CLICK HERE, for the Climate Change Scam Part I. CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord. CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference. CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax. CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Funding. CLICK HERE, for Part VI, Disruptive Innovation Framework. CLICK HERE, for Part VII, Blaming Arson On Climate Change. CLICK HERE, for Part VIII, Review Of Green New Deal. CLICK HERE, for Part VIII(II), Sunrise Movement & Green New Deal. CLICK HERE, for Part IX, Propaganda Techniques, Max Boykoff. CLICK HERE, for Part X, GG Pollution Pricing Act & Bill C-97. CLICK HERE, for part XI, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai Explains Paris Accord
2. US & Canadian Copyright Laws
Disclaimer #1: The Canadian Copyright Act has a “fair dealing” provision, which allows for copyrighted material to at times be used for specific purposes: research, private study, education, parody, satire, criticism, review and news reporting. Click Here and also Click Here for more information.
Disclaimer #2: The U.S. Copyright Act has a “fair use” provision, which states that the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. Click Here to read the text.
This should be obvious, but just to clarify, this article is about criticizing, commenting on, teaching and researching purposes.
Max’s research and creative work has developed primarily in two arenas:
(1) cultural politics of science, climate change and environmental issues = this refers to ways that attitudes, intentions, beliefs and behaviors of individuals and groups shape (and are shaped by) the perceived spectrum of possible action in the context of science-policy, climate change and environmental issues.
(2) transformations of carbon-based economies and societies (with emphasis on the interface of science and practical action) = this refers to decarbonization politics, policies and decision-making, with particular interest in how these activities find meaning in people’s everyday lives, as well as how they, in turn, feed back into science-policy decision-making.
Feel free to check into his other works.
Now for the book itself.
4. Table Of Contents
(1) Here And Now
(2) How We Know What We Know
(3) Do The Right Thing
(4) Ways Of Learning, Ways Of Knowing
(5) It’s Not You, It’s Me…. Actually It’s Us
(6) Academic Climate Advocacy & Activism
(7) Silver Buckshot
(8) Search For Meaning
5. Quoting Creative Climate Communications
(From back cover) Conversations about climate change at the science-policy interface and in our lives have been stuck for some time. This handbook integrates lessons from the social sciences and humanities to more effectively make connections through issues, people and things that everyday citizens care about. Readers will come away with an enhanced understanding that there is no “silver bullet” to communications about climate change; instead a “silver buckshot” approach is needed where strategies effectively reach different audiences in different contexts.
One thing that will be clear right away: this is not about using scientific methods to PROVE that climate change is a serious threat. Rather, it is about using scientific methods to CONVINCE people that climate change is a serious threat. Very different things.
We live in remarkable times. Amidst high-quality and well-funded research into the causes and consequences of climate change, conversations in our lives — and climate communications — are stuck. Consciously or unconsciously, a feeling of complacency has often weighed on our collective and our individual selves.
Another point made early on, Boykoff expresses no doubt whatsoever in the “scientific findings” of the climate change movement. The entire focus of the book is about using social science and humanities research to persuade people this is a problem.
(Page 2) Responding to these emergent needs, in recent years has been a blossoming of valuable research in the peer-review literature addressing various elements of this larger challenge. More research groups, organizations, institutions and practitioners around the world have increasingly explored creative spaces of climate communication to better understand what works where, with whom (what audiences), when and why.
Boykoff makes an important note here. He is not by any means a revolutionary here. “Climate communications” is a growing field, with people all over the world trying to determine better methods for “selling” the climate change claims. In short, this is research about marketing. Not science.
(Page 2) Creative approaches involve the deployment of multimodal communications. A mode is a system of choices used to communicate meaning. What might count as a mode is an open-ended set, ranging cross a number of systems, including but not limited to language, image, color, typography, music, voice, quality, dress, posture, gestures, special resources, perfume and cuisine.
What superficial points are listed?
We are still just on the second page, and already getting an introduction into the very superficial traits which can subtly be used to convince people of our arguments.
Forget facts, research, data, and logic. This is all about presenting a good sales pitch.
(Page 3) Among many elements seeping into the environments, I consider the dynamics that shape creative and potentially effective messages as well as messengers of those climate change communications. Over time, broad references to communications through media platforms have generally pointed to television, films, books, fliers, magazines, radio and internet for pathways for largescale communications.
Additional modes and manifestations of communications also include (analyses of) documentary films about dystopian futures, stand-up comedy about climate and cultures, podcasts about climate science and policy interactions.
Boykoff notes the traditional forms of media, but laments that they are not enough by themselves to do the job. The job of course, is “pitching” the climate change agenda.
(Page 4) Meeting people where they are takes carefully planned and methodical work. It does not mean “dumbing things down” for different audiences. Through this process of assessment of research and practice in these areas, conversations can more capably seek answers to a provocative question Mike Hulme posted in 2009, “How does the idea of climate change the way we arrive at and achieve our personal aspirations and our collective social goals?”
(Page 5) KNOW THY AUDIENCE
These creative (climate) communication endeavors must start with consideration of the audience. These may be imagined, (un)intended or actual audiences. Researchers and practitioners have increasingly paid attention to differentiated audiences as key components to deliberate development of effective communication.
Knowing who your audience is actually a useful piece of advice, regardless of circumstances. However, in context of this book, it comes across as manipulation.
(Page 6) Audience segmentation and consequent message alteration has been a part of marketing and associated communications strategies since the 1950s (Smith 1956, Slater 1996). Audience segmentation endeavours as they relate to climate change communications, have proliferated over the last decade (Leal Finho 2019).
This book is about marketing strategies of climate change “communications”. Nothing more. It is about manipulative techniques designed to persuade by non-factual means.
6. Where Things Go From Here
The book is 300 pages, the last 60 of which are references. No doubt that an awful lot of work has gone into this. Yes, the intro article is relatively short, but it is setting the stage for later. Sequels will be longer and quote much more.
As alluded to earlier, this is really a book about marketing. It’s not about research done to prove that humans are causing climate change, but rather research to CONVINCE people that they are.
Rather than going into environmental research, the book delves in sociological and social psychological research methods. It looks at work previously done in the fields of persuasion, and applies those principles to “climate communications”.
Boykoff appears to have no doubts about humans causing climate change. Nor does he seem to have any reservations about using these social studies techniques to pursue what is essentially a political goal. He straightforwardly admits that it’s a growing field, and many have contributed to this area of research.
Boykoff admits that this area is “selling” or “pitching” the climate change narrative. While acknowledging it is a start, he has no problems with it. Seems the scientists have given up on the research area of climate science, and are throwing their resources into the marketing aspect.
(An alternative to drug treatment: just give free drugs, but do it “safely”)
CBC, a.k.a The “Communist Broadbasting Corporation”, or the “Caliphate Broadcasting Corporation”, is a government funded “news” organization. It receives about $1.5 billion annually to spew out anti-Canadian stories. Taxpayers don’t get a say in the matter.
CLICK HERE, to reach the CBC Propaganda Masterlist. It is far from complete, but being added to regularly.
This current masterpiece touts the value of state-funded narcotics as a way to ”reduce harm” and to save lives.
No, this doesn’t mean methodone, or any treatment designed to wane users off their addiction. It doesn’t mean treatment in the hopes of getting people back into society as functioning adults.
This simply is about providing narcotics to users free of charge as a ”harm reduction” policy. Furthermore, medical staff are employed (again, at taxpayer expense), to administer this program. Let’s go through the article.
“Carissa Sutherland’s history with drugs is a lot like many others in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.
The 29-year-old started about 10 years ago with morphine and hydromorphone pills marketed under the brand name Dilaudid or “Dilly” as it’s known on the street.
“I kind of just progressed more and more, and then I couldn’t get Dillies very much — or they were more expensive than heroin, so that I ended up just doing heroin,” said Sutherland, who soon added methamphetamine to the mix.
For her, an especially low point came when she overdosed, alone, in a Wendy’s bathroom about two years ago. Luckily, someone found her, and her life was saved.”
This is saddening to hear, but perhaps trying another solution would be better. Switching to heroin simply because it’s cheaper is asking for trouble.
“Now, a “safe supply” program for people in Sutherland’s situation is launching in the neighbourhood.
Operated by the Portland Hotel Society (PHS) out of its Molson Overdose Prevention Site (OPS), the pilot program will distribute free Dilaudid pills for 50 patients.
The hydromorphone pills, which are manufactured to be taken orally, will be crushed up and rendered as an injectable drug, just like heroin. It’s the first time in Canada that opioids will be prescribed in this way and an idea that came directly from the street.”
Okay, these pills are designed to be taken orally, but instead will be crushed up so they can be injected. Absurd, it means taking prescription medication and knowingly not using it in its intended form. This is harm reduction? Is there medical research?
Not hearing any sort of plan on actual treatment for these people, but perhaps that will come later in the article.
”According to Coco Culbertson, who is overseeing the program for PHS, the dosage will be prescribed by a physician, and participants will be able to get up to five doses per day, to be injected under the supervision of PHS staff and volunteers.
Culbertson said the pills, which are worth about 36 cents when bought legally, cost drug users $20 – $30 on the street. According to Sutherland, a user on the street can make up to four or five pick ups per day to support a habit, sometimes buying multiple pills each time.
“We’re really looking for our “hard target” folks that are experiencing repeated overdose and that are subject to a toxic drug supply on the street,” said Culbertson, who added that there’s already a list of about 75 people for the program, which starts on Tuesday.”
A physician will be prescribing these pills, to be taken orally. Yet he knows that they will be crushed up and used in injection form. This person’s medical license should be revoked.
You are worried about a toxic drug supply on the street? Did it cross your mind that perhaps these pills, when injected (again, not their intended form) may be toxic?
Still no mention of any treatment program. Instead, the public will be funding not only drugs for illicit purposes, but medical staff to “safely” administer?!?!
””This is safe. It’s effective. It’s cost effective. It reduces mortality, reduces crime — both violent crime and property crime — and it reduces the burden on taxpayers,” said MacDonald, who believes the facility’s pharmacy could distribute injectable doses for as many as 800 people across the region. ”
(a) It’s cost effective? How so? It forces the public to may both ”material and labour” to continue a drug addict’s spiral?
(b) It reduces crime? Perhaps, if you view legalizing illicit drug use as a form of reducing crime, you are correct, in a morbid sort of way.
(c) 800 people across the region? Does it occur to you that this will not stop people who have drug problems, rather, it will encourage others to get drugs for free.
(d) Still no mention of any plan to get these addicts back into society.
Sutherland’s life has taken a dramatic turn for the better since her overdose. She’s still a regular drug user, but for the past year and a half, she’s been injecting under supervision at Molson OPS
She quickly started volunteering there and now Sutherland’s on the payroll as a peer support worker. She’s taken part in reversing dozens of potentially fatal overdoses. She’s also found housing through PHS.
But despite the more stable life, the drugs have still put her in risky situations. Sutherland is hoping that will disappear if she’s accepted in the new ‘safe supply’ program.
“I’m hoping that once I get on the Dilly program, I won’t have to do that — I won’t have to go boost from stores — or steal from stores or sell things to get money to get drugs,” she said.
For her, she says, safe supply doesn’t just mean drugs that won’t contain unknown amounts of deadly fentanyl, it also means a drug supply that leads to a much safer lifestyle.”
(I) That is the end of the article, and not one mention about getting drug addicts any real sense of a life.
(II) No talk whatsoever about weaning them off drugs, or any long term treatment plan. It all seems to be about state-funded use forever.
(III) Okay, public pays for drugs, pays for medical staff, and now putting actual drug users on the payroll?
How is it that this is being allowed? All without any sort of public mandate?
Don’t get the wrong idea. People with drug problems do need to have them addressed. However, this is not the solution. Actual treatment is the solution, and getting them off the drugs is what we should be focusing on. Continuing to supply and fund hard drug use seems to be kicking the can down the road.
Every ”medical professional” involved in this needs to have their license revoked. This is blatant malpractice, and neglect for patient well being.
One final thought: could actual drug dealers take advantage of this? (Yes, this is being flippant), but the dealer wouldn’t be drug dealers, they would merely be practicing without a license.
UN GMC Challenged In Calgary Fed Court, 300-635 8th Ave SW.
Case File: T-2089-18. Filed December 6, 2018. CLICK HERE for more information.
An Ontario Judge has ruled that Mike Duffy cannot sue the Senate for a decision that caused him to be suspended without pay for almost 2 years.
CLICK HERE, for the actual ruling from Justice Sally Gomery. (Quotes in bold/italics. Commentary in regular font).
CLICK HERE, for the original verdict, acquitting Duffy.
 Senator Michael Duffy is suing the Senate of Canada for over $7 million in damages.
 On November 5, 2013, the Senate voted to suspend Senator Duffy based on a report from its standing committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration (the “CIBA”). This CIBA report concluded that he had violated rules on living and travel expenses. Senator Duffy was later criminally charged with breach of trust, fraud and accepting a bribe. On April 21, 2016, after a trial that lasted more than a year, he was acquitted of all charges. Justice Vaillancourt, the judge who heard the criminal trial, concluded that the Prime Minister’s Office (“PMO”) directed one or more senators to interfere with an audit of Senator Duffy’s expenses. 2018 ONSC 7523 (CanLII) He also concluded that, in making living expense claims, Senator Duffy “committed no prohibited act, violated no Senate rules”, and neither engaged in criminal fraud nor intended to do so.
 In his lawsuit, Senator Duffy claims that the CIBA report and the Senate’s decision to suspend him were politically motivated, unconstitutional, procedurally unfair and contrary to his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms1. Given the judge’s findings when he was acquitted of criminal charges, Senator Duffy argues that actions by various senators and the Senate as a whole were clearly wrong and unlawfully deprived him of salary, allowances and pension contributions. He also says that, since he was acquitted and the suspension was lifted, the Senate has once again unfairly denied him reimbursement for further legitimate expenses. He seeks compensation for the amounts he says he is entitled to as well as compensatory and punitive damages.
 This matter is before me now because the Senate says that Senator Duffy’s action should be dismissed. The Senate contends that the lawsuit cannot proceed because the actions that Senator Duffy seeks to challenge fall squarely within the scope of parliamentary privilege. Determining the questions that arise in Senator Duffy’s lawsuit would accordingly require a court to do exactly what parliamentary privilege is designed to prevent.
An interesting approach. While Duffy was ultimately acquitted on the criminal charges, the Trial Judge didn’t exactly exonerate him completely. More on that later. And this deflection and projection does not change the fact that there was considerable grounds for the suspension. This reads like an attempt to cash in.
 For the purpose of a motion like this one, I must assume that all of the factual allegations in Senator Duffy’s statement of claim are true. He makes many allegations about the improper motivations of various senators and the denial of any due process. But the core allegation, what he says entitles him to damages, is that the decisions by the CIBA and the Senate to suspend him and to deny his claims for compensation were unlawful and unfair. I must determine whether these decisions are protected by parliamentary privilege and therefore shielded from any review by this court.
This is an important distinction to make here: the Judge is saying that it must be “assumed” for the purposes of the motion that the factual allegations are true. This is not to claim that they actually are.
 I conclude that they are. The Senate enjoys certain categories of privilege by virtue of the Constitution Act, 1867. 6 Four types of privilege prevent a court from reviewing the actions by the Senate at issue in this case.
 First, parliamentary privilege extends to decisions by the Senate to discipline its own members. The privilege clearly applies to decisions about whether a senator should be suspended or expelled. In some cases, a court may review disciplinary decisions with respect to employees of a legislative body, if the management of such employees does not fall within the scope of what is necessary to protect the independent functioning of that body. There is however no question that the privilege prevents judicial review of discipline or suspension of a member of the legislature itself.
 Second, parliamentary privilege applies to the Senate’s management of its internal affairs, including the allocation and use of parliamentary resources. This privilege extends to decisions on the approval of expenses claimed by senators. I find that the privilege applies to decisions by an internal committee of senators, such as the CIBA, with respect to the allocation or withholding of parliamentary resources to a senator.
 Third, Parliament has exclusive control over, and privilege with respect to, its own debates and proceedings.
 Finally, parliamentary privilege protects freedom of speech in the Senate. Allegations in a statement of claim about what was said in parliament must be struck, because statements in parliament cannot be reviewed by a court. Neither a senator nor a third party can be compelled to testify in court about anything they said or did in the course of Senate proceedings. Transcripts of proceedings, and reports produced by or commissioned for the Senate, can likewise not be produced in court proceedings. The Senate’s failure to object to disclosure of some evidence that might have been subject to privilege during Senator Duffy’s criminal trial does not mean that it has relinquished its right to invoke privilege in this case.
The Judge is setting out the reasons here: The Senate is allowed under the law to discipline its own members. The ruling will go on to cite many examples and circumstances, but this will suffice for now.
 Senator Duffy contends that the application of parliamentary privilege in this case leaves him without any meaningful remedy. He says that he cannot hope to get justice from the very body that has treated him so badly in the past, and that the courts should not allow Charter violations to go unchecked, particularly in circumstances where those violations arise from interference by one branch of government (the PMO) with another (the Senate).
 I am however obliged to respect constitutional imperatives. Allowing a court to revisit the Senate’s decisions at issue here would interfere with the Senate’s ability to function as an independent legislative body, equal to other branches of government. These decisions, as well as the Senate record relevant to them, are protected by parliamentary privilege and are accordingly immune from judicial review or reconsideration. Since the actions at issue fall within those actions protected by parliamentary privilege, I cannot give any consideration to whether they were wrong or unfair or even contrary to Senator Duffy’s Charter rights. All of these are determinations that the Senate, and the Senate alone, can make. The Senate’s motion to dismiss Senator Duffy’s action against it is therefore granted.
Interesting, that Duffy has been in the Senate since 2009, but seems to know so little about how it works.
From the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, 21 and 25.11:
21.01 (1) A party may move before a judge,
(a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law raised by a pleading in an action where the determination of the question may dispose of all or part of the action, substantially shorten the trial or result in a substantial saving of costs; or
(b) to strike out a pleading on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence,
and the judge may make an order or grant judgment accordingly. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 21.01 (1).
STRIKING OUT A PLEADING OR OTHER DOCUMENT
25.11 The court may strike out or expunge all or part of a pleading or other document, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that the pleading or other document,
(a) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action;
(b) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or
(c) is an abuse of the process of the court. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.11.
The Senate invokes 2 sections of the Ontario rules, claiming that since Parliamentary privilege applies that the Senate should not be a defendant in the case.
 Over time, the concept of parliamentary privilege was expanded to protect not only speech and procedures, but any action within parliament over which it must necessarily have exclusive control, as an independent and coequal branch of government. Parliamentary privilege is accordingly:
the necessary immunity that the law provides for Members of Parliament … in order for these legislators to do their legislative work. It is also the necessary immunity that the law provides for anyone while taking part in a proceeding in Parliament … Finally, it is the authority and power of each House of Parliament … to enforce that immunity.
Section 18 of the 1867 Constitution Act states:
Privileges, etc., of Houses
18. The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, but so that any Act of the Parliament of Canada defining such privileges, immunities, and powers shall not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding those at the passing of such Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof
In one context, it is nice that the Court here does apply and uphold some separation between branches of government.
However, from a taxpayer who likes accountability from public officials, there is another viewpoint. Many would like to see the truth of the matter fleshed out, something that hasn’t really happened. However, this seems to be a case of “procedure over facts”.
It will be interesting to see what happens with the RCMP, as they will be all too happy to throw Duffy under the bus to show they acted properly.
Backstory Events Leading Up to Lawsuit Against RCMP and Senate
In November 2013, Conservative Senators: 1/ Patrick Brazeau; 2/ Pamela Wallin’ and 3/ Mike Duffy were all suspended from the Canadian Senate for 2 years without pay, over illegal spending.
Mike Duffy faced 31 criminal charges, including: 15 counts of fraud, 15 counts of breach of trust, and 1 count of bribery, (for allegedly receiving $90,000 gift to pay back expenses).
Bribery of judicial officers, etc.
119 (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years who
(a) being the holder of a judicial office, or being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, directly or indirectly, corruptly accepts, obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for themselves or another person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by them in their official capacity, or
(b) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives or offers to a person mentioned in paragraph (a), or to anyone for the benefit of that person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by that person in their official capacity.
Breach of trust by public officer
122 Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 111.
380 (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars; or
(b) is guilty
(i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
(ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction,
where the value of the subject-matter of the offence does not exceed five thousand dollars.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) are facing a personnel shortage, and have come up with an interesting solution: drop all standards, and focus on diversity. No, this is not an exaggeration.
1. Proposed Changes
1/ Criminal record may not be a barrier to entry
2/ Credit problems not to be a barrier to entry
3/ Aptitude testing to be eliminated
4/ Hearing tests to be reduced or eliminated
5/ Vision tests to be reduced or eliminated
6/ Long stints at the acadmeny (training) to be reduced
7/ Focus to be on recruiting women and visible minorities
This CBC article, article is very difficult to parody, as it reads as one. Also, the comments are well worth checking out.
2. Article Quotations
The RCMP are taking a radical look at their recruitment strategy and could ditch credit checks and the ban on recruits with criminal backgrounds to help them rebuild their depleted ranks.
The Mounties have been plagued by staffing challenges in recent years and are looking at how to convince more women and visible minorities to don the red serge.
An internal document, obtained through access to information, suggests credit checks, the criminal background ban, the two-hour aptitude test and long stints at the training depot could all be eliminated from the hiring process as senior ranks try to make a career as a Mountie more attractive.
The document notes that some of the mandatory requirements can create barriers for communities the force wants to attract, including “groups more likely to have contact with the criminal justice system.”
It asks: Are we “tuned-in or tone deaf?”
The review exercise is the brainchild of Vaughn Charlton, the director of gender-based-analysis-plus with the RCMP.
She was brought over from Status of Women Canada in April 2017 at the request of then-commissioner Bob Paulson and tasked with focusing on gender and inclusion within the force.
“We need to stop assuming there’s only one kind of person who belongs in policing,” she said in an interview with CBC News.
“If we’re going to have mandatory requirements, we want to make sure we’re not creating unintended barriers for reasons that really have nothing to do with whether you’d be a great police officer.”
For example, someone coming to the force later in life might not be able to spend 26 weeks at the training depot in Saskatchewan. Credit checks — long part of the RCMP security screening process — can be a barrier for single parents or those who’ve been forced to take long-term leave, said Charlton.
The document also flagged hearing and vision tests and long shifts as potential barriers and questioned the value of the aptitude screening assessment — which, among other things, tests memory, logic, judgment and comprehension.
“I can definitely say we are looking at everything really seriously,” Charlton said. “These are questions worth asking and thinking, ‘Are they still relevant criteria in 2019?'”
So far, Charlton said, her questions have gone over well with top brass.
The recruitment review exercise is ongoing with no set deadline, she said. The entrance exam is getting its own fairness review through the Public Service Commission.
“I think the challenge for us going forward is looking at diversity and inclusion as seriously as we look at security,” Charlton said.
‘Race to the bottom’
When Commissioner Brenda Lucki took over as top Mountie earlier this year, she was warned in a briefing binder that “the RCMP has a growing vacancy rate that exceeds its present ability to produce regular members at a rate that keeps pace with projected future demands.”
The briefing note says that in the last five years, there has been a “dramatic” increase in the number of new recruits required to fill operational vacancies and evolving program requirements.
The RCMP says that in 2018, 21.6 per cent of regular members self-identified as women and 20.8 per cent of members above the inspector level were women. According to a 2017 report, about 10 per cent of the force identify as visible minority and eight per cent are Indigenous.
Time for civilian governance at RCMP, watchdog says in harassment report
Analysis: Toxic culture, harassment issues overshadow RCMP commissioner’s tenure
Christian Leuprecht, a Royal Military College professor who has written about the RCMP’s structure, said public service organizations like police forces are plagued by cumbersome hiring processes and low pay. On top of that, the RCMP have been plagued in recent years by allegations of sexual harassment, bullying and intimidation within the ranks.
“What this all points to is that the RCMP is going to have to change the way they do business, both as an organization and in particular in the way they recruit,” he said.
But Leuprecht cautioned against dropping too many of the mandatory requirements simply to raise the number of applicants. In an age of complex cybercrime investigations, terrorist threats and sophisticated organized crime operations, he said the force needs to ask itself how it can bring in more of the country’s top minds.
“The discussion is always about, ‘Well what can we do to kind of eliminate some barriers to this race to the bottom?'” he said.
“The RCMP is the largest police organization in the country and it is also our federal police force. This needs to be the force that shows the greatest professionalism, the greatest competence and that needs to position itself as an employer of choice and an employer that affords equality of opportunity to all Canadians.”
With files from the CBC’s Kathleen Harris
3. Thoughts On The Proposal
(1) Dropping the prohibition against people with a criminal record is non-sensical. Having a “pardoned” criminal record is one thing, but letting actual criminals in to do the policing?
Additionally, there are way too many questions here:
(a) Which offences will be grounds for exclusion?
(b) Will there be any specific cut-off, or is it case by case?
(c) Will there be a waiting period before a person can enter?
(d) Will people on parole or probation be allowed to enter?
(e) If an ex-con has a firearms ban, will that be waived?
(f) If an ex-con has a driving prohibition, will that be waived?
(2) Credit checks are used in places like banks. When putting someone is a position of trust, it is important to have some knowledge that they can manage finances, and will be less likely to abuse that trust.
Furthermore, ”employment credit checks” do not show anywhere near as much information as say, getting a check for a loan or credit card. These ones are severely restricted in the information disclosed, as it is to measure trustworthiness, not the balance on your cards or mortgage.
(3) Dropping the aptitude test? Do we not want some intellectual standards for RCMP recruits? If a person cannot meet a basic entry level exam, then excluding that person, or people, is in the best interest of the organization. It does raise the question though: is this an attempt to gain more ESL recruits?
(4) Hearing and vision tests are useful, since your physical health and sense are essential to one’s ability to do the job. Further, given how dangerous and gruelling policing can be, physical strength and stamina are needed.
(5)Yes, being away from the family for 6 months can be a burden, but training to be a police officer is a serious commitment. It cannot simply be gutted.
(6) Who cares how many people are women (or trannies identifying as women), or how many people are of a particular background? The focus should be on creating a strong force of intelligent, fit people with good moral character. The rest is just pandering to identity politics.
(7) “”….If we’re going to have mandatory requirements, we want to make sure we’re not creating unintended barriers for reasons that really have nothing to do with whether you’d be a great police officer.””
If we’re going to have mandatory requirements? These people seem uncertain about that. Also, the above criteria are VERY important in selecting police recruits.
(8) Assuming the claims of a culture of harassment are true — fire any and all people engaging in behaviour and focus on building a force with better decency. Don’t eliminate standards. This is sort of like having Problem “A”, and coming up with Solution “B”.
(9) Why change the way you do business? Again, terminate the bad apples, but don’t make it open-recruitment under the guide of ”inclusiveness”.
(10) An interesting point is made: in an era where technology and crime is becoming more sophisticated, do we want to be LOWERING our IQ entry requirements?
(11) Regarding the obsession with Gender-Based Analysis: no one is saying that women should not be police officers. Rather, their abilities should be valued more, and the focus on being women should be stopped. This is a frequent straw-man lefties use: assume any difference in stats is due to discrimination, and not due to personal choices.
4. Moronic To The Extreme
This quote says it all:
“We need to stop assuming there’s only one kind of person who belongs in policing,” she said in an interview with CBC News.
The challenge for us going forward is looking at diversity and inclusion as seriously as we look at security.
– Vaughn Charlton
Yes, we need to focusing on diversity and inclusion as much as security. So, people with criminal records, poor credit, low IQ, lack of commitment, poor hearing/vision, etc…. are just “another form of diversity”?
Enough of the endless pandering. Simply hire good quality recruits. If needed, make the compensation and benefits package more attractive. Offer flexibility in work locations. Don’t water down the standards.
(All of the Canadian Parliament’s Bills are online)
Are you concerned about your tax dollars being wasted? Do you suspect that parliament is doing nothing productive? Uncertain about the endless pandering on your dime? Well, let me tell you …
…you are exactly right about that.
Let’s take a stroll through the index of pending legislation for this 42nd session of Parliament, and see exactly what our honourable Members of Parliament have been up to. Examples of some of the “less urgent” matters to be discussed. Here are some of the honourable mentions.
CLICK HERE to get a good look at all of the: (1) Government; (2) Private Member; and (3) Senate bills of the 42nd session of parliament.
(1) CLICK HERE, for bill C-210, a bill to ensure a gender-neutral national anthem. Royal Assent February 7, 2018.
(2) CLICK HERE, for Bill C-216, to designate October 15 as National Perinatal Bereavement Awareness Day. First reading.
(3) CLICK HERE, for Bill C-231, to establish a National Food Waste Awareness Day. First Reading.
(4) CLICK HERE, for Bill C-237, Gender Equity in Elections. First Reading.
