(The UN insists countries have a legal obligation to repatriate terrorists who go abroad to fight against national interests or allies)
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.
In all fairness, here the CBC is ”quoting” the UN Rapporteur, and Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale. However, there is nothing in the way of critical analysis or challenge to the claims. Some hard questions would be nice.
CLICK HERE, for the actual article this review references.
”Agnes Callamard, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, says it’s time for Ottawa to stop dragging its heels and repatriate its citizens who fought for ISIS and are now being held in Syria and Iraq. (Jose Cabezas/Reuters)”
Obvious question: Why? If citizens leave to take up arms in foreign conflict, then it is their problem. Canada is not obligated to bail them out.
”Several Canadians are currently being held by Kurdish authorities in Syria, following the collapse of ISIS in 2017.
.
So far, the federal government has said it has no obligation to repatriate them, and that it is ill-equipped to put them on trial.”
Not being equipped to put them on trial actually makes sense. The logistics here are enormous. How do you gather evidence, depose witnesses, and run a trial, based on events happening around the world?
Also, there is a small issue of ”jurisdiction”. Who has it, and how will that be settled?
”Ms. Callamard, why do you believe that Canada has a duty to bring these people home, those who fought alongside the Islamic State?
.
I believe it has a legal obligation to do so, if those foreign fighters are currently held in Syria by a non-state actor in this case a Kurdish group. That group has currently no international legitimacy, and probably neither does it have the capacity to undertake fair trials. That’s one reason as to why those individuals should be sent back to Canada.
.
As far as Iraq is concerned, if they are Canadian foreign fighters detained in Iraq they are tried under Iraqi counter-terrorism law. It’s an extremely problematic law that has been denounced by myself, and by the UN as well. Under the law, many foreign fighters can be sentenced to death.
.
It is a legal obligation placed upon Canada … to take all the necessary measures to ensure that its citizens do not confront or face death penalty. And frankly, the best way to do that in Iraq is to repatriate them for trial in Canada.”
Some mental gymnastics here. Callamard shrugs off so-called Canadians fighting for a group with no international legitimacy, yet says it’s wrong they are detained by people with no international legitimacy.
Okay, if a group is unable to conduct trials there, why should Canada go through the time and expense of doing it here? Logistics. Also, we wouldn’t have jurisdiction in events that happen overseas.
They can be sentenced to death. Who cares? These are not tourists on vacation who got mixed up in something bad. These are traitors who turned against out country.
”When you say that they should be brought to justice in Canada, the difficulty of actually prosecuting them would be the difficulty of gathering evidence, of protecting witnesses who have to be brought, of translating, of all kinds of things on the ground … in hostile territories. The chances of prosecutions, many would argue, is extremely fraught, and so perhaps bringing them back is not going to bring successful prosecutions. Doesn’t that fail the victims of these crimes?
.
Well, first of all, the victims of the crimes currently are completely failed. Let me be very clear: You just have to listen to the [winners of the] Nobel Peace Prize that has just been allocated, and you will know that there has been no accountability for anything that has been committed against the Yazidi community, whether we are talking sexual violence or mass massacres.”
This is a nice surprise. CBC actually asking this very important question: how do you deal with the logistics of actually conducting a trial?
”Why do you think Canada could do any better? Canada would fail them too, would they not?
.
At the moment, there is no accountability. That’s the first thing. The second is that of all countries that currently have the legal and technical capacity to undertake the challenging task, I believe that some of those governments, including Canada certainly, are far better placed to do so.
.
I’m not denying the complexity of the investigation. What I am suggesting is that after World War II we took on the challenge, and the international community brought to account those that had committed genocide and killed six million people — and far more, in fact.
.
After the Rwandan genocide, we took our responsibility and the international community together took action. After what happened in the former Yugoslavia, we did the same.”
(a) All countries have the legal and technical capacity? Great, then let’s try them overseas where these crimes happened. Pull their citizenships, seize their assets, and call it a day.
(b) Yes, you are denying the complexity of an investigation. How do you properly investigate a war zone going on halfway across the world?
(c) She conflates ”prosecuting” the Nazis with ”rescuing” ISIS fighters. Yes, ISIS fighters would probably prefer to be tried in Canada. But remember, Callamard said that all nations have the capacity to hold trials.
(d) Canada may be better placed, but again, why should we? Public funds would be far better used spent on our own people, rather than repatriating traitors and terrorists (just so we can try them and lock them up).
”There are politics in Canada, as you know, and we have tremendous opposition to the Liberal government if it even considers bringing the ISIS fighters back. And Canada’s statement we received today said there is no plan or deal in place to bring any Canadians who are in Syria to Canada. They are insisting that the ones who have returned, some will be prosecuted. But it doesn’t seem as though they’re interested in your idea.
.
So far every government, for the last four or five years, have brandished IS as enemy number one around the world. None of those governments are now prepared to take their responsibilities and put IS to trial. None of them.
.
So it’s not a particular problem with Canada. It characterizes all of the Western governments that have participated in the war in Syria and Iraq.
.
I am persuaded that at some stage they will have no other option but to be realistic and take an international responsibility for the next stage in the fight against extremism.
.
My suggestions, my strong recommendations, is that governments including Canada must do the right thing legally, and must do the right thing in front of historians.”
(a) Another surprisingly good question from the CBC. Yes, there is widespread public opposition to bringing ISIS fighters back.
(b) Callamard focuses on the righter of ISIS terrorists, but seems uninterested in the danger that they pose to Canadians. Further, she shows little concern for the drain in public resources in doing so. She just pays lip service to this.
(c) Callamard remarks that no western government is interested in doing this. Likewise, they also have their respective public to deal with.
(d) Western population are (rightly) not very interested in the well being of people who leave their countries to take up arms in foreign conflicts. When these traitors and terrorists come calling for help, there is understandably no sympathy. They are authors of their own misfortunes.
(e) Do the right thing in front of historians? Now we get a straight answer. This is about virtue signalling.
Compared to most interviews CBC does, this actually wasn’t ”that” bad. At least a few good questions were raised.
Not content with the rights of illegal migrants, the UN special rapporteur is also very concerned with the well being of terrorists who fight abroad.
Nationalists believe that a government should look after its own people first and foremost. We choose leader to represent ourselves.
Globalists believe that national well being should be sacrificed in the name of ”the greater good” regardless of whether they have any sort of democratic mandate. As such, they are really accountable to no one.
This is just another UN call for nations to sacrifice their well being in the name of ”being view positively in history”.
Since 2000 (and probably even longer), the UN has viewed migration as a human right. It explains why they are so pro-migration, and deliberately try to undermine national governments.
Annual reports are available for all to read.
Here is the text from the site:
Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants
Introduction
The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants was created in 1999 by the Commission on Human Rights, pursuant to resolution 1999/44. Since then, the mandate of the Special Rapporteur has been extended by Commission on Human Rights resolutions 2002/62 and 2005/47 and Human Rights Council resolutions 8/10, 17/12, 26/19, and 34/21 each for a period of three years.
With the reform to the UN human rights machinery in 2006, the newly established Human Rights Council was called upon to assume, review and, where necessary, improve and rationalize all mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the former Commission on Human Rights. As a result, the Human Rights Council, through resolution 8/10 of 18 June 2008, strengthened the mandate of the Special Rapporteur and further extended it for a period of three years. This mandate was renewed by the Human Rights Council in resolution 17/12 of 10 June 2011, resolution 26/19 of 26 June 2014, and resolution 34/21 of 7 April 2017.
The mandate of the Special Rapporteur covers all countries, irrespective of whether a State has ratified the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, of 18 December 1990.
The Special Rapporteur does not require the exhaustion of domestic remedies to act. When the facts in question come within the scope of more than one mandate established by the Commission, the Special Rapporteur may decide to approach other thematic mechanisms and country Rapporteurs with a view to sending joint communications or seeking joint missions.
The main functions of the Special Rapporteur are:
(a) To examine ways and means to overcome the obstacles existing to the full and effective protection of the human rights of migrants, recognizing the particular vulnerability of women, children and those undocumented or in an irregular situation;
(b) To request and receive information from all relevant sources, including migrants themselves, on violations of the human rights of migrants and their families;
(c) To formulate appropriate recommendations to prevent and remedy violations of the human rights of migrants, wherever they may occur;
(d) To promote the effective application of relevant international norms and standards on the issue;
(e) To recommend actions and measures applicable at the national, regional and international levels to eliminate violations of the human rights of migrants;
(f) To take into account a gender perspective when requesting and analysing information, and to give special attention to the occurrence of multiple forms of discrimination and violence against migrant women;
(g) To give particular emphasis to recommendations on practical solutions with regard to the implementation of the rights relevant to the mandate, including by identifying best practices and concrete areas and means for international cooperation;
(h) To report regularly to the Human Rights Council, according to its annual programme of work, and to the General Assembly,
In the discharge of these functions:
(a) The Special Rapporteur acts on information submitted to him regarding alleged violations of the human rights of migrants by sending urgent appeals and communications to concerned Governments to clarify and/or bring to their attention these cases. See Communications.
