CV #10: Pharma Lobbying Of AB Gov’t; Wellington Advocacy; Counsel Public Affairs; Others

Some of the lobbying at the Federal level has been published in earlier pieces on this site. However, this is not true at the Provincial level. The question that has to be asked is whether lobbying is playing a role in getting various Premiers to support the vaccination agenda.

The answer is yes, or at least it certainly looks like it. This article will focus on Alberta, now headed by Jason Kenney. Others will be addressed subsequently. Kenney is blatantly pro-vaxx, and people have to ask who is pulling the strings for this agenda.

Clearly, Wellington Advocacy and Counsel Public Affairs are not the only 2 groups lobbying the Alberta Government. But they are both very prominent.

Also noteworthy is that Kenney is a former Cabinet Minister in Stephen Harper’s Government. He is a twice-attendee of the Bilderberg meetings. Kenney has powerful connections.

1. Jason Kenney Wants Mass Vaccination

(From March 30, 2020 public announcement)

Jason Kenney, like the Federal Government, and other Premiers, supports the agenda for mass vaccination. Unlike the Feds, though, Kenney hasn’t (so far) said that it will be mandatory, but we will have to see what becomes of it.

EDMONTON — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau defended his government Tuesday after Alberta’s premier suggested Ottawa is dragging its feet on approving potential screening devices and treatments for COVID-19.

On Sunday, Jason Kenney tweeted that he had directed staff to consider using tests, vaccines or medications “that have been approved by the high standards of at least one credible peer country’s drug agency.”

That of course is just a clip from a broader article. Point is, Kenney seems on board with vaccinations. He doesn’t want Ottawa potentially slowing it down.

2. Wellington Advocacy, ex-PMO Staffers

What we do
Wellington Advocacy helps you build, run and win campaigns.
.
After a decade of working alongside Stephen Harper on the campaign trail and in office, our team is uniquely positioned to help you build government relations strategies, digital campaigns, stakeholder coalitions and blueprints to run.
.
Government Relations
Our team will work with you to build and deliver a concise and compelling presentation to government. Drawing on vast public policy and government experience, we ensure the right people hear your message at the right time.
.
Digital
Finding and winning over an audience is central to any successful campaign. We know how to identify and engage audiences and will help you build a bespoke digital strategy to capture the attention you need to deliver your message.

This lobbying firm was with Stephen Harper for more than a decade, and even played a role in the PMO (Prime Minister’s Office). They brag about having influence. Now, they lobby (current) Alberta Premier Jason Kenney. Keep in mind, that Kenney was Immigration Minister for much of his time in Harper’s Government. All of this reeks of a conflict-of-interest.

Wellington.1.Registered.Office.and.Directors
wellington.2.articles.of.incorporation
Wellington.3.change.to.director.information
Wellington.4.notice.of.return.filed

According to the Lobbying Registry of Alberta, Wellington Advocacy has lobbied the Alberta Government 53 times since May 2019. While certainly not all of their clients are drug companies, several of as late, are.

DATE
LOBBYIST
CLIENT
SENIOR OFFICER

23-Apr-2020
Wellington Advocacy Inc.
Triple M Housing
Nick Koolsberge

23-Apr-2020
Wellington Advocacy Inc.
Spartan Bioscience Inc
Nick Koolsbergen

19-Apr-2020
Wellington Advocacy Inc.
AMD Medicom Inc
Nick Koolsbergen

22-Mar-2020
Wellington Advocacy Inc.
Bayshore Healthcare LTD
Nick Koolsbergen

22-Mar-2020
Wellington Advocacy Inc.
Shoppers Drug Mart
Nick Koolsbergen

3. Counsel Public Affairs, Inc.

Healthcare
Our team has extensive experience working across the health care sector, from hospital operations and broader health care industry governance, to service providers and product manufacturers, and to the regulated health professionals who support the system. Counsel has advocated on behalf of doctors, nurses, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, pharmacies, medical device manufacturers, healthcare associations and patient groups on a wide range of mandates.

LOBBYING
Engaging decision makers with a powerful, persuasive and fact-based position is the key to success. With decades of experience working at all levels of government, we know how to effectively bridge the gap between those inside and outside of the political sphere to find solutions for your most important issues.
.
POLICY DEVELOPMENT
We know how government weighs options, evaluates impacts, and makes choices. We understand the policy process and how your organization can intervene effectively. We’ll help to ensure the facts are laid out, your case gets in front of the right people, and the policy implications are clear.
.
STAKEHOLDER AND INFLUENCER ENGAGEMENT
Skilled and targeted stakeholder management involves both recruiting allies and minimizing opposition. We can help you identify, track, and influence stakeholders.

Their LinkedIn page is filled with countless examples of Counsel Public Affairs attempting to control political narratives. Members have ties to many political parties, so they really are playing all sides.

11-Apr-2020
Counsel Public Affairs Inc.
Emergent BioSolutions Canada Inc. (formerly Adapt Pharma Canada Ltd.)
Philip Dew

Counsel does have offices in other provinces, and connections to many political parties.

