Category: NGO/CS

Posted on

The Pham Case: NGOs Pushed For Foreign Criminals Having More Rights Than Canadians

A disturbing trend has been in the news lately. Recently, a series of cases were published where foreigners received unusually low sentences for criminal convictions, in order to avoid deportation. Since the 2013 Supreme Court ruling in Pham, there has been a requirement to view “immigration consequences” when handing down punishment.

What’s even more unsettling is how this came to happen. A foreign drug trafficker received a 2 year sentence on a Joint Submission (agreement), but seemed to have realized after the fact that it would mean deportation.

For context: under the rules at the time, non-citizens who received a jail sentence of 2 years (or more) were excluded from many appeal options to avoid deportation. Removal was pretty much automatic. However, those convicted and receiving lesser punishment still had more prospects of staying. This was later reduced to a 6 month limit.

Hoang Anh Pham was sentenced to 2 years in prison for drug possession, for the purposes of trafficking. On Appeal, he asked that it be reduced by a day, to avoid deportation. The Court of Appeal, in a split decision, rejected it. However, the Supreme Court of Canada granted Leave (permission) to hear the case, and then did allow it.

What likely tipped the scales was that several Intervenors (interested parties) made submissions to the Supreme Court of Canada. These were:

  • British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (Charity Page)
  • Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers
  • Canadian Civil Liberties Association (Charity Page)
  • Canadian Council for Refugees (Charity Page)
  • Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario

Various groups weighed in, asking the the Supreme Court require that Judges take immigration consequences into account when imposing sentences. How does this benefit actual Canadians? How does special consideration for foreign criminals create a better society?

Hoang Anh Pham Previously Convicted For Drug Trafficking

[2] The facts as disclosed at trial were that the appellant was involved in a three-stage marijuana grow operation consisting of 591 plants at various stages of growth. It was estimated that the value of this crop ranged from $461,718 (if sold by the pound) to $738,750 (if sold by the ounce). An additional 28 grams of marijuana was found in two freezer bags in the freezer compartment to the refrigerator on the main floor.

[3] At the subsequent sentencing hearing, the appellant’s prior criminal record was entered as an exhibit. It disclosed that on December 12, 2000 the appellant had been convicted of one count of failing to attend court (section 145(2)(a) of the Criminal Code), one count of trafficking in a scheduled substance (section 5(1) of the CDSA) and one charge of possession of a scheduled substance for the purpose of trafficking (section 5(2) of the CDSA). At that time, the appellant had received a sentence of one day in gaol on the first count and a three month conditional sentence order, concurrent, on each of the other two charges.

[4] At the sentencing hearing in this case, the appellant’s then counsel and Crown counsel urged upon the sentencing judge, by way of joint submission, a sentence of imprisonment for two years. The Crown cited as aggravating factors that the appellant had benefitted financially and that he had not learned his lesson from his previous encounter with the criminal justice system.

From the Alberta Court of Appeal, we can see that Pham was already a convicted drug trafficker when this sentence was handed down.

Prosecutors Complicit With Sentence Reduction

[32] Returning to the case at bar, the appellant has previously been convicted of three offences. In 2000, he was convicted of failing to attend court, trafficking in a scheduled substance, and possession of a scheduled substance for the purposing of trafficking. For the first offence, he was sentenced to one day in jail; he received a three month conditional sentence for the other two charges. Now there is the more recent drug- related conviction, which resulted in the two year prison term he asks us to reduce. Illegal drugs are a tremendous scourge on our society. The appellant’s repeated contribution to the problem, albeit modest in the large scale of things, would normally disqualify him from leniency. However, as the prosecution has consented to this appeal, I would agree to allow it with the caveat that in future cases, this relief will not be there simply for the asking.

In a dissenting opinion with the ABCA, Justice Martin mentioned that the prosecution had consented to the appeal, which would have reduced the sentence. So, even though he was argued that he “clearly hadn’t learned his lesson”, the Crown is still okay with reducing the sentence to help prevent deportation.

1. B.C. Civil Liberties Association

2. The BCCLA submits that failure to consider the immigration consequences of a sentence would deprive the court of information required to properly consider the relevant sentencing factors, and may result in a sentence which unjustly infringes an offender’s rights and freedoms.