(5) CLICK HERE, for Bill C-306, establishing May 18 as Crimean Tatar Deportation Awareness Day. First Reading.
(6) CLICK HERE, for Bill C-309, to designate the 4th week of Sepember as Gender Equality Week. Royal Assent June 21, 2018.
(7) CLICK HERE, for Bill C-317, to designate October as Hispanic Heritage Month. First Reading.
(8) CLICK HERE, for Bill C-318, to designate June 2nd as Indian Residential School Reconciliation and Memorial Day.
(9) CLICK HERE, for Bill C-361, to make National Aboriginal Day an official holiday.
(10) CLICK HERE, for Bill C-376, to designate April as Sikh Heritage Month. Third Reading.
(11) CLICK HERE, for Bill C-386, to make September 30 Orange Shirt Day: A Day for Truth and Reconciliation. First Reading.
(12) CLICK HERE, for Bill C-391, an act to develop a strategy for repatriating Aboriginal remains. Second reading.
(13) CLICK HERE, for Bill C-393, to exempt Quebec from the National Multiculturalism Act. Actually, this one makes sense. First reading.
(14) CLICK HERE, for Bill C-403, to designate November as Diabetes Awareness Month. First reading.
(15) CLICK HERE, for Bill C-416, to designate October as Hindu Heritage Month. First reading.
(16) CLICK HERE, for Bill S-215, to raise the penalties (or at least consider it an aggravating factor), if the victim of a crime is an Aboriginal woman. Third reading.
(17) CLICK HERE, for Bill S-218, to designate October as Latin American Heritage Month. Royal assent June 21, 2018.
(18) CLICK HERE, for Bill S-222, to advance Canada’s linguistic plurality. First reading.
(19) CLICK HERE, for Bill S-232, to establish May as Canadian Jewish Heritage Month. Royal Assent March 29, 2018.
(20) CLICK HERE, for Bill S-241, to designate February 21 as International Mother Language Day. First Reading.
(21) CLICK HERE, for Bill S-244, to designate the 3rd week of February as Kindness Week.
(22) CLICK HERE, for Bill S-255, designating August 1 as Emancipation Day.
To Summarise Our New “Days” and “Months”
February (3rd Week) – Kindness Week
February 21 -International Mother Language Day
April – Sikh Heritage Month
May – Canadian Jewish Heritage Month
May 18 – Crimean Tatar Deportation Awareness Day
June 2 – Indian Residential School Reconciliation and Memorial Day
June 21 – National Aboriginal Day
August 1 – Emancipation day
September (4th week) – Gender Equality Week
September 30 – Orange Shirt Day, a Day For Truth and reconciliation
October 15 – National Perinatal Bereavement Awareness Day
October- Hindu Heritage Month
October – Latin American Heritage Month
November – Diabetes Awareness Month
Looks like the calendar is about to become a lot more full. Good thing there aren’t REAL ISSUES that could be discussed.
More to come, but this article strictly dealt with “pandering” bills.
(Kevin O’Leary, former candidate for CPC, to replace Stephen Harper)
The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.
Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE
CBC published an article announcing that former Conservative Party leadership candidate, Kevin O’Leary, is suing Elections Canada over ruling relating to how he can pay back campaign debt. During the election campaign, O’Leary accumulated about $2,000,000 in debt. Approximately $400,000 is still outstanding.
In his claim, O’Leary said that it is proving too difficult to raise the necessary funds in the three-year timeframe set by Elections Canada laws because people are understandably “uninterested” in contributing to a failed campaign that is long over.
He has a good point. No one would be interested in contributing to a political campaign that has long since ended. So it does posse serious challenges for him to do so.
Further, the article raises an interesting question:
“If you’re out of the race, and you’re not a politician any more and you owe money to a fellow citizen, where is it right that the law protects you from ever paying it back? That’s un-Canadian. That’s unconstitutional. That’s simply wrong,”
Again, this is valid. O’Leary’s brief political career is finished. He claims to never wish to run for office again, so what is the issue with him simply paying the debts and moving on with his life? O’Leary states that he has the funds available to do so, but is prohibited from doing so under the Canada Elections Act.
The claim filed is available here, and let’s go through some of the better arguments.
Regarding the applicable laws, the claim states:
1. A declaration that subsections 367(1)(d), (6) and (7), 478.756), and 500(1) of the Canada Elections Act, SC. 2000, c. 9 (the ?Act?) (collectively referred to herein as the impugned provisions) infringe on and deny the rights and freedoms guaranteed by sections 3 and 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter)
and are not saved by section 1 thereof;
2. A declaration that, insofar as the impugned provisions infringe on and deny the rights and freedoms guaranteed by sections 3 and/or 7 of the Charter and cannot be justified under section 1 of the Charter, those provisions are invalid and of no force and effect, to
the extent of the inconsistency;
3. In addition, or in the alternative:
a. A declaration that the impugned provisions violate the constitutional principle of the rule of law, which requires that laws be written and interpreted according to an intelligible legal standard that gives individuals fair notice of the conduct that will
attract imprisonment by the state;
b. A declaration that, insofar as the impugned provisions fail to meet the constitutional standard of legislative precision required by the rule of law, these provisions are invalid and of no force and effect or, in the alternative, must be read down so as to
satisfy this standard;
Okay, let’s dissect this word salad. O’Leary claims that portions of the Canada Elections Act, violate several provisions of the Canadian Charter. The “reasonable limitation is the Charter (section 1) would not apply and justify the C.E.A. Further, he implies that the C.E.A. is written in a too confusing standard to be followed.
367 (1) Subject to subsection 373(4), no individual shall make contributions that exceed
(a) $1,500 in total in any calendar year to a particular registered party;
(b) $1,500 in total in any calendar year to the registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates of a particular registered party;
(c) $1,500 in total to a candidate for a particular election who is not the candidate of a registered party; and
(d) $1,500 in total in any calendar year to the leadership contestants in a particular leadership contest.
Contributions — candidates and leadership contestants
(6) Subject to subsection (7), no candidate in a particular election and no leadership contestant in a particular leadership contest shall make a contribution out of their own funds to their own campaign.
Exception — certain contributions to own campaign
(7) The following contributions are permitted:
(a) contributions that do not exceed $5,000 in total by a candidate for a particular election out of their own funds to their own campaign; and
(b) contributions that do not exceed $25,000 in total by a leadership contestant in a particular leadership contest out of their own funds to their own campaign.
Okay, 367(1)(d) has to do with individuals making contributions being limited to $1,500 per year to any leadership contestant. Sections (6) and (7) have to do with overall individual limits. It is definitely reasonable that there should be contribution limits, in order to avoid having candidates “BOUGHT AND PAID FOR”. However, should that apply to former candidates who have since moved on.
3 potential counter arguments against O’Leary though:
(a) What if a person “hasn’t” moved on, and intends to use this relief for future campaigns?
(b) Would removing this cap be an end-run around spending limits?
(c) Would this restriction be necessary to ensure “smaller candidates” get a fair shot?
There is no 478.756 in the Canada Elections Act. It appears to be a type in the claim. However, this is the provision that I believe O’Leary was referring to. That is 478.75.
Payment within three years
478.75 (1) If a claim for a leadership campaign expense is evidenced by an invoice or other document that has been sent under section 478.74, or if a claim for repayment of a loan is made to the leadership contestant under section 373, the claim shall be paid within three years after the day on which the leadership contest ends.
Once more this seems to make a good point. The C.E.A requires repayment within 3 years. However, if former candidates must: (I) pay in 3 years or less; (II) are not actually able to raise more donations because they are not running; and (III) have strict limits as to how much of their personal wealth they can use, then there seem to be few, if any options.
Now, for section 500 of the C.E.A.:
Punishment — strict liability offences
500 (1) Every person who is guilty of an offence under any of subsections 484(1), 486(1), 489(1), 491(1), 492(1), 495(1), 495.1(1), 495.2(1), 496(1), 497(1), 497.1(1), 497.2(1), 497.3(1), 497.4(1), 497.5(1) and 499(1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three months, or to both.
I’m not going to quote the entirety of Section 500. The point is that O’Leary is correct, the C.E.A. does in fact threaten jail time as a punishment for failing to comply.
One the surface, Kevin O’Leary’s claim seems to be valid, given the strict rules the C.E.A. sets out. But let’s now check out the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which the lawsuit references as relief.
Democratic rights of citizens
3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
Life, liberty and security of person
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Rights and freedoms in Canada
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
O’Leary makes the argument that fairly large campaigns are necessary to be elected as part of a legislative assembly. Without debating the merits of “big money”, it is a fact. Campaigns and elections are expensive to run.
Section 7 has to do with punishments, which Section 500 of the C.E.A. establishes can be up to 90 days in prison for violating provisions of the act.
Section 1 is often invoked as a “reasonable justification” for restricting Charter rights. Obviously, in order to restrict, there must be some societal overall good. While Elections Canada will obviously argue differently, O’Leary is attempting to preempt the defence by stating there is none.
Thoughts And Conclusions
Obviously, this is only beginning. The claim has been filed, but no response or defence has yet been made.
On the surface, the claim makes valid points. O’Leary, like all Canadian citizens, is allowed to run for any legislative assembly or body he wishes to. Today’s reality is that campaigns are long, expensive, and a financial drain to run. However, candidates may find themselves hamstrung by campaign finance rules, which seem overly complex and tedious.
As stated earlier, I see a few possible defences for Elections Canada
(a) What if a person “hasn’t” moved on, and intends to use this relief for future campaigns?
(b) Would removing this cap be an end-run around spending limits?
(c) Would this restriction be necessary to ensure “smaller candidates” get a fair shot?
Politicians (and aspiring politicians) across the country will likely be tracking this case, as it will have real impact on future elections and party leadership races.
As a side note: CBC published the article a month after the case was filed. Not that it is relevant to the case, but did they not know about it until then?