(b) The Special Rapporteur conducts country visits (also called fact-finding missions) upon the invitation of the Government, in order to examine the state of protection of the human rights of migrants in the given country. The Special Rapporteur submits a report of the visit to the Human Rights Council, presenting his findings, conclusions and recommendations. See Country Visits.
(c) The Special Rapporteur participates in conferences, seminars and panels on issues relating to the human rights of migrants as well as issues press releases.
(d) Annually, the Special Rapporteur, reports to the Human Rights Council about the global state of protection of migrants’ human rights, his main concerns and the good practices he has observed. In his report, the Special Rapporteur informs the Council of all the communications he has sent and the replies received from Governments. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur formulates specific recommendations with a view to enhancing the protection of the human rights of migrants. Upon request of the Human Rights Council the Special Rapporteur may also present reports to the General Assembly. See Annual Reports.
Furthermore, in September 2008, pursuant to Resolution 9/5, the Human Rights Council requested the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of Migrants, other special procedures of the Council and the High Commissioner for Human Rights to pay special attention to cases of arbitrary detention of migrants, particularly of migrant children and adolescents. Likewise, it encouraged the Special Rapporteur to continue to examine ways and means of overcoming obstacles to the full and effective protection of the human rights of migrants, including national and international efforts to combat the trafficking of persons and smuggling of migrants, in order to achieve a better comprehension of the phenomena and to avoid practices that could violate the human rights of migrants.
The Special Rapporteur also reports to the General Assembly.
Okay, let’s go through some of this.
“The mandate of the Special Rapporteur covers all countries, irrespective of whether a State has ratified the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, of 18 December 1990.”
Doesn’t matter if you have signed on or not, the UN will stick its nose in your business.
“The Special Rapporteur does not require the exhaustion of domestic remedies to act. When the facts in question come within the scope of more than one mandate established by the Commission, the Special Rapporteur may decide to approach other thematic mechanisms and country Rapporteurs with a view to sending joint communications or seeking joint missions. “
Also doesn’t matter if you have tried to remedy the problem locally. The UN will still intervene on your behalf.
“(a) To examine ways and means to overcome the obstacles existing to the full and effective protection of the human rights of migrants, recognizing the particular vulnerability of women, children and those undocumented or in an irregular situation;”
The UN will protect the human rights of people migrating to another country, even those crossing illegally. Note: “irregular” or “undocumented” are just word games to gloss over the fact the person is coming illegally.
Of course, since the UN views migration as a human right, “illegal immigration” doesn’t really exist.
“(f) To take into account a gender perspective when requesting and analysing information, and to give special attention to the occurrence of multiple forms of discrimination and violence against migrant women;”
As a Canadian, one has to wonder about this. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau goes on and on about gender. Almost like he is a UN shill.
Also, why “take into account a gender perspective”? Shouldn’t the same human rights be applied to everyone?
“(g) To give particular emphasis to recommendations on practical solutions with regard to the implementation of the rights relevant to the mandate, including by identifying best practices and concrete areas and means for international cooperation; “
And what rights are those exactly? If someone is illegally immigrating (enough of the “undocumented” or “irregular” nonsense), what rights are they entitled to?
“(d) Annually, the Special Rapporteur, reports to the Human Rights Council about the global state of protection of migrants’ human rights, his main concerns and the good practices he has observed. In his report, the Special Rapporteur informs the Council of all the communications he has sent and the replies received from Governments. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur formulates specific recommendations with a view to enhancing the protection of the human rights of migrants. Upon request of the Human Rights Council the Special Rapporteur may also present reports to the General Assembly. See Annual Reports. “
Again, the idea that migration is to be globally managed, and that people entering a country illegally are to have human rights. It is this sort of nonsense that causes a nation to collapse.
Linked to this page are these annual reports. The United Nations has viewed migration as a human right since at least 2000, and probably a lot longer. Read through them,
There entire site should of course be analysed, but here is where the review ends. Once more, the UN demonstrates it has no respect for individual nations, and is trying to force mass migration on the Western World.
(“P.E.I” Senator Mike Duffy, textbook case of “pig at the trough”)
(Pamela Wallin, Patrick Brazeau, Mike Duffy, all temporarily suspended from the Canadian Senate)
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.
[1] Senator Michael Duffy is suing the Senate of Canada for over $7 million in damages.
[2] 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.
[3] 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.
[4] 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.
[7] 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.
[8] 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.
[9] 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.
[10] 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.
[11] Third, Parliament has exclusive control over, and privilege with respect to, its own debates and proceedings.
[12] 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.
[13] 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).
[14] 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.
[25] 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.
Fraud
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.
(Michelle Rempel video November 21, contradicts October 20 video)
(The U.N. Global Migration Compact)
Summary of Michelle Rempel’s November 21 video:
[0:00 Complaining about Trudeau and New York border jumpers]
[1:00 Finally gets to UN Global migration compact]
[1:23 Clip in House of Commons, complaining about 38,000 border jumpers
[2:00 Trudeau responding]
[2:45 Rempel mentions objective #17, propaganda]
[3:00 Trudeau evading again]
[3:45 Rempel again goes on about 38,000 New York border jumpers]
[4:30 Praise for Harper, taxes, balanced budgets]
[5:10 Rempel again criticises Trudeau’s credibility]
[5:45 Rempel calls Trudeau a bully]
[6:00 Rempel says Trudeau calls names]
[6:15 Rempel says CPC opposes compact because of language (and other reasons)]
[6:30 Rempel says CPC would withdraw and gets its own house in order]
[6:45 Again criticises Trudeau]
[7:08 Rempel says CPC has been consistent, says offering general solutions]
[7:30 Rempel again goes on about refugees being put in hotels]
[8:00 Rempel again says we need a change, and working for Canadians]
YouTuber CanadaPoli released this response video on Rempel’s update, but I believe he was far too kind.
To make this clear: I don’t believe Rempel at all when she says the CPC opposes the UN Global Migration Compact. This seems like going through the motions.
To Rempel’s credit, she does reference the “Propaganda Provisions” embedded in Objective 17 of the UN Global Compact. See here
OBJECTIVE 17: Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration
33. We commit to eliminate all forms of discrimination, condemn and counter expressions, acts and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, violence, xenophobia and related intolerance against all migrants in conformity with international human rights law. We further commit to promote an open and evidence-based public discourse on migration and migrants in partnership with all parts of society, that generates a more realistic, humane and constructive perception in this regard. We also commit to protect freedom of expression in accordance with international law, recognizing that an open and free debate contributes to a comprehensive understanding of all aspects of migration.
Although this is mentioned by Rempel, she still seems rather indifferent towards it in the YouTube video.
However, I believe Rempel is lying in the video when she talks about the CPC opposing this deal with the UN. Here are the reasons (in no particular order)
(1) Rempel Lies About Conservatives Being Consistent
This is probably the easiest to debunk. Here is Rempel’s previous video, starting at 4:50. Rempel talks in circles and doesn’t actually say CPC opposes it.
Further, my own CPC MP confirmed the party was just going to study the Compact, and that Maxime Bernier’s petition was populist grandstanding. There is the article summary.
Here is the audio of that meeting:
(2) Rempel Shows No Urgency In Trying To Stop Compact
If Michelle Rempel actually had any concern over this, she would be a lot more active, and doing a lot more to stop this. Further, she wouldn’t be ignoring emails and phone calls, and blocking people on Twitter
(3) Rempel Spends More Time on Trudeau and Roxham Rd Than Compact
In the 8 minute video above, Rempel goes on and on about Trudeau, about fake refugees being put in hotels, and the achievements of the last government. Very little is actually spent on addressing the UN Compact itself. This is true in many of her videos: talking in circles and repeating herself without ever making a clear point. This is deliberate obfuscation.
(4) CPC Shows No Interest In Promoting Petition E-1906
Surely there are hard feelings over Maxime Bernier leaving the CPC the way he did. But if Conservatives actually opposed this global compact, then they would support this petition, or at least start one of their own.
(5) Rempel’s Video Is Extremely Light On Content
While Rempel did acknowledge the propaganda the UN promotes with regard to language, there is so much more that could be cited, that is simply not. Anyone could make an extemely compelling case against this simply by reading the document?
Serious question: Has Michelle Rempel ever read the UN Global Migration Compact?
Serious question: If these people are “refugees”, then why are we signing the “migration” compact?
Here are the 2 separate agreements.
OBJECTIVE 1: Collect and utilize accurate and disaggregated data as a basis for evidence based policies
We commit to strengthen the global evidence base on international migration by improving and investing in the collection, analysis and dissemination of accurate, reliable, comparable data, disaggregated by sex, age, migration status and other characteristics relevant in national contexts, while upholding the right to privacy under international human rights law and protecting personal data. We further commit to ensure this data fosters research, guides coherent and evidence-based policy-making and well-informed public discourse, and allows for effective monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of commitments over time.
This sounds eerily like the StatsCan type mentality, see here, and see here. Privacy is non essential, as long as it is done for statistical purposes.
OBJECTIVE 2: Minimize the adverse drivers and structural factors that compel people to leave their country of origin
We commit to create conducive political, economic, social and environmental conditions for people to lead peaceful, productive and sustainable lives in their own country and to fulfil their personal aspirations, while ensuring that desperation and deteriorating environments do not compel them to seek a livelihood elsewhere through irregular migration. We further commit to ensure timely and full implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as well as to build upon and invest in the implementation of other existing frameworks, in order to enhance the overall impact of the Global Compact to facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration.
This word-salad sounds nice, except when one realises that it goes directly against the purpose of the Global Migration Compact. The U.N. wants to promote mass migration, so spending huge amounts of resources improving conditions in home countries wouldn’t exactly help.
OBJECTIVE 3: Provide accurate and timely information at all stages of migration
We commit to strengthen our efforts to provide, make available and disseminate accurate, timely, accessible, and transparent information on migration-related aspects for and between States, communities and migrants at all stages of migration. We further commit to use this information to develop migration policies that provide a high degree of predictability and certainty for all actors involved.
This directly contradicts objective #2. Here, the U.N. speaks of coordinating mass movement of people. Indeed, the objective is quite clear: MASS MIGRATION.
OBJECTIVE 4: Ensure that all migrants have proof of legal identity and adequate documentation
We commit to fulfil the right of all individuals to a legal identity by providing all our nationals with proof of nationality and relevant documentation, allowing national and local authorities to ascertain a migrant’s legal identity upon entry, during stay, and for return, as well as to ensure effective migration procedures, efficient service provision, and improved public safety. We further commit to ensure, through appropriate measures, that migrants are issued adequate documentation and civil registry documents, such as birth, marriage and death certificates, at all stages of migration, as a means to empower migrants to effectively exercise their human rights.
On the surface this sounds great, but think about it. The U.N. is going to obtain identity documents for people. What is to stop people from just claiming they don’t have any documents, and using the U.N. as a proxy to obtain false identification? That is not addressed here.
OBJECTIVE 5: Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration
We commit to adapt options and pathways for regular migration in a manner that facilitates labour mobility and decent work reflecting demographic and labour market realities, optimizes education opportunities, upholds the right to family life, and responds to the needs of migrants in a situation of vulnerability, with a view to expanding and diversifying availability of pathways for safe, orderly and regular migration
What is sounds like. Wanting to streamline mass migration. Do the host countries ever get a say in the matter? Their rights don’t seem important.
OBJECTIVE 6: Facilitate fair and ethical recruitment and safeguard conditions that ensure decent work
We commit to review existing recruitment mechanisms to guarantee that they are fair and ethical, and to protect all migrant workers against all forms of exploitation and abuse in order to guarantee decent work and maximize the socioeconomic contributions of migrants in both their countries of origin and destination.
No concerns for the unemployment issues that may exist within the host countries. Flood the market with cheap labour. What could go wrong?
OBJECTIVE 7: Address and reduce vulnerabilities in migration
We commit to respond to the needs of migrants who face situations of vulnerability, which may arise from the circumstances in which they travel or the conditions they face in countries of origin, transit and destination, by assisting them and protecting their human rights, in accordance with our obligations under international law. We further commit to uphold the best interests of the child at all times, as a primary consideration in situations where children are concerned, and to apply a gender-responsive approach in addressing vulnerabilities, including in responses to mixed movements.
The U.N. really does believe that migration is a human right.
OBJECTIVE 8: Save lives and establish coordinated international efforts on missing migrants
We commit to cooperate internationally to save lives and prevent migrant deaths and injuries through individual or joint search and rescue operations, standardized collection and exchange of relevant information, assuming collective responsibility to preserve the lives of all migrants, in accordance with international law. We further commit to identify those who have died or gone missing, and to facilitate communication with affected families.
This is another objective that sounds great until you realize that this is going on a major operation for search and rescue of migrants who have chosen to flout the will of home countries, and gone missing as a result.
OBJECTIVE 9: Strengthen the transnational response to smuggling of migrants
We commit to intensify joint efforts to prevent and counter smuggling of migrants by strengthening capacities and international cooperation to prevent, investigate, prosecute and penalize the smuggling of migrants in order to end the impunity of smuggling networks. We further commit to ensure that migrants shall not become liable to criminal prosecution for the fact of having been the object of smuggling, notwithstanding potential prosecution for other violations of national law. We also commit to identify smuggled migrants to protect their human rights, taking into consideration the special needs of women and children, and assisting in particular those migrants subject to smuggling under aggravating circumstances, in accordance with international law
OBJECTIVE 10: Prevent, combat and eradicate trafficking in persons in the context of international migration
We commit to take legislative or other measures to prevent, combat and eradicate trafficking in persons in the context of international migration by strengthening capacities and international cooperation to investigate, prosecute and penalize trafficking in persons, discouraging demand that fosters exploitation leading to trafficking, and ending impunity of trafficking networks. We further commit to enhance the identification and protection of, and assistance to migrants who have become victims of trafficking, paying particular attention to women and children.
Another 2 objectives that sound great, until you realize that the U.N. is in effect just bringing smuggling under its own control. The actual idea of sneaking people into countries is not going away, rather it is just a change in management.
OBJECTIVE 11: Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner
We commit to manage our national borders in a coordinated manner, promoting bilateral and regional cooperation, ensuring security for States, communities and migrants, and facilitating safe and regular cross-border movements of people while preventing irregular migration. We further commit to implement border management policies that respect national sovereignty, the rule of law, obligations under international law, human rights of all migrants, regardless of their migration status, and are non-discriminatory, gender-responsive and child-sensitive.
Exactly what it appears to be. Countries enforcing their own borders will be a thing of the past. Instead, governments will now coordinate with the U.N. The part about “respecting border sovereignty” is a joke, as the idea of coordinating defeats the idea of sovereignty.
OBJECTIVE 12: Strengthen certainty and predictability in migration procedures for appropriate screening, assessment and referral
We commit to increase legal certainty and predictability of migration procedures by developing and strengthening effective and human rights-based mechanisms for the adequate and timely screening and individual assessment of all migrants for the purpose of identifying and facilitating access to the appropriate referral procedures, in accordance with international law.
Going through the details, this appears to be a combination of social worker combined with human rights tribunals. Nothing could possibly go wrong?
OBJECTIVE 13: Use immigration detention only as a measure of last resort and work towards alternatives
We commit to ensure that any detention in the context of international migration follows due process, is non-arbitrary, based on law, necessity, proportionality and individual assessments, is carried out by authorized officials, and for the shortest possible period of time, irrespective of whether detention occurs at the moment of entry, in transit, or proceedings of return, and regardless of the type of place where the detention occurs. We further commit to prioritize noncustodial alternatives to detention that are in line with international law, and to take a human rights-based approach to any detention of migrants, using detention as a measure of last resort only.
Yes, detention of migrants who commit crimes must be a last resort. And you think bleeding heart liberal justice systems are weak now?
OBJECTIVE 14: Enhance consular protection, assistance and cooperation throughout the migration cycle
We commit to strengthen consular protection of and assistance to our nationals abroad, as well as consular cooperation between States in order to better safeguard the rights and interests of all migrants at all times, and to build upon the functions of consular missions to enhance interactions between migrants and State authorities of countries of origin, transit and destination, in accordance with international law
Here the Compact completely undermines itself. If these people are fleeing horrible persecution, then how exactly do they have “consular services”? Wouldn’t that imply the government does help them?
OBJECTIVE 15: Provide access to basic services for migrants
We commit to ensure that all migrants, regardless of their migration status, can exercise their human rights through safe access to basic services. We further commit to strengthen migrant inclusive service delivery systems, notwithstanding that nationals and regular migrants may be entitled to more comprehensive service provision, while ensuring that any differential treatment must be based on law, proportionate, pursue a legitimate aim, in accordance with international human rights law.
“Irregulars”, meaning “illegals” are still entitled to most, if not all of the same rights as people “legally” immigrating.
OBJECTIVE 16: Empower migrants and societies to realize full inclusion and social cohesion
We commit to foster inclusive and cohesive societies by empowering migrants to become active members of society and promoting the reciprocal engagement of receiving communities and migrants in the exercise of their rights and obligations towards each other, including observance of national laws and respect for customs of the country of destination. We further commit to strengthen the welfare of all members of societies by minimizing disparities, avoiding polarization and increasing public confidence in policies and institutions related to migration, in line with the acknowledgment that fully integrated migrants are better positioned to contribute to prosperity.
This may sound great, but in practice it generally means that the host country must bend over backwards to accommodate very different and often incompatible cultures and traditions. Yay, multiculturalism.
*** Object 17 refers to propaganda, which to be fair, Rempel did mention ***
OBJECTIVE 18: Invest in skills development and facilitate mutual recognition of skills, qualifications and competences
We commit to invest in innovative solutions that facilitate mutual recognition of skills, qualifications and competences of migrant workers at all skills levels, and promote demanddriven skills development to optimize the employability of migrants in formal labour markets in countries of destination and in countries of origin upon return, as well as to ensure decent work in labour migration.
So a job training problem for migrants, one not available to host citizens. Is this not an acknowledgement that we are bringing large numbers of unskilled people? Further, what if the migrants refuse to work? Are we expected to just shut up and pay their welfare?
OBJECTIVE 19: Create conditions for migrants and diasporas to fully contribute to sustainable development in all countries
We commit to empower migrants and diasporas to catalyse their development contributions, and to harness the benefits of migration as a source of sustainable development, reaffirming that migration is a multidimensional reality of major relevance for the sustainable development of countries of origin, transit and destination
OBJECTIVE 20: Promote faster, safer and cheaper transfer of remittances and foster financial inclusion of migrants
We commit to promote faster, safer and cheaper remittances by further developing existing conducive policy and regulatory environments that enable competition, regulation and innovation on the remittance market and by providing gender-responsive programmes and instruments that enhance the financial inclusion of migrants and their families. We further commit to optimize the transformative impact of remittances on the well-being of migrant workers and their families, as well as on sustainable development of countries, while respecting that remittances constitute an important source of private capital, and cannot be equated to other international financial flows, such as foreign direct investment, official development assistance, or other public sources of financing for development.
Short explanation: massive open-ended welfare
OBJECTIVE 21: Cooperate in facilitating safe and dignified return and readmission, as well as sustainable reintegration
We commit to facilitate and cooperate for safe and dignified return and to guarantee due process, individual assessment and effective remedy, by upholding the prohibition of collective expulsion and of returning migrants when there is a real and foreseeable risk of death, torture, and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment, or other irreparable harm, in accordance with our obligations under international human rights law. We further commit to ensure that our nationals are duly received and readmitted, in full respect for the human right to return to one’s own country and the obligation of States to readmit their own nationals. We also commit to create conducive conditions for personal safety, economic empowerment, inclusion and social cohesion in communities, in order to ensure that reintegration of migrants upon return to their countries of origin is sustainable.
So, we can’t deport someone or send someone back if they claim to be in fear for their lives. That is never abused or used to circumvent legal court orders. “Human rights” in such a way that will undermine public safety.
OBJECTIVE 22: Establish mechanisms for the portability of social security entitlements and earned benefits
We commit to assist migrant workers at all skills levels to have access to social protection in countries of destination and profit from the portability of applicable social security entitlements and earned benefits in their countries of origin or when they decide to take up work in another country
Not only are we paying welfare, but pensions as well. This although the Canadian government or public has received no benefit. And how would we even verify that this work took place? Ripe for abuse.
OBJECTIVE 23: Strengthen international cooperation and global partnerships for safe, orderly and regular migration
We commit to support each other in the realization of the objectives and commitments laid out in this Global Compact through enhanced international cooperation, a revitalized global partnership, and in the spirit of solidarity, reaffirming the centrality of a comprehensive and integrated approach to facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration, and recognizing that we are all countries of origin, transit and destination. We further commit to take joint action in addressing the challenges faced by each country to implement this Global Compact, underscoring the specific challenges faced in particular by African countries, least developed countries, landlocked developing countries, small island developing States, and middle-income countries. We also commit to promote the mutually reinforcing nature between the Global Compact and existing international legal and policy frameworks, by aligning the implementation of this Global Compact with such frameworks, particularly the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development as well as the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, and their recognition that migration and sustainable development are multidimensional and interdependent
Earlier, we are told that each country will maintain sovereignty. Now, its “global partnerships”.
Back to the original point: CPC “Immigration Shadow Minister” Michelle Rempel now claims the CPC opposes the UN Global Migration Compact in her YouTube video. This is stark contrast to when she shrugged it off as “non-binding”.
However, in the video, she spends most of the time talking about other things. There is no sense of urgency, and the video is very lacking in details. Here are just the 23 OBJECTIVES, and they are scary.
Has Michelle Rempel even read the U.N. Global Migration Compact?
Doubtful, otherwise her video wouldn’t meander nearly as much. Either that or she is flat out lying.
(Not surprising, the endless pandering about the “wage gap”)
1. The Media Is Not Loyal To The Public
Truth is essential in society, but the situation in Canada is worse than people imagine. In Canada (and elsewhere), the mainstream media, periodicals, and fact-checkers are subsidized, though they deny it. Post Media controls most outlets in Canada, and many “independents” have ties to Koch/Atlas. Real investigative journalism is needed, and some pointers are provided.
The good part starts on page 40 of the Update. It has to do with “Support For Canadian Journalism”
Here is the problem that the Canadian Government identifies:
In recent years, changes in technology and in the way that Canadians consume news have made it difficult for many news outlets to find and maintain financially sustainable business models. At a time when people increasingly get their news online, and share news and other content through social media, many communities have also been left without local news outlets to tell their stories. Concerns have been expressed that, without government intervention, there may be a decline in the quantity and quality of journalism available to Canadians, including a significant loss of local news coverage.
In November 2018, the Prime Minister, together with other world leaders, committed to take action to support a strong and independent news sector in the digital age. The Government recognizes the vital role that local journalism plays in communities all across the country, and is committed to finding ways to help keep people, and communities, connected through local news providers
Yes, that is correct. The Government realizes that in modern times, the old format of news (large offices and staff), has become obsolete, and financially unviable. This is particularly true in the age where anyone with a laptop and a camera can post online and gain a substantial following.
CanuckLaw itself is run on a shoestring budget, with little expenses. So yes, it is easy to sympathise with those who have had a lengthy career in media.
However, this is the new reality. Media itself is reducing the barriers to entry where literally anyone can be a contributor online. Rather than maintaining a monopoly (or near monopoly) on news, major outlets are facing strong competition from a population who can drastically undercut it. Further, these people will have no loyalty to any political party or government. This is good for a free and open media.
However, the Federal Liberals have decided that propping up the media financially is a better idea.
Access to Charitable Tax Incentives for Eligible News Organizations
Budget 2018 announced that the Government would explore new models that would enable private giving and philanthropic support for trusted, professional, non-profit journalism, including local news. To that end, the Government intends to introduce a new category of qualified donee, for non-profit journalism organizations that produce a wide variety of news and information of interest to Canadians. As qualified donees, eligible non-profit journalism organizations would be able to issue official donation receipts, which allows donors to benefit from tax incentives for charitable giving (including the Charitable Donations Tax Credit for individuals and deductions for corporations). As qualified donees, these organizations would also be eligible to receive funding from registered charities.
A New Refundable Tax Credit to Support News Organizations
To further support news journalism in Canada, the Government intends to introduce a new refundable tax credit for qualifying news organizations. This new measure will aim to support Canadian news organizations that produce a wide variety of news and information of interest to Canadians. The refundable credit will support labour costs associated with producing original news content and will generally be available to both non-profit and for-profit news organizations. An independent panel will be established from the news and journalism community to define eligibility for this tax credit, as well as provide advice on other measures. Once established, the effective date of the refundable tax credit will be set for January 1, 2019.
A New Non-Refundable Tax Credit for Subscriptions to Canadian Digital News Media
To support Canadian digital news media organizations in achieving a more financially sustainable business model, the Government intends to introduce a new temporary, non-refundable 15-per-cent tax credit for qualifying subscribers of eligible digital news media. In total, the proposed access to tax incentives for charitable giving, refundable tax credit for labour costs and non-refundable tax credit for subscriptions will cost the federal government an estimated $595 million over the next five years. Additional details on these measures will be provided in Budget 2019
Yes, the government will be spending about $595 million over 5 years, $119 million annually, to prop up dying media outlets.
The story is explained by Candice Malcolm, but in a nutshell, Unifor, the union which represents — among others — 13,000 media workers, is officially committing to opposing the Federal Conservative Party.
This of course raises a huge red flag. A union that will be taking $120 million/year to subsidise failing media outlets is officially opposing the government’s main opposition party.
In fact, this arguably violates the Conflict of Interest Act. A political party using their power to award public funds to an industry, namely media, who can promote their interests.
3. Conflict Of Interest
4 For the purposes of this Act, a public office holder is in a conflict of interest when he or she exercises an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity to further his or her private interests or those of his or her relatives or friends or to improperly further another person’s private interests.
Marginal note:
General duty
5 Every public office holder shall arrange his or her private affairs in a manner that will prevent the public office holder from being in a conflict of interest.
Marginal note:
Decision-making
6 (1) No public office holder shall make a decision or participate in making a decision related to the exercise of an official power, duty or function if the public office holder knows or reasonably should know that, in the making of the decision, he or she would be in a conflict of interest.
It sounds harsh. However, from the literal wording in the Conflict of Interest Act, the subsides and political allegiance do appear to violate it.
4. Interview With Howard Law Of Unifor
On Friday, November 23, Unifor representative Howard Law did return a phone call for an interview. Here is a summary of that interview.
(a) The subsidies are meant to keep jobs from being lost, and to prop up sections of the media that are becoming unviable with technology changes.
(b) There is no deal of any kind to provide favourable coverage to any political party.
(c) Unifor, the union, promotes progressive causes all the time. They do not oppose any party because of financial considerations like what people suggest here.
(d) The media workers will continue to operate objectively.
While Mr. Law’s comments are reasonable on the surface, there is still no question that this at least appears to be a form of bribery. Governments handing millions of dollars to a friendly media reeks of propaganda and corruption.
But for now we will wait and see what comes of this.
(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.
Contribution limits
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.
Marginal note:
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.:
Marginal note:
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?