3. Immigration consequences must be taken into account by a sentencing judge in order to ensure that the offender is not punished more than necessary. A permanent resident convicted in Canada and sentenced to two years or more is almost certain to face deportation. For many permanent residents, deportation will be the most punitive impact of their sentence. In order to ensure that sentences are consistent with the principles of proportionality and restraint, the BCCLA submits that immigration consequences are relevant personal circumstances which should be taken into account as part of the individualized sentencing assessment.

2. Canadian Council For Refugees

4. Given that a non-citizen who has been convicted of a criminal offence may face removal from Canada, it is the CCR’s submission that the judge imposing the sentence must take into account the impact that the sentence will have on the availability of remedies for the retention of status in Canada. This is based on the following reasoning:

9. Non-citizens whose human rights will be infringed by removal are entitled to have their interests considered by a competent, independent and impartial decision maker prior to removal. A scheme was created for consideration of such interests under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). Relevant to this appeal, this obligation is met in the equitable appeal which is available to permanent residents and Convention refugees who face removal because of a criminal conviction but who have received a sentence of less than two years.

17. It is submitted therefore that a judge, exercising a judicial discretion in relation to the imposition of an appropriate sentence for a crime committed, ought to take into account the impact that the sentence will have on the availability to a non-citizen of a hearing which is fully in compliance with the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter in relation to that person’s status in Canada.

Of course, these aren’t anywhere near all of the filed documents. However, they do illustrate what the main concerns being raised are.

The Supreme Court also has the video of the hearing posted on its website, even years later. It’s worth a watch.

51:30: Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers begins, and brings up the possible ineffective assistance of counsel argument.
1:02:00: Criminal Lawyers Association of Ontario begins.
1:08:00: British Columbia Civil Liberties Association begins.
1:13:41: Canadian Council for Refugees begins.
1:19:15: Canadian Civil Liberties Association begins.
1:38:30: Respondent (Government) begins.

While the Government (initially) asked that the case be remitted back to the Court of Appeal, at the hearing, they simply consented to the Appeal being allowed.

This should make Canadians’ blood boil. Registered “charities” are getting significant tax breaks while they try to implement caselaw to give preferential treatment to foreign criminals.

Conservative Bill A Trojan Horse?

At the risk of jumping to conclusions, consider a recent video from Michelle Rempel-Garner. She proposes a Private Member’s Bill to amended the Criminal Code. In her words, Judges “should not” be able to take immigration status into account. It’s at the 2:00 mark.

Should not?

How about cannot? Or must not? Or are prohibited from?

While this may come across as pedantic, this choice of wording would allow Judges to retain discretion as to whether or not they consider immigration status. There would merely be a recommendation against doing so, not an outright ban.

Does she not realize that every lawyer with a foreign convicted criminal for a client will be arguing that their case is exceptional?

We’ll have to see what happens.

COURT RULINGS:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2012/2012abca203/2012abca203.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2012/2012canlii68768/2012canlii68768.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc15/2013scc15.html

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA:
(1) https://www.scc-csc.ca/cases-dossiers/search-recherche/34897/
(2) Pham Factum Appellants Factum
(3) Pham Factum Respondents
(4) Pham Factum Appellants Reply
(5) Pham Factum BC Civil Liberties Association
(6) Pham Factum Canadian Association Of Refugee Lawyers
(7) Pham Factum Canadian Civil Liberties Association
(8) Pham Factum Canadian Council For Refugees
(9) Pham Factum Criminal Lawyers Association Of Ontario

Posted on

Universal Ostrich Farms, Part 2: The Pelech Affidavit, $48,000 Per Egg

A segment of the public has been following the case of a British Columbia farm that was ordered cull approximately 400 of its ostriches. The order came from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (or CFIA) and was challenged in the Federal Court. It was unsuccessful, but an Appeal is likely. The coverage that the “alternative” media has shared would lead people to believe this is simply an attack on the local food supply.

However, looking a little deeper into the case, it seems that these animals had other purposes. This included being used to generate “antibodies” for the so-called “SARS-CoV-2” virus. Or rather, their eggs would be. What else have these animals been treated with?

See Part 1 in the Universal Ostrich Farms series for more information.

This digging for the truth — while pleasing to some — has angered others. However, this site doesn’t “bend the knee”, just because people get annoyed.

Also, this isn’t Liberty Talk, so don’t expect some “feel good” speech or interview.

Now we get to the main Affidavit of Steven Pelech, the expert witness. He’s a professor at the University of British Columbia (UBC), and has an interesting research specialty. He also makes it abundantly clear he believes virology is a legitimate science.

Pelech Clarifies Ostriches Used For Biomedical Research

Pelech’s Affidavit makes it clear that there may be perceived problems with his objectivity. He states that has been involved in developing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. He’s been doing this kind of work for years. This is also the same purpose that the ostriches in question are being used for.

These birds weren’t destined to be food (hopefully), but were used for biological testing.

Pelech Believes PCR Testing Is Legitimate

Since 2020, many, MANY people have been speaking up about the legitimate concerns of PCR (or Polymerase Chain Reaction) testing. Pelech isn’t one of them. Instead, he speaks glowingly about this “technology”. His only real objection seems to be in how it’s applied. Specifically, the number of times it’s cycled through is apparently too high.

Pelech apparently doesn’t object to this? And why would he? His entire livelihood centers around the idea that these sort of tests are legitimate, and that samples can be treated with other things he creates.

It’s unclear how exactly he would help. It these ostriches were wrongfully diagnosed with H5N1 (or anything), Pelech isn’t making any convincing argument about it.

Further down in the Affidavit is a main point in Pelech’s “expert” evidence. He’s not sure what the cycle count of the PCR testing was, and that it’s unreliable at the higher ones. At no point does he state, or imply, that the test itself is faulty.

58. The main issue is whether the remaining ostriches represent a health hazard to each other, the staff and visitors to the UOF, and wild birds and animals that come to the farm. In view of the information that there has been no deaths from infectious disease on the farm for over two weeks, and all of the ostriches appear to be healthy, it is highly likely that the herd immunity has been achieved in the flock. It is extremely unlikely that they would be shedding virus to each other, their caretakers, and to other birds and animals. The longer that these birds remain healthy, the lower the risk of potential transmission of the virus.

Pelech again never challenges the “positive test” in any meaningful way. He shifts from speculating that PCR testing may have been done at too high a cycle, to speculating about herd immunity.

Pelech On Economic Benefits Of This: $48,000/Egg

We get to the heart of the matter: these ostriches are a gold mine. Pelech steps out of his role as a “scientific expert” to make an economic case for why these birds should be spared.

  • Antibodies derives from animals are worth a lot of money
  • A rabbit can produce 1.5 mg of antibody, at $6,000 each
  • An ostrich egg can produce 12 mg of antibody, at $48,000 each
  • An ostrich can lay eggs for decades

Does it make sense now? The people at Universal Ostrich Farms are sitting on a gold mine. Assume each bird lays one egg per year, just for the sake of argument, we get this:

400 birds * ($48,000/egg) = $19.2 million

This flock of birds has the potential to generate tens of millions of dollars, per year, for this farm. That’s why they’re so against the cull.

“Freedom Movement” Duped Into Financing Legal Challenge

The GoFundMe account has raised $51,000 so far. GiveSendGo is at nearly $39,000. This doesn’t include etransfer, cash, or cheques being mailed in. Altogether, there’s a lot of money coming in.

Well meaning donors are giving money they likely don’t have to a farm which performs the kind of testing they’d be ideologically opposed to. And the Court case is being brought to protect their multi-million dollar project.

Does anyone feel suckered yet?

Pelech was part of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance, or CCCA. He’s also been featured on Librti, What’s Up Canada?, and the NCI. Seriously, did no one vet him in any way?

Kinetek Pharmaceuticals: Pelech Founder, Former CEO

In his Affidavit, Pelech gives his employment record, and it’s quite interesting. He founded 2 companies in the 1990s

  1. Kinetek Pharmaceuticals, which he departed in 1997
  2. Kinexus Bioinformatics Corp, which he is still presently part of

It appears that Kinetek was discontinued as a corporation in 2004.

Kinexus Bioinformatics: Pelech Founder, Director, Scientific Officer

According to the information provided, Pelech is still involved with Kinexus. On their products page, they list the following:

Quality antibodies, peptides and other reagents at reasonable prices with fair representation and extensive validation.

In other words, there’s a financial interest in seeing this kind of work continue. Antibodies is specifically listed as a product that the company sells.

With all of this in mind, one could view Pelech’s Affidavit in an entirely different light. He has direct financial interests with the antibody industry. He also acknowledges that these ostrich eggs could be worth $48,000 each, assuming they’re of good quality. While he may be honest and forthright in his Affidavit, all of this is too much to ignore.

This isn’t about protecting the food supply.

That’s all emotional blackmail and misdirection.

FEDERAL COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Ostrich Notice Of Application Certified (January, 2025)
(2) Ostrich Notice Of Application (January, 2025)
(3) Ostrich Notice Of Motion (January, 2025)
(4) Ostrich Bilinski Affidavit (January, 2025)
(5) Ostrich Espersen Affidavit (January, 2025)
(6) Ostrich Pelech Affidavit (January, 2025)
(7) Ostrich Jones Affidavit (January, 2025)
(8) Ostrich Responding Motion Record (January, 2025)
(9) Ostrich Responding Motion Record Expedited (February, 2025)
(10) Ostrich Motion Record Ex-Parte (February, 2025)
(11) Ostrich Exemption Notice Of Application (February, 2025)
(12) Ostrich Exemption Motion Record (February, 2025)
(13) Ostrich Ruling Of Justice Zinn (May, 2025)

MONEY:
(1) https://bcrising.ca/save-our-ostriches/
(2) https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-ostrich-farmers-fight-to-save-herd-from-avian-flu?attribution_id=sl%3A80e09934-7413-429b-acfb-2f7015cc19d3&lang=en_CA
(3) https://www.givesendgo.com/save-our-ostriches
(4) https://www.kinexus.ca/

Posted on

Bill C-63 (Online Harms Act) Revisited: A More Nuanced View On It

Last year, this site covered Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act. Critics denounced it immediately as a draconian attack on free speech and free expression. There are certainly reasons to be concerned.

***Now, before someone starts posting in the comments that it died with when Parliament was dissolved, I know. But the point is, a similar version can always be brought back. Considering that hearings already taken place, it’s worth looking at what happened.

Bill C-63 was eventually split into 2 different sections: (a) child exploitation and abuse; and (b) the more “free speech” elements of it. Who knows what will happen in the next iteration.

In December 2024, the House of Commons held their hearings on the legislation. A total of 22 different witnesses testified, with a range of different ideas.

Despite all of the warning signs surrounding Bill C-63, there are some provisions that most people can actually get on board with. As always, readers are encouraged to check for themselves.

Filed Submissions From Humane Canada

Animal sexual abuse (bestiality) is illegal under section 160 of the Criminal Code, which recognizes that child sexual assault and animal sexual assault are linked crimes, however there is no legislation that prohibits possessing or sharing online content that features animal sexual abuse. Closing this “bestiality loophole” would fulfill the initial promises of Bill C-84 in 2019 to strengthen protections for children, other vulnerable individuals, and animals. Animals are often used as part of the child sexual abuse grooming process. A 2018 report by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection analyzing case law found that 82% of bestiality cases in Canada have involved the sexual abuse of a child.

Considering the upward trend in police-reported child sexual exploitation where most offences include a cyber component, with 79% of incidents of child pornography and 20% of sexual violations against children recorded as cybercrimes by police, we urge the government to explicitly include animal sexual abuse images and videos, as well as material that depicts harming or killing an animal, in their definition of content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor and harmful content.

Proposed Amendments
Include the explicit mention of animal sexual abuse images and content under the definition of ‘content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor’ and animal harms under the definition of ‘harmful content’, using similar wording to the United Kingdom’s recently passed Online Safety Act:

In their filings, Humane Canada asked that Bill C-63 be amended to include content aimed at harming animals. This would be worded in a similar way to laws prohibited such content involving children.

Filed Submissions From International Justice Mission

We agree with and uphold MP Virani’s decision to split the Bill, prioritizing Section 1 and 4 to address online child sexual exploitation and abuse. Bill C-63 is a critical and long-awaited piece of legislation that will help ensure children, both in Canada and abroad, are protected offline and online, and that penalties for in-person and online offenders of child sexual abuse and exploitation are aligned.

IJM commends the Honourable Arif Virani, Minister of Justice, for the years of detailed policy work and public consultation to create this bill. The Online Harms Act has the potential to strengthen the responsibility of technology companies to prevent child sexual abuse (CSA) and exploitation from happening on their platforms and to prevent the spread of child sexual exploitation material (CSEM) online. If passed, Bill C-63 will position Canada as one of the leading countries in preventing online sexual exploitation of children, alongside its Five Eyes peers, Australia and the United Kingdom.

International Justice Mission included several recommendations for Bill C-63.

1. Ensure livestreaming child sexual abuse is specifically included in the legislation.
2. Take a preventive and safety by design approach.
3. Take into account victim and survivor voice when developing regulations.
4. Include offender deterrence in addition to protecting Canadian children.
5. Include private messaging and video-chat platforms and features.

There’s nothing in their filing that’s objectionable. People can agree that content that abuses children should be removed from the internet.

The testimony from the witnesses (over 3 days) is freely available.

The Canadian Centre for Child Protection Inc met with MP Mona Fortier in early 2025 to discuss:

“…access to justice, criminal justice, and social policy issues related to online child sexual abuse and online violence against children and possible legislative or policy initiatives that could reduce victimization and/or improve victim recovery.”

The group also met with Michelle Rempel-Garner and Craig Oldham.

Foreign Groups At The Heart Of Censorship Laws

While there were commendable aspects to Bill C-63, or at least the first parts, the latter ones raise real questions about the stifling of free speech. Interestingly, the most powerful groups behind it aren’t actually Canadian. They represent foreign lobbies.

Part of the problem is that terms are so poorly defined — and probably on purpose — that they can be selectively applied, depending on the politics involved. This is not good at all.

1. Centre For Israel And Jewish Affairs (CIJA)

CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, has lobbied the Canadian Parliament over 2,000 times since the year 2000. They’ve been pushing for censorship and a variety of hate speech laws (antisemitism) the entire time.

CIJA also arranges for Canadian politicians to go abroad for free trips to Israel each year. This is similar to how AIPAC functions in the United States. This is not limited to Liberals or Conservatives, but seems to involve all parties.

The group also gets funding from the “conservative” administration in Ontario.

2. B’Nai Brith National Organization Of Canada

B’nai Brith describes its activities as such: “The Organization’s purpose is to relieve poverty, prevent discrimination and antisemitism, improve the moral and ethical development of the community, provide assistance to victims of human rights abuses, relieve conditions associated with the elderly.” Bill C-63 is specifically listed.

3. National Council Of Canadian Muslims (NCCM)

NCCM, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, has been similarly involved in pushing for censorship and hate speech laws in the name of Islamophobia. This isn’t limited to one group or ideology. And like their Jewish counterparts, NCCM also gets large tax subsidies.

4. Canadian Medical Association (CMA)

The Canadian Medical Association takes this view:

Support the passage of Bill C-63, an Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to address the escalation of online harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence targeting physicians, other health workers, and anyone seeking health care treatment, including measures to strengthen the Criminal Code of Canada and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Keep in mind, the CMA supported lockdowns and vaccine passports in recent years. It’s quite understandable that large segments of society don’t trust them.

It’s also worth mentioning that a number of non-ideological groups are concerned with Bill C-63. This is likely because it will impact their businesses.

  1. American Chamber of Commerce
  2. Google (which owns YouTube)
  3. Rumble
  4. X (formerly Twitter)
  5. Facebook
  6. Pinterest
  7. LinkedIn

To be clear, there is a genuine public interest in removing content that involves abuse of children or animals. No decent person would argue otherwise.

However, the rest of the Bill seems designed to crack down on free speech and certain political views. And it appears to be driven primarily be foreign interest groups. We’ll have to see what happens next.

Unfortunately, even legislation that’s (reasonably) well written can cause problems. While politicians vote on the bills themselves, the details are typically implemented by regulation. This means that unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats will be making important decisions.

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=13035098
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/JUST/Brief/BR13487005/br-external/HumaneCanada-e.pdf
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/JUST/Brief/BR13531934/br-external/InternationalJusticeMission-e.pdf
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=632025
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=631668
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=632024
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=111&regId=937469
(8) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Pages/SponsoredTravel-DeplParraines.aspx
(9) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=378700&regId=964738
(10) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=358918&regId=946132&blnk=1
(11) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=372582&regId=951907

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

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

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress