Category: Canada

Posted on

Private Member’s Bill C-230 DEFEATED: Would Protect Health Care Workers From MAiD Compulsion

Anyone hear about Bill C-230? It would have protected health care workers from being compelled to participate in medical assistance in dying, or euthanasia. Perhaps it made the news at one point.

It had been introduced by Kelly Block, Member of Parliament for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, Saskatchewan, back in March 2022.

Turns out it was defeated in October 2022, along party lines. The vote was 115 in favour, and 208 against. Conservatives supported the Bill, while Liberals, NDP, Greens and Bloc Québécois voted it down.

SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to make it an offence to intimidate a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, pharmacist or other health care professional for the purpose of compelling them to take part, directly or indirectly, in the provision of medical assistance in dying.
.
It also makes it an offence to dismiss from employment or to refuse to employ a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, pharmacist or other health care professional for the reason only that they refuse to take part, directly or indirectly, in the provision of medical assistance in dying.

2 The Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after section 241.‍2:
Intimidation
241.‍21 (1) Every person who, for the purpose of compelling a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, pharmacist or other health care professional to take part, directly or indirectly, in the provision of medical assistance in dying, uses coercion or any other form of intimidation is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Employers
(2) Every person who refuses to employ, or dismisses from their employment, a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, pharmacist or other health care professional for the reason only that they refuse to take part, directly or indirectly, in the provision of medical assist­ance in dying is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

It’s hard to believe this is real, but it is. Parliament voted down a Bill that would have protected health care workers from being forced to participate in assisted suicide.

Don’t forget that we still have Bill S-248 in the Senate. That would remove the requirement for final consent for people wanting to end their lives.

In late 2021, Don Davies introduced Bill C-220, which would make it an aggravating factor in criminal sentencing to assault a health care worker. Are we to assume that people in the medical industry need to be protected from violence…. but at the same time, it’s okay to compel them to kill others?

People can be truly evil.

Sources:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bills?page=3
(2) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/44-1/c-230
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/44/1/186
(4) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/kelly-block(59156)
(5) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-230/first-reading
(6) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/44-1/s-248
(7) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/44-1/c-220

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(A) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(B) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(C) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(D) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(E) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(F) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(G) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(H) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(I) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(J) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(K) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(L) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(M) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(N) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights

Posted on

Senate Bill S-215: Act Respecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions

Senate Bill S-215 was introduced in November 2021. It is described as an Act respecting measures in relation to the financial stability of post-secondary institutions.

Let’s call a spade a spade. Is this going to lead to taxpayers having to bail out colleges and universities sometime soon? And what are the details of how this will be implemented?

It was introduced by Senator Lucie Moncion, who is labelled as an independent. Her Senate biography lists her as having a “distinguished career of more than 38 years in the co-operative financial institutions sector, the last 16 as President and CEO”.

How very interesting that a longtime banker would be putting forward legislation to potentially bail out colleges and universities in Canada

Proposal
4 (1) The Minister must develop a proposal for federal initiatives designed to
(a) reduce the risk that an institution becomes bankrupt or insolvent;
(b) protect students, faculty and staff in the event that an institution becomes bankrupt or insolvent; and
(c) support communities that would be impacted by an institution becoming bankrupt or insolvent.

Consultation
(2) The proposal under subsection (1) must be developed in consultation with representatives from
(a) institutions;
(b) provincial and municipal governments;
(c) groups and associations of — or advocating on behalf of — students, faculty and staff of institutions.

Very interesting to have a former banker in the Senate, and introducing such a Bill.

The Bill went to Committee in October 2022, and doesn’t appear to have moved since. That is, of course, not to say that it won’t advance in the future. Of course, it’s always possible to be slipped into another, larger Bill, and passed with little to no debate.

Consultations will be made with groups acting on behalf of students, faculty and staff? Okay, how do we ensure that there is real representation?

As previously described here and here. Canadian colleges and universities are in fact registered charities, which are already receiving lucrative tax breaks.

There is a provision to support communities that would be impacted by an institution becoming bankrupt or insolvent. While may sound okay, one has to wonder why we have communities that are dependent on universities. Do we think it beneficial to require their survival?

Of all the things to prop up, why the higher education industry? We let citizens go bankrupt, but support this sector?

It’s hard to give a proper critique when there’s so little specific information here.

Sources:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bills?page=1
(2) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/44-1/s-215
(3) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/moncion-lucie/
(4) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-215/first-reading
(5) https://www.linkedin.com/in/lucie-moncion-3aa96228/
(6) https://odysee.com/@CanuckLawVids:2/Colleges-Are-Charities-Part-1:9
(7) https://odysee.com/@CanuckLawVids:2/Colleges-Are-Charities-Part-2:0

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(A) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(B) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(C) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(D) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(E) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(F) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(G) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(H) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(I) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(J) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(K) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(L) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(M) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights

Posted on

Federal Vaccine Pass Case Struck As “Embarrassing” And “Bad Beyond Argument” (Another Galati Special)

In a decision that should surprise no one, a Federal Court Judge has ruled that a lawsuit was so poorly written that it was impossible to answer. (See archive and CanLII).

Justice Simon Fothergill ruled “the statement of claim is an embarrassing pleading. It contains much that appears to be unnecessary. As well, it is constructed in a manner calculated to confuse the defendants and to make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to answer.”

In short, the document was incoherent, filled with irrelevant material, and so disorganized that it was unreasonable to expect the Defendants to respond. But it gets much worse.

Approximately two thirds of the more than 600 Plaintiffs are permanently barred from taking legal action. The other third can still go ahead, but the case needs to be completely redone.

Broadly speaking, there are 2 different classes of Plaintiffs:
(1) Employees of the Federal Government, listed on Schedule A
(2) Employees of Federally regulated industries, listed on Schedule B

Federal employees are stopped by Section 236 of the FPSLRA, which is the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act. In short, workers employed by the Government are prohibited from filing lawsuits, and must seek other methods, such as arbitration.

Not only can they not turn to the Court, but it appears they passed on what few remedies were available, such as asking for exemptions, and going through the grievance process. And, if this retainer agreement is a valid document, it would mean they paid $1,000 each.

The Plaintiffs who are in Federally regulated industries can still theoretically proceed. But there are other significant problems.

Even if the case were allowed to proceed in its entirety, all Plaintiffs would have to be named properly. Close to 100 of them are “John Doe” or “Jane Doe”.

Sections 18(1) and (3) of the Federal Courts Act state that litigants who want to challenge Government Orders and seek injunctive relief are required to do so by way of Application for Judicial Review. This lawsuit didn’t do that. Instead, a Statement of Claim was filed. That’s right, the wrong paperwork was filed to begin with.

There are a few possible remedies here. First, the Claim could be redone as an Application. Second, the portions pertaining to challenging the Order can be removed.

Beyond that, the challenge (regardless of format) would have to be completely rewritten. The Court found that it was seriously deficient, and pleaded so poorly that a response was impossible.

173 (1) Pleadings shall be divided into consecutively numbered paragraphs.
Allegations set out separately
(2) Every allegation in a pleading shall, as far as is practicable, be set out in a separate paragraph.

Material facts
174 Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies, but shall not include evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

Particulars
181 (1) A pleading shall contain particulars of every allegation contained therein, including
(a) particulars of any alleged misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence; and
(b) particulars of any alleged state of mind of a person, including any alleged mental disorder or disability, malice or fraudulent intention.

As stated in the original critique, this suit failed to meet even the bare minimum standards of drafting as set out by the Federal Courts Rules.

This is a common problem is many of these cases. While there are accusations made everywhere, there are rarely (if ever) sufficient facts pled to allow a meaningful defence. Defendants are entitled to know what the case is that they must address.

As Justice Fothergill noted, it was “embarrassing” and “bad beyond argument”.

Surprisingly, things still go downhill.

In the Motion to Strike, the Defendants brought up the issue that large portions of this case were substantially similar (and sometimes identical) to the Action4Canada case that was thrown out last August. This includes:

  • allegations of criminal behaviour;
  • broad declarations respecting the current state of medical and scientific knowledge;
  • and a declaration that administering medical treatment without informed consent is a crime against humanity

Instead of Action4Canada accepting that certain remedies were beyond the scope of a Civil Court, the organization appealed. 6 months after that ruling (which allowed a rewrite), no amended Claim has been filed. It’s unclear if one ever will be.

Now the Action4Canada ruling has been used as a partial basis for throwing out the Federal case. Justice Fothergill also noted that the pleadings were just as bad here as with the other suit.

So, what will happen now? If the Action4Canada case is any indicator, there will be an Appeal filed with the Federal Court of Appeals. Nothing will never come of it, other than to waste time and money.

Do read the reasons given by Justice Fothergill. It’s mindboggling that such paperwork can be submitted and taken seriously. (See original Claim).

The outcome of this Federal case was predictable and it was far more than mere sloppiness. It takes considerable skill and effort to draft something this poorly.

FEDERAL VAXX PASS CHALLENGE
(1) https://policeonguard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Filed-SOC.pdf
(2) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge
(3) Federal Vaccine Passport Challenge Retainer Agreement
(4) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Motion To Strike
(5) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Affidavit Of Service
(6) Federal Court Vaccine Mandate Challenge Responding Motion Record
(7) Federal Court Of Canada Rules
(8) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-7/page-3.html#docCont
(9) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-33.3/page-13.html#h-406405
(10) https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/522970/index.do
(11) T-1089-22 Federal Court Decision On Motion To Strike
(12) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2023/2023fc252/2023fc252.html
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/Federal-Vaccine-Passport-Challenge-Retainer.pdf

EARLIER REVIEWS
(1) https://canucklaw.ca/federal-vaxx-pass-claim-fatally-defective/
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/ottawa-files-motion-to-strike-federal-vaccine/
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/federal-vaccine-passport-case-hears-motion-to-strike-claim/

Posted on

Private Member’s Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour And Environmental Rights”

New Democrat Member of Parliament Alistair MacGregor recently introduced Bill C-315, to amend the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act. At least, his name is on it. It’s unclear if he actually wrote this legislation.

On the surface, this is a Bill to get Canada’s national pension plan to move away from certain activities, at least as far as investing is concerned. To the novice reader, there’s nothing objectionable. It’s short, and (apparently) straight to the point.

But, at its core, this is a form of economic warfare against certain industries. Companies (or sectors)

Preamble
Whereas the Canada Pension Plan is a major pillar of Canada’s retirement income system and the Canada Pension Plan fund is one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world;
.
Whereas capital markets can have a tremendous impact and influence on environmental and social outcomes;
.
And whereas Canada, having a long history as a defender of human rights and freedoms, is committed to promoting responsible business practices and holding to account those who violate human, labour and environmental rights;

1 Section 35 of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act is renumbered as subsection 35(1) and is amended by adding the following:
Considerations
(2) The investment policies, standards and procedures, in order to take into account environmental, social and governance factors, shall provide that no investment may be made or held in an entity if there are reasons to believe that the entity has, in performing acts or carrying out work,
(a) committed human, labour or environmental rights violations;
(b) produced arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war prohibited under international law; or
(c) ordered, controlled or otherwise directed acts of corruption under any of sections 119 to 121 of the Criminal Code or sections 3 or 4 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

In fairness, it’s nice that this is transparent about its intent. The CPPIB Act is to be amended to use its financial power to influence social change.

Admittedly, this Bill isn’t entirely bad. It does make sense not to do business with companies that are engaged in arms manufacturing if they may be a threat to Canada.

However, some of the more subjective areas leave opportunities for double standards to take place. Who decides if “environmental rights” have been violated? Considering vaccine passports were a recent issue, what qualifies as “human rights” violations? What about “labour rights”? Would it be illegal to bring in replacement workers? Since none of this is clearly defined, how could any sort of consistency be applied?

This is a common problem in these kinds of bills. Since key terms are undefined, then everything becomes subjective, and impossible to enforce in any uniform matter. Politicians may vote on them, but then it is up to unelected bureaucrats to work out the details.

Sources:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/overview
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/alistair-macgregor(89269)
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-315/
(4) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-315/first-reading

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(A) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(B) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(C) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(D) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(E) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(F) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(G) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(H) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(I) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(J) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(K) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(L) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights

Posted on

Private Member’s Bill C-312: Development Of A National Renewable Energy Strategy

Bill C-312 is about developing of a national renewable energy strategy, or so it’s claimed.

This Bill (supposedly) was written by New Democrat Member of Parliament Don Davies. However, he seems to be writing the United Nations’ dictates and trying to implement them into Canadian law. Remember how all these international agreements were supposed to be “non-binding”?

To add the usual disclaimer: Private Bills often don’t become law on their own. That being said, the contents can later be slipped into other, larger pieces and get passed with little to no debate.

The text of the Bill says “develop and implement” a national strategy. It’s doesn’t simply want a plan drawn up. The logical conclusion one could draw from this is that it will force closure of industries and businesses that don’t go along with the plan.

Preamble
Whereas the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been clear that averting catastrophic climate change requires global net human-caused greenhouse gas emissions to fall by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050;
.
Whereas, on a national scale, jobs in the clean energy sector are projected to grow nearly four times faster than the average in other sectors between 2020 and 2030, and the sector’s contribution to gross domestic product is set to increase at more than double the average over the same period;
.
And whereas Canada must accelerate its transition to a clean energy future to meet the federal government’s target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030;

Development of national strategy
3 The Minister must, in consultation with the provincial government representatives responsible for energy matters and with Indigenous governing bodies, develop and implement a national strategy to provide that, by December 31, 2030, 100% of electricity generated in Canada must be from renewable energy sources.

Objectives of national strategy
4 The national strategy must include measures designed to achieve the following objectives:
(a) the initiation in each calendar year of twice as many renewable energy production projects as non-renewable energy production projects;
(b) an increase in investment in the research and development of renewable energy technologies;
(c) cooperation between the federal government and provincial governments in the establishment of new large-scale public electric utilities; and
(d) the creation of a renewable energy economy and renewable energy jobs.

Incentives
5 (1) Within one year after the day on which this Act comes into force, the Minister, together with the Minister of Finance, must design and implement incentives to encourage the development of, and investment in, renewable energy projects related to solar, wind, tidal or biomass electricity generation and to encourage homeowners and businesses to retrofit their properties with new or more efficient renewable energy technologies to increase the proportion of electricity used by these properties that is derived from renewable energy sources.

This Bill, if implemented, will kill of the oil & gas industry in Canada. And it appears designed to do so.

There is a quota system, where there would be at least twice as many “renewable” energy projects started as non-renewables. They would also be subsidized, making them appear artificially cheaper.

This is essentially the “Green New Deal” that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pushed back in 2019. Of course, she wasn’t the original author of that plan, and was simply advancing a scheme developed over a decade earlier.

Isn’t it interesting how so much Canadian legislation can actually be traced back to foreign actors with their own agendas?

Sources
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/overview
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-312
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/don-davies(59325)
(4) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-312/first-reading

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(A) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(B) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(C) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(D) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(E) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(F) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(G) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(H) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(I) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(J) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(K) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights

Posted on

Joanne Person Speaks Out Following Charges Being Withdrawn Over Coutts Arrest

Joanne Person has finally spoken out out about an arrest last year which caused nationwide attention. She was charged with 1 count of Firearms Possession and 1 count of Mischief Over $5,000.00 for allegedly aiding and abetting protesters in Coutts on Feb 14, 2022. On January 16, 2023, the charges were officially withdrawn.

This stems from the a section of the Canada/U.S. border being blocked last winter during nationwide protests over martial law measures.

While there was brief coverage of her case being dropped, it was quite limited. The version told by Person in the livestream paints a very different story to what has been officially reported. This includes the conduct of, and treatment by the RCMP.

Person wasn’t actually a part of any alleged plot, but had merely been hosting protesters in Coutts at her residence.

Although released on bail, it took nearly a year to have the case withdrawn. While news of the charges being dropped is a relief, it doesn’t undo the stress and hardship which came with the arrest. Her name made national news, and no public apology has yet been offered.

Chris Carbert, Christopher Lysak, Anthony Olienick and Jerry Morin remain charged with conspiracy to murder RCMP officers. Police allege that there had been a cache of weapons found in the area. They are scheduled to go on Trial in June.

The stream was hosted by Stand4THEE, and is worth a watch.

(1) https://rumble.com/v29uldy-stand4thee-live-5-press-conference-with-joanne-person.html
(2) https://stand4thee.com/
(3) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/joanne-person-coutts-charges-court-prelim-mischief-1.6715505
(4) https://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/crown-withdraws-charges-against-coutts-protester-who-hosted-others-on-her-property
(5) https://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/another-one-of-the-coutts-blockade-suspects-granted-bail-pending-trial