stephen LPC 2016 $11,207.65
7 Garrison, Randall NDP 2016 $7,800.22
8 Genuis, Garnett CPC 2016 $12,650.80
9 Gladu, Marilyn CPC 2016 $9,394.06
10 Godin, Joël CPC 2016 $11,929.56
11 Grewal, Ra LPC 2016 $9,391.15
12 Lefebvre, Paul LPC 2016 $10,236.50
13 Levitt, Michael LPC 2016 $9,393.35
14 Longfield, Lloyd LPC 2016 $11,379.11
15 Mendicino, Marco LPC 2016 $6,714.00
16 O’Regan, Seamus LPC 2016 $11,186.79
17 Raitt, Lisa CPC 2016 $8,643.72
18 Rankin, Murray NDP 2016 $9,495.06
19 Rayes, Alain CPC 2016 $10,705.65
20 Rempel, Michelle CPC 2016 $6,296.13
21 Richards, Blake CPC 2016 $7,880.54
22 Rioux, Jean LPC 2016 $11,137.02
23 Ruimy, Dan LPC 2016 $6,841.14
24 Sorbara, Francesco LPC 2016 $10,350
NUMBER NAME PARTY YEAR VALUE
1 Brosseau, Ruth Ellen NDP 2017 $11,705.62
2 Calkins, Blaine CPC 2017 $11,492.23
3 Dhillon, Anju LPC 2017 $9,550.21
4 Hardcastle, Cheryl NPD 2017 $9,522.18
5 Harder, Rachael CPC 2017 $7,410.21
6 Maloney, James LPC 2017 $14,116.86
7 McCauley, Kelly CPC 2017 $12,724/81
8 Nuttall, Alexander CPC 2017 $10,423.31
9 O’Connell, Jennifer LPC 2017 $11,375.14
10 Romanado, Sherry LPC 2017 $11,840.21
11 Rusnak, Don LPC 2017 $14,013.00
12 Sarai, Randeep LPC 2017 $11,806.43
13 Schulte, Deborah LPC 2017 $15,238.90
14 Zimmer, Bob CPC 2017 $12,437.04
NUMBER NAME PARTY YEAR VALUE
1 Amos, William LPC 2018 $11,245.24
2 Brosseau, Ruth Ellen NDP 2018 $2977.22
3 Fergus, Greg LPC 2018 $8,696.85
4 Kusie, Stephanie CPC 2018 $13,390.91
5 McLeod, Cathy CPC 2018 $7,721.70
6 Ng, Mary LPC 2018 $7,355.84
7 Oliver, John LPC 2018 $7,197.11
8 O’Toole, Erin CPC 2018 $7,884,47
9 Schmale, Jamie CPC 2018 $7,286.99
10 Sikand, Gagan LPC 2018 $7,150.00
11 Stubbs, Shannon CPC 2018 $14,212.93
12 Sweet, David CPC 2018 $1,116.22
13 Vandal, Dan LPC 2018 $9,282.93
14 Waugh, Kevin CPC 2018 $16,244.42

Palestinian Authority and the Canadian Palestinian Foundation of Quebec

(2018) Brosseau, Ruth Ellen
(2018) Boulerice, Alexandre
(2018) Caron, Guy
(2018) Casey, Bill
(2018) Chen, Shaun
(2018) Davies, Don
(2018) Genuis, Garnett
(2018) Johns, Gord
(2018) Mathyssen, Irene
(2018) McDonald, Ken
(2018) Ouellette, Robert-Falcon
(2018) Stetski, Wayne
(2018) Tabbara, Marwan
(2018) Tan, Geng

International Democratic Union (IDU)

(2018) Tony Clement

Foreign Affairs Department, The Knesset, Jerusalem

(2018) Sweet, David

NUMBER NAME PARTY YEAR VALUE
1 ​Lapointe, Linda LPC 2019 $13,552.80

March Of Dimes

(2019) Barlow, John
(2019) Damoff, Pam
(2019) May, Bryan

NUMBER NAME PARTY YEAR VALUE
1 Aldag, John LPC 2022 $16,695.62
2 Barrett, Michael CPC 2022 $16,209.30
3 Dancho, Raquel CPC 2022 $13,313.79
4 Duncan, Eric CPC 2022 $10,528.25
5 Jeneroux, Matt CPC 2022 $11,453.80
6 Kelly, Pat CPC 2022 $10,760.73
7 Lattanzio, Patricia LPC 2022 $16,903.70
NUMBER NAME PARTY YEAR VALUE
1 Aitchison, Scott CPC 2023 $13,994.14
2 ​Berthold, Luc CPC 2023 $10,227.60
3 ​Blanchette-Joncas, Maxime BQ 2023 $7,524.88
4 Blois, Kody LPC 2023 $23,930.48
5 Bradford, Valerie LPC 2023 $14,007.89
6 ​Chambers, Adam CPC 2023 $18,950.85
7 Champoux, Martin BQ 2023 $18,246.85
8 Chahal, Harnirjodh (George) LPC 2023 $23,744.00
9 Chen, Shaun LPC 2023 $11,563.58
10 ​Findlay, Kerry-Lynne CPC 2023 $23,883.00
11 Fortin, Rhéal BQ 2023 $18,846.85
12 Goodridge, Laila CPC 2023 $18,446.20
13 Hallan, Jasraj Singh CPC 2023 $23,017.04
14 Hepfner, Lisa LPC 2023 $18,644.15
15 Housefather, Anthony LPC 2023 $10,866.91
16 ​Kramp-Neuman, Shelby CPC 2023 $11,728.58
17 Lapointe, Viviane LPC 2023 $7,636.23
18 ​Martel, Richard CPC 2023 $10,894.04
19 Paul-Hus, Pierre CPC 2023 $17,233.40
20 Rempel Garner, Michelle CPC 2023 $12,252.48
21 Scheer, Andrew CPC 2023 $18,446.20
22 ​Schiefke, Peter LPC 2023 $11,316.78

KEVIN WAUGH, CPC MP:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-250
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/kevin-waugh(89084)
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=521753
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=111&regId=917368&blnk=1
(5) https://www.conservative.ca/mp-waugh-introduces-legislation-to-prohibit-holocaust-denial/
(6) https://archive.ph/fCnNn

OFFICE OF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND ETHICS COMMISSIONER:
(1) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Pages/SponsoredTravel-DeplParraines.aspx
(2) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2007%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(3) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2007
(4) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2008%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(5) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2008
(6) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2009%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(7) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2009
(8) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2010%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(9) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2010
(10) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2011%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(11) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2012%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(12) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2012
(13) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2013%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(14) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2013
(15) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2014%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(16) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2014
(17) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2015%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(18) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2015
(19) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2016%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(20) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2016
(21) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2017%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(22) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2017
(23) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Documents/SponsoredTravel/2018%20Sponsored%20Travel%20List.pdf
(24) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2018
(25) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Pages/travel2019-deplacements2019.aspx
(26) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2019
(27) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Pages/Travel2020-Deplacements2020.aspx
(28) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Pages/Travel2021-Deplacements2021.aspx
(29) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Pages/Travel2022-Deplacements2022.aspx
(30) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2022
(31) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Pages/Travel2023-Deplacements2023.aspx
(32) CIJA List of Sponsored Travel 2023