4. Registered Lobbying Reports

24-Apr-2020
AstraZeneca Canada Inc.
Jane Chung

23-Apr-2020
Wellington Advocacy Inc.
Triple M Housing
Nick Koolsbergen

22-Apr-2020
Stosic & Associates Ltd.
Mint Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Aleksandar Stosic

16-Apr-2020
Becton Dickinson Canada Inc
Gregory Miziolek

16-Apr-2020
Hill + Knowlton Strategies
3M Canada Company
Sheila Wisniewski

15-Apr-2020
Global Public Affairs
Applied Pharmaceutical Innovation
Randy Pettipas

15-Apr-2020
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc.
Christian Macher

11-Apr-2020
Counsel Public Affairs Inc.
Emergent BioSolutions Canada Inc. (formerly Adapt Pharma Canada Ltd.)
Philip Dewan

09-Apr-2020
Lundbeck Canada Inc.
Peter Anastasiou

09-Apr-2020
Rothmans, Benson, & Hedges
Peter Luongo

07-Apr-2020
Pfizer Canada ULC
Cole Pinnow

07-Apr-2020
Merck Canada Inc.
Anna Van Acker

06-Apr-2020
Alberta Pharmacists’ Association
Margaret Wing

01-Apr-2020
Janssen Inc.
Jorge Bartolome

This is of course not an exhaustive list of who has been lobbying the Government in Alberta. Nor is health the only topic that gets lobbied for.

But it is interesting to see how many interested parties are coming forward. And “interested” refers to those who will be able to make money off such a vaccine or other remedy. When there is a lot of money at stake, people must always be wondering who is possibly pulling the strings.

One thing seems clear though: the Alberta Government won’t be waiting around for Ottawa to make a decision. Whether AB ultimately decides to go the route of mass vaccinations is unknown. However, there are companies who would profit greatly from it.

It also can’t be understated the conflict of interest that arises when lobbyists — many of whom have ties to government officials — start lobbying those officials on matters that are not in the best interests of the people. Much like Crestview Strategy and many more, Wellington Alliance and Counsel Public Affairs rely on their personal connections to pass initiatives that their clients pay for.

(1) https://www.wellingtonadvocacy.com/
(2) http://archive.is/0x8cN
(3) https://www.linkedin.com/in/rachel-curran-a99258109/
(4) http://archive.is/lchjs
(5) https://counselpa.com/strategic-communications/
(6) http://archive.is/tBPaJ
(7) https://www.linkedin.com/company/counsel-public-affairs-inc-toronto-ontario/
(8) http://archive.is/r5Qg6
(9) https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/we-won-t-wait-kenney-says-alberta-may-use-covid-19-tests-treatments-approved-by-other-countries-1.4896121?cache=yes%3FclipId%3D89680%3FclipId%3D373266%3FclipId%3D89680%2F5-things-to-know-for-thursday-october-31-2019-1.4663743
(10) http://archive.is/M1FOy
(11) https://www.albertalobbyistregistry.ca

CV#7: M-132 And International Pharma Research Grants In Canada

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

CLICK HERE, for #0: Theresa Tam; archives; articles; lobbying.
CLICK HERE, for #1: piece on Bill Gates, Pirbright, depopulation.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Coronavirus research at U of Saskatchewan.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Gates; WHO, ID2020; GAVI; Vaccines.
CLICK HERE, for #4: Gates using proxies to push vaxx agenda.
CLICK HERE, for #5: Crestview Strategy, GAVI’s lobbying firm.
CLICK HERE, for #6: people GAVI/Crestview lobbied follow Gates.

http://www.lobbycanada.gc.ca

2. HESA Submissions, Evidence, Reports

Submissions Lodged
hesa.Structural.Genomics.Consortium.submission
hesa.Medicines.Patent.Pool.2018
hesa.Doctors.Without.Borders.2018
hesa.Canadian.Institutes.Of.Health.Research.2018
hesa.Fowke.Keith.University.Manitoba.2018
hesa.University.College.London.drug.prices.2018
hesa.Drugs.For.Neglected.Diseases.Initiative.2018
hesa.Moon.Suerie.2018
hesa.Yusuf.Salim.mcmaster
hesa.FIND.tb.alliance.gates.gavi.unitaid
hesa.Vlassoff.Carol.2018
hesa.Universities.Allied.For.Essential.Medecines.2018
hesa.Bruyere.Research.Institute.2018
hesa.Molyneux.David.2018

LINK To Parliamentary Study Main Page

3. Federally Funded Health Research: M-132

For a speech on passing M-132.
The text is below

Motion Text
That the Standing Committee on Health be instructed to undertake a study on ways of increasing benefits to the public resulting from federally funded health research, with the goals of lowering drugs costs and increasing access to medicines, both in Canada and globally; and that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House no later than one year from the time this motion is adopted.

4. Parliamentary Committee Meetings

Dates Of Meetings
Thursday, September 27, 2018
Hesa.2018.September.27.evidence.transcript

Tuesday, October 2, 2018
Hesa.2018.October.2.evidence.transcript

Thursday, October 4, 2018
Hesa.2018.October.4.evidence.transcript

Tuesday, October 16, 2018
Hesa.2018.October.16.evidence.transcript

Thursday, October 18, 2018
Hesa.2018.October.18th.evidence.transcript

Tuesday, October 23, 2018
Hesa.2018.October.23.evidence.transcript

Thursday, October 25, 2018
Hesa.2018.October.25.evidence.transcript

5. Reports Released To The Commons

In Canada and around the world, there is rising concern that innovative drugs produced by pharmaceutical companies are no longer affordable and are placing increasing strain on health care budgets. Policy makers have begun to examine ways that public funding for pharmaceutical research and development could address this issue. On 8 November 2017, the House of Commons adopted Private Members’ Business M-132, which requested that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health (the Committee) “undertake a study on ways of increasing benefits to the public resulting from federally funded research, with the goals of lowering drug costs and increasing access to medicines, both in Canada and globally.”

On 16 and 18 October 2018, the Committee held two meetings as part of this study and heard from a range of witnesses including health researchers, health research funding organizations, patient groups and civil society organizations. Drawing on witness testimony and written submissions, this report examines the role the federal government can play in fostering pharmaceutical research and development both in Canada and globally to ensure that pharmaceutical drugs are accessible and affordable.

Note: Recommendations can be found starting at page 20 in the 2018 report released to the House of Commons.

HOUSE OF COMMONS STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH CALLS ON THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO FOSTER PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BOTH IN CANADA AND GLOBALLY THROUGH OPEN SCIENCE
Ottawa, November 26, 2018 –

Bill Casey, Chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, presented the Committee’s twentieth report today entitled, Towards Open Science: Promoting Innovation in Pharmaceutical Research and Development and Access to Affordable Medications both in Canada and Abroad.

The Committee’s study is in response to Member of Parliament Raj Saini’s Private Members’ Motion M-132, which requested that the Committee, “undertake a study on ways of increasing benefits to the public resulting from federally funded research, with the goals of lowering drug costs and increasing access to medicines, both in Canada and globally.”

In presenting the report to the House, Chair Bill Casey highlighted that “in our testimony, we heard loud and clear that more needs to be done to strengthen research and innovation in Canada. I thank Mr. Saini for bringing forth M-132, and for his efforts in ensuring that the Health Committee can hear why Canada must continue to be a leader in this field.”

Drawing on witness testimony heard over the course of two meetings held on 16 and 18 October 2018 and on 23 written submissions, the Committee’s report examines how increased federal investment in health research, across the continuum from fundamental to clinical research, would support the development of new medicines. However, witnesses also emphasized the importance of ensuring that federal funding in pharmaceutical research and development must also result in the creation of drugs that are affordable in Canada and abroad. Witnesses suggested that this could be achieved by fostering the creation of innovative models of pharmaceutical research that prioritize open science in both the development of new drugs and the repurposing of existing drugs. Witnesses explained that the Government of Canada could lead the way by developing a framework that sets priorities for pharmaceutical research and development and promotes open science through collaboration and leveraging of funding across governments, universities, health charities and private industry.

The Committee agrees with these findings and has included in its report nine recommendations that it believes will support the transformation of pharmaceutical research and development in Canada.

The announcement of the press release is here

Recommendation 1
That the Government of Canada create a specific funding mechanism for the development of clinical trial research and infrastructure in Canada through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
.
Recommendation 2
That the Government of Canada increase its funding for clinical trial research and infrastructure in Canada to 10% of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s budget to be on par with jurisdictions leading in this area, such as the United Kingdom and the United States.
.
Recommendation 3
That the Government of Canada explore ways to incentivize clinical trial research in Canada for pharmaceutical drugs and incentivize and support the production of those drugs in Canada at an advantaged price for Canada and provide venture capital for the proponent.
.
Recommendation 4
That the Canadian Institutes of Health Research attach a Global Access Licensing requirement to recipients of its research funding that wish to commercialize their research findings.
.
Recommendation 5
That the Canadian Institutes of Health Research include in its existing research and development programs support for the development of open science models of drug discovery.
.
Recommendation 6
That the Canadian Institutes of Health Research develop a framework for open science that supports collaboration and the leveraging of research funding among different partners in pharmaceutical research and development, including health charities, universities, governments, and private industry.
.
Recommendation 7
That Health Canada develop regulatory incentives for pharmaceutical companies that commit to open access to their research data and affordable prices for their products.
.
Recommendation 8
That the Government of Canada undertake a strategic review of its health-related research funding priorities across departments and agencies to enhance coordination, including Health Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Global Affairs Canada, and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada.
.
Recommendation 9
That the Government of Canada explore the feasibility of the public manufacturing of generic medicines.

In the follow-up report, the recommendations were formally adopted.

REPORTS TO PARLIAMENT
hesa.november.2018.report.to.parliament
hesa.government.response.march.2019

6. Committee Members

As provided by the report, these are the names and ranks of the Committee.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

CHAIR

  • Bill Casey

VICE-CHAIRS

  • Marilyn Gladu (lobbied by GAVI)
  • Don Davies
  • MEMBERS

    • Ramez Ayoub
    • Doug Eyolfson
    • Raj Grewal
    • Ben Lobb
    • Ron McKinnon
    • John Oliver (Parliamentary Secretary — Non-Voting Member)
    • Sonia Sidhu
    • Len Webber

    OTHER MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT WHO PARTICIPATED

    • Randy Boissonnault
    • Terry Duguid
    • Randy Hoback
    • Tom Kmiec
    • Christine Moore
    • Raj Saini (lobbied by GAVI)
    • Dave Van Kesteren

    CLERK OF THE COMMITTEE

    • Marie-Hélène Sauvé

    Why is the list of the Committee Members here? Well, once you see who some of the connections are, it will likely make the report findings a lot more suspicious.

    7. Committee Members & Pharma Lobbying

    The above screenshots came from information provided in the Office of the Lobbying Commissioner of Canada. These are far from exhaustive, but show a snapshot at the lobbying that is going on in Canada. Members of this Parliamentary Committee are being lobbied by various drug companies. It’s not difficult to see that this is done in order to influence them.

    8. Conflict Of Interest Here

    The same committee members who are recommending that Canada undertake more research for pharmaceuticals are the same ones who are being lobbied by pharmaceutical companies. It’s not difficult to piece it together.

    Canada Already Endorsed IHRA Definition, Making It A Hate Crime To Criticise Jews

    1. Important Links

    CLICK HERE, for Ontario’s Bill 168, IHRA definition.
    CLICK HERE, for previous piece on UN digital cooperation.
    CLICK HERE, for piece on Richard Lee and UN internet governance.

    CLICK HERE, for Canada’s anti-racism strategy.
    http://archive.is/MuIex
    CLICK HERE, for Canada’s anti-racism report.
    ARS-Report-EN-2019-2022
    CLICK HERE, for the Digital Charter.
    Digital Charter PDF

    CLICK HERE, for the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.

    2. Context For This Article

    About the last piece (Ontario’s Bill 168) which would label criticism of Jews as hate speech, things are actually much worse. Things have been that way since May 2019. See this publication from the Federal Government.

    To get this out of the way: I don’t know if this endorsement has any legal effect, and can be the basis for charging someone criminally or with hate crimes. Nonetheless, it is pretty chilling that any government which values freedom would entertain the idea of curtailing free speech to appease the never ending demands of this group.

    We hear so often that something is “symbolic”, or not to worry because it’s “non-binding”. What then is the point of enacting or endorsing something with no real effect?

    Iqra Khalid continues to be mocked (and rightfully so) for introducing M-103, the so-called blasphemy motion. This would ban Islamophobia, but without actually defining it. Yet, the Israeli lobby successfully advocates to have criticism of Jews banned as anti-Semitism — and the media says nothing. The double standard is obvious.

    It’s hard to tell how much of this “anti-racism” strategy is throwing money around and virtue signalling, and how much will actually result in concrete action.

    3. Anti-Racism Strategy Is Giant Slush Fund

    In reading through the posted strategy, we come across the following figures. Note, there doesn’t seem to be any sign for how the spending of this money will be accountable to the public.

    • $40B for national housing strategy
    • $319M for Indigenous housing
    • $671M for criminal legal aid
    • $141.7M for youth in conflict with the law
    • $19M for black youths
    • $9M for Indigenous post secondary schooling
    • $20M/year for “sector initiatives”
    • $21M for foreign credential recognition
    • $900M more for workplace developments
    • $705M for social finance fund
    • $50M for Indigenous Growth Fund
    • $12.1M (for now) for poverty reduction
    • $25M/year union training and innovation
    • $46M (5 years) for skilled trades awareness
    • $38M for pathways to education
    • $400M/year for Aboriginal employment
    • $50M skills and partnership fund
    • $25M/year literacy training
    • $90M/year youth employment strategies
    • $12M/year for refugee and immigrant legal aid
    • $45M/year for postsecondary support
    • $40M/year on reserve income assistance
    • $10M/year for Indigenous urban programming
    • $5M/year to help Indigenous be self sufficient
    • $8M/year for family violence prevention
    • $10M/year for sports in Indigenous communities
    • $4M for arts and culture
    • $1.4M for arts training fund
    • $4M for cultural spaces fund
    • $11M/year for multiculturalism program
    • $5M/year for court challenges
    • $13M/year reintegrate Aboriginal offenders
    • $54M/year in crime prevention
    • $10M/year for violence prevention
    • $0.5M/year for cultural competency training
    • $0.3M/year for youth leadership
    • $1.2M/year for inclusivity statistics

    Plenty of pork being thrown around in the 2019 anti-racism strategy. But don’t worry, everyone except whites will be able to have a victim complex.

    4. IHRA Definition Adopted

    Under the section of “TERMINOLOGY”, the document lists a bunch of different terms, including anti-Semitism. It comes directly from the IHRA definition of Anti-Semitism. (It is footnote #2).

    Antisemitism
    Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

    And at the bottom of the page, it specifically lists the IHRA working definition as the source.

    International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance “Working Definition of Antisemitism”. For further information, visit: https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism.

    5. IHRA Definition Of Anti-Semitism

    On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:
    .
    Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:
    .
    “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

    Don’t worry. While this sounds pretty vague, it is about to get much, MUCH more detailed in what exactly counts as anti-Semitism.

    To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

    Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

    Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

    • Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
    • Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
    • Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
    • Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
    • Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
    • Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
    • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
    • Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
    • Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
    • Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
    • Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

    Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).
    .
    Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.
    .
    Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

    Just reading the definition provided, it has to be asked: what DOESN’T make the list? What ISN’T anti-Semitism according to these people?

    When it refers to anti-Semitic acts as criminal, is that in indication that criminalization of “anti-Semitism” is where they intend to go with this?

    6. Jewish Media Celebrates Adoption Of IHRA Def.

    The Canadian Jewish News covered the story.

    The Center for Israel & Jewish Affairs covered it.

    The Jerusalem Post covered it.

    The Times of Israel covered it. Also note: Shimon Fogel is the President and CEO of CIJA, the Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

    This is of course, just a sample of what is out there. But the point is that the Israeli and Jewish presses are on top of this story (which actually happened in the Spring of 2019). Mainstream media has chosen not to cover it, but mock Muslims for THEIR efforts to limit free speech.

    7. Online Censorship Coming?

    From the anti-racism report issued, the topic on online policing of “hate”, whatever that may be, is addressed.

    Through our engagement with communities and people with lived experiences, we heard that Black Canadians, Muslims and Jewish communities are some of the groups who experience hate crimes disproportionately. There are also growing national and international concerns around the spread of online hate speech. We have even seen its impacts here at home when six lives were lost and many others injured during a horrific shooting at a mosque in Quebec City.

    Interestingly, no mention of the rampant, anti-White racism that exists in today’s society. Whites are the only racial group that it is legal to discriminate against. But do go on.

    Online platforms have increasingly become a tool to incite, publish and promote terrorism, violence and hatred. The March 2019 terror attack in Christchurch, New Zealand was a harrowing reminder that we need to take coordinated action to prevent social media and other online platforms from being used in these ways. That is why Canada joined the Christchurch Call to Action – a global pledge to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online. Through the Christchurch Call, governments and online services provider are making voluntary, collective commitments to combat online hate.

    On some level it seems harmless enough. But how exactly do we make sure that these new powers won’t be abused to silence those who simply express unpopular opinions?

    On a related note, internet regulation has long been proposed by the United Nations, and by a former Liberal candidate, long before the digital charter.

    8. What Is The Actual Effect?

    I don’t know. It’s unclear whether this is just pandering and symbolic, or whether there will be some real teeth in the measure. We won’t know until someone is fined or charged under it, and fights back.

    Ontario’s Bill 168: Doug Ford To Ban Criticism Of Jews Under Guise Of “Anti-Semitism”

    1. Important Links

    (1) bill.168.antisemitism
    (2) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-4.html
    (3) https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-42/session-1/bill-168
    (4) http://archive.is/PPk8V
    (5) https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/
    (6) http://archive.is/FMY3i
    (7) https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
    (8) http://archive.is/In7MJ

    2. Context For This Article

    Free speech is under attack again, and this time it comes from the Zionists, trying to push their version of anti-Semitism laws. Iqra Khalid was heavily criticized for pushing her Islamophobia motion, M103 a few years ago, but this gets a pass from the media and from public scrutiny. Both are horrible pieces of legislation,

    3. Criminal Law Exclusively Federal

    Under Section 91(27) of the Constitution, criminal law is exclusively the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. This means that the Ford Government couldn’t actually criminalize criticism of Jews, even if they wanted to. Still, it’s pretty chilling to put this on the books in Ontario, even if it is meant to be symbolic.

    This is address the elephant in the room: jurisdiction in the event of potential criminal law changes.

    4. Text Of Bill 168

    Will Bouma and Robin Martin, the sponsors for Bill 168, which was actually a private member’s bill.

    Bill 168 2019
    An Act to combat antisemitism
    Preamble Antisemitism is a multi-faceted problem that requires a multi-faceted strategy, encompassing a range of ministries and agencies. For that reason, it is desirable to require the Government of Ontario to implement a whole-of-government approach in combating antisemitism. As part of that approach, it is desirable to apply a consistent interpretation of Acts, regulations and policies designed to protect Ontarians from discrimination and hate amounting to antisemitism. Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:
    .
    Interpretation
    1 In interpreting Acts, regulations and policies designed to protect Ontarians from discrimination and hate amounting to antisemitism, the Government of Ontario shall be guided by the working definition of antisemitism and the list of illustrative examples of it adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance plenary on May 26, 2016. Legislation Act, 2006 amendment
    .
    2 Section 87 of the Legislation Act, 2006 is amended by adding the following definition: “antisemitism” has the meaning set out in the working definition of antisemitism and the list of illustrative examples of it adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance plenary on May 26, 2016; (antisémitisme”) Commencement
    .
    3 This Act comes into force on the day it receives Royal Assent. Short title
    .
    4 The short title of this Act is the Combating Antisemitism Act, 2019.
    .
    ______________
    .
    EXPLANATORY NOTE The Bill requires the Government of Ontario to be guided by the working definition of antisemitism and the list of illustrative examples of it, adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance plenary on May 26, 2016, when it interprets Acts, regulations and policies designed to protect Ontarians from discrimination and hate amounting to antisemitism. The Bill also amends the Legislation Act, 2006 to adopt that working definition.

    The text is pretty clear. Ontario (if this law passes) is to be guided by the working definition of anti-Semitism as provided by the IHRA. Interestingly, the bill doesn’t say what that definition is. So let’s take a look for ourselves.

    What is it exactly that Ontario will be signing up for?

    5. IHRA Definition Of Anti-Semitism

    On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:
    .
    Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:
    .
    “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

    Don’t worry. While this sounds pretty vague, it is about to get much, MUCH more detailed in what exactly counts as anti-Semitism.

    To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

    Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

    Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

    • Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
    • Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
    • Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
    • Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
    • Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
    • Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
    • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
    • Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
    • Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
    • Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
    • Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

    Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).
    .
    Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.
    .
    Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

    Just reading the definition provided, it has to be asked: what DOESN’T make the list? What ISN’T anti-Semitism according to these people?

    When it refers to anti-Semitic acts as criminal, is that in indication that criminalization of “anti-Semitism” is where they intend to go with this?

    6. Status Of Bill 168

    It’s already had its second reading. Not too far to go. Considering Ford has a majority government, he should encounter little resistance in getting Bill 168 passed and signed into law.

    7. CIJA Lobbied For Bill 168

    CIJA, the Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs (the Israeli lobby), is found in the Ontario Lobbyist Registry as attempting to influence the Ford Government to pass Bill 168.

    8. Double Standard For Islamophobia Motion

    A few years back, there was a huge public stink when Iqra Khalid, a Pakistani Muslim and “paper Canadian”, got M-103 passed at the Federal level. This was a (supposedly non binding) motion to combat Islamophobia, but without defining what it actually was.

    Why no media outrage over this? Is it because of the Jewish influence and power in the media that the story is buried? I guess that’s anti-Semitism to ask that.

    Should this ever come to pass, what’s to stop the Feds (or any court) from using it as a precedent to push binding anti-Semitism laws? This is a scary step to take.

    TSCE #8(F): Bit Of History, NGOs Trying To Open Canada’s Borders For Decades

    1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

    Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

    2. Why Canadians Should Care

    It should worry Canadians greatly when there is a sustained effort to undermine and erode our borders. The overwhelming majority of people don’t know how far back this goes. Although efforts predate these cases, this is where we will start.

    On the first attempt, the Canadian Council of Churches went to court to try to get certain new legislation thrown out. This legislation would have made it harder for people to enter Canada from the U.S. and claim asylum. It went to the Supreme Court, but ultimately, it was ruled the group did not have public interest standing.

    3. Court History Over The Years

    Again, many more attempts have been made in recent decades to erase borders, but this article will only focus on a few of them.

    FIRST ATTEMPT: KILL “SAFE COUNTRY” DESIGNATION
    (a) Federal Court, Trial Division, Rouleau J., [1989] 3 F.C. 3

    (b) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada,
    Federal Court of Appeal, [1990] 2 F.C. 534

    (c) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236
    1992.SCC.Rules.No.Standing

    SECOND ATTEMPT: KILL CANADA/US S3CA
    (a) 2008 ruling S3CA has no effect
    Docket: IMM-7818-05
    S3CA Provisions Struck Down

    (b) The 2008 ruling is overturned on appeal
    Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada, 2008 FCA 229
    Appeal granted, S3CA restored

    THIRD ATTEMPT: TORONTO CASES TO STRIKE S3CA
    (a) 2017, Prothonotary Milczynski considers consolidation
    IMM-2229-17, IMM-2977-17, IMM-775-17
    Milczynski Considers Consolidation

    (b) 2017, CJ Crampton transfers cases to J. Diner
    Crampton Transfers Consolidated Cases

    (c) 2017, Justice Diner grants public interest standing
    Citation: 2017 FC 1131
    Amnesty Int’l, CDN Councils of Churches, Refugees

    (d) 2018, Justice Diner grants consolidation of 3 cases
    Citation: 2018 FC 396
    Cases to be consolidated

    (e) 2018, Justice Diner allows more witnesses
    Citation: 2018 FC 829
    2018.Diner.Calling.More.Witnesses

    (f) 2019, Justice McDonald says no more witnesses
    Citation: 2019 FC 418
    2019.McDonald.No.More.Intervenors

    4. 1992: SCC Rules No Standing

    1992.SCC.Rules.No.Standing
    The CanLII link is here.

    Federal Court, Trial Division, Rouleau J., [1989] 3 F.C. 3
    .
    Rouleau J. dismissed the application. His judgment reflects his concern that there might be no other reasonable, effective or practical manner to bring the constitutional question before the Court. He was particularly disturbed that refugee claimants might be faced with a 72-hour removal order. In his view, such an order would not leave sufficient time for an applicant to attempt either to stay the proceedings or to obtain an injunction restraining the implementation removal order.
    .
    Federal Court of Appeal, [1990] 2 F.C. 534
    .
    MacGuigan J.A. speaking for a unanimous Court allowed the appeal and set aside all but four aspects of the statement of claim.
    .
    In his view the real issue was whether or not there was another reasonably effective or practical manner in which the issue could be brought before the Court. He thought there was. He observed that the statute was regulatory in nature and individuals subject to its scheme had, by means of judicial review, already challenged the same provisions impugned by the Council. Thus there was a reasonable and effective alternative manner in which the issue could properly be brought before the Court.
    .
    He went on to consider in detail the allegations contained in the statement of the claim. He concluded that some were purely hypothetical, had no merit and failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action. He rejected other claims on the grounds that they did not raise a constitutional challenge and others on the basis that they raised issues that had already been resolved by recent decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal.
    .
    He granted the Council standing on the following matters raised on the statement of claim

    Without getting too much into the technical details, the Supreme Court had to decide whether the Canadian Council of Churches, an organization, should be granted public interest standing to strike down all or part of the immigration laws. Ultimately, the ruling was no.

    Disposition of the Result
    .
    In the result I would dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-appeal on the basis that the plaintiff does not satisfy the test for public interest standing. Both the dismissal of the appeal and the allowance of the cross-appeal are to be without costs.
    Appeal dismissed and cross-appeal allowed.
    .
    Solicitors for the appellant: Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto.
    .
    Solicitor for the respondents: John C. Tait, Ottawa.
    .
    Solicitors for the interveners The Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped and The Quebec Multi Ethnic Association for the Integration of Handicapped People: Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, Toronto.
    .
    Solicitors for the intervener League for Human Rights of B’Nai Brith Canada: David Matas, Winnipeg, and Dale Streiman and Kurz, Brampton.
    .
    Solicitors for the interveners Women’s Legal Education and Action (LEAF) and Canadian Disability Rights Council (CDRC): Tory, Tory, DesLauriers & Binnington, Toronto and Dulcie McCallum, Victoria
    .

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court thought that a refugee, someone with actual standing (or something at stake) should be the one making the case.

    Also worth noting, consider who some of the intervenors are in this case. A lot of people who want to make it easier to get into Canada.

    5. 2008: S3CA, Parts Of IRPA Struck Out

    S3CA, Parts of IRPA Struck

    IT IS ORDERED THAT this application for judicial review is granted and the designation
    of the United States of America as a “safe third country” is quashed.

    Yes, the Canada/U.S Safe Third Country Agreement was actually declared to have no legal effect. However, this is not the end of it, as we will soon see.

    IT IS DECLARED THAT:
    .
    1. Paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
    Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United
    States of America are ultra vires and of no legal force and effect.
    2. The Governor-in-Council acted unreasonably in concluding that the United States of
    America complied with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the
    Convention Against Torture.
    3. The Governor-in-Council failed to ensure the continuing review of the designation
    of the United States of America as a “safe third country” as required by
    paragraph 102(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
    4. Paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
    Regulations and the operation of the Safe Third Country Agreement between
    Canada and the United States of America violate sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian
    Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are not justified under section 1 thereof.

    THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS are certified as serious questions of general
    importance:
    .
    1. Are paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee
    Protection Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and
    the United States of America ultra vires and of no legal force and effect?
    2. What is the appropriate standard of review in respect of the Governor-in-Council’s
    decision to designate the United States of America as a “safe third country” pursuant
    to s. 102 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act?
    3. Does the designation of the United States of America as a “safe third country” alone
    or in combination with the ineligibility provision of clause 101(1)(e) of the
    Immigration and Refugee Protection Act violate sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian
    Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is such violation justified under section 1?

    If the United States is not a safe country, then why do tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people try to apply for asylum there every year?

    The Safe Third Country Agreement was meant to prevent “asylum shopping” from taking place, but that is exactly what this ruling would have allowed.

    6. 2009: Previous Ruling Overturned

    The impugned Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement are not ultra vires the IRPA. Subsection 102(1) of the IRPA gives the GIC the power to promulgate regulations governing the treatment of refugee claims which may include provisions designating countries that comply with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture. This is a broad grant of authority intended to give effect to Parliament’s expressed intent that responsibility for the consideration of refugee claims be shared with countries that are respectful of their Convention obligations and human rights. The factors to be considered before designating a country are expressly set out in subsection 102(2) of the IRPA. The applications Judge’s misapprehended concern that the GIC would have the discretion to designate a country that does not comply with the Conventions led him to transform the statutory objective of designating countries “that comply” into a condition precedent.

    The applications Judge adopted a hypothetical approach to the respondent organizations’ Charter challenge, i.e. that a class of refugees would be treated a certain way if they were to present themselves at a Canadian land border port of entry. This approach went against the well-established principle that a Charter challenge cannot be mounted in the abstract. There was no evidence that a refugee would have to bring a challenge from outside Canada. The respondent organizations’ ability to bring the Charter challenge depended on John Doe. As the latter never presented himself at the border and therefore never requested a determination regarding his eligibility, there was no factual basis upon which to assess the alleged Charter breaches. The applications Judge thus erred in entertaining the Charter challenge.

    [14] On December 29, 2005, the respondents launched an application for leave and judicial review seeking a declaration that the designation of the U.S. under section 102 of the IRPA was ultra vires, that the GIC erred in concluding that the U.S. complied with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and further, that the designation breached sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. For purposes of clarity, it is useful to set out in full the issues set out in the judicial review application filed before the Court:

    [130] In short, a declaration of invalidity of the STCA Regulations is not required in order to ensure that they are not applied to claimants for protection at the land border in breach of either Canada’s international obligations not to refoule, or the Charter.
    .
    D. CONCLUSIONS
    .
    [131] For these reasons I would allow the appeal

    The Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the Lower Court considered a hypothetical scenario, and wrongly applied it to a Charter challenge. Put simply, Charter challenges are supposed to be ground in fact, and not “what if” situations. The ruling was overturned, and the Safe Third Country Agreement was restored.

    7. 2017-Present: Toronto Challenge

    Chief Justice Paul Crampton transferred 3 related cases to Justice Diner for case management. This is the same CJ Crampton who ruled that private citizens wishing to oppose the destruction of the S3CA don’t have standing.

    Justice Diner granted public interest standing to 3 NGOs: Amnesty International, Canadian Council for Refugees, and Canadian Council of Churches.

    Justice Diner order the 3 cases to be consolidated and tried together because of the overlapping issues.

    Note: also see here, for decisions from the Federal Court in the matter above.

    The case is still pending.

    8. So Who Are These NGOs?

    Amnesty International
    ai.01.certificate.of.continuance
    ai.02.bylaws
    ai.03.changes.in.directors
    ai.04.notice.of.financials

    B’nai Brith League For Human Rights
    bblhr.01.bylaws
    bblhr.02.change.registered.office
    bblhr.03.amendments
    bblhr.04.certificate.of.incorporation
    bblhr.05.director.changes

    B’nai Brith National Organization
    bbno.01.director.changes
    bbno.02.certificate.of.incorporation
    bbno.03.change.registered.office
    bbno.04.notice.of.financials

    Bridges, Not Borders
    Bridges Not Borders, Mainpage
    Bridges Not Borders, About
    Bridges Not Borders, Why They Cross
    Bridges Not Borders, Media Page
    Bridges Not Borders, Pro Asylum Shopping

    Canadian Association Of Refugee Lawyers
    carl.01.directors
    carl.02.change.of.office
    carl.03.bylaws.2015
    carl.04.notice.of.return
    carl.05.certificate.of.continuance

    Canadian Council For Refugees
    ccr.01.2019.director.changes
    ccr.02.bylaws
    ccr.03.bylaws.from.2014
    ccr.04.certificate.of.continuance
    ccr.05.annual.return

    Plattsburgh Cares
    Plattsburgh Cares Main Page
    Plattsburgh Cares, Humanitarian Support

    Solidarity Across Borders
    Solidarity Across Borders’ Homepage
    SAB Supports Illegal Migrant Caravans
    SAB Supports Sanctuary Cities For Illegals
    SAB Calls To Open Up The Borders

    These are of course not the only NGOs working to open up our borders (and other nations’ borders as well), but it does at least provide some insight.

    Also, see the above links in Section #1 for other articles published on these NGOs.

    9. Look At The Bigger Picture

    Last fall, the story made the news that a challenge would be coming to Toronto to the Safe Third Country Agreement.

    However, the Canadian media left out important information. Shocking.

    First, it didn’t go into any detail on the groups lobbying for this. It wasn’t just some helpless “asylum claimants”, but an organized effort to help erase Canada’s border with the U.S.

    Second, the full extent of the NGO meddling is not mentioned. True, some media DO reference the 2007 case, but not further. It doesn’t provide a complete picture of what is going on. Nor does it mention how these groups are pushing similar initiatives elsewhere. Amnesty International, for example, claims to have 7 million members pushing to bring more migrants (primarily) to the West. The Canadian Council for Refugees, as another example, spends considerable time and effort lobbying our Parliament for more refugee friendly laws.

    Third, there seems little concern for the Canadian who would have their safety and sovereignty eroded should this pass. Instead, the focus is always on people coming to Canada and what their needs are.

    This is lawfare: using our courts and legal system to open our borders.

    David Berger, Ex-MP, Ex-Israel Ambassador, Now With JRAN, CCR


    1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

    Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

    2. Important Links

    (1) https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-berger-20313212/
    (2) http://archive.is/8HaiV
    (3) http://lornematalon.com/2017/12/04/the-other-side-of-roxham-road-canada-grapples-with-border-refugees/
    (4) http://archive.is/pjwr7
    (5) https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ex-diplomat-takes-refugee-case/article20425189/
    (6) archive.is/yvsOx
    (7) https://www.ifcj.ca/site/SPageNavigator/ca/work/ca_our_board.html?NONCE_TOKEN=6BB7108F7FAECB5D4C167116DAC88011
    (8) http://archive.is/ZqEmK
    (9) http://jran.ca/
    (10) http://archive.is/HjDov (2017)
    (11) http://archive.is/3zwWq (2020)
    (12) http://jran.ca/about-us/the-jewish-refugee-connection
    (13) http://archive.is/j5RQN
    (14) http://jran.ca/jran-members
    (15) http://archive.is/ScX9k
    (16) http://jran.ca/the-issues
    (17) http://archive.is/pQ56M
    (18) http://jran.ca/news-events/news/2014/10/20/open-letter-to-prime-minister-harper-from-the-jewish-refugee-action-network-about-syrian-refugees
    (19) http://archive.is/fetf1
    (20) https://www.canada-immigration-law.com/our-team/
    (21) http://archive.is/eSdft
    (22) https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-most-african-migrants-in-israel-not-refugees/
    (23) http://archive.is/LUS4d

    3. From LinkedIn Page

    My practice includes many different aspects of immigration, refugee and citizenship law including skilled worker applications, business immigration programs, and work or study permits.
    .
    I provide counsel to individuals, families and businesses in all facets of an application, notably in identifying the most expeditious manner of obtaining a visa or permit, communications with government officials, and appeals. I also have had particular success with difficult applications where clients faced considerable obstacles in obtaining or maintaining status in Canada.
    .
    Immigration to Canada represents opportunity but also difficulties and risks. I help clients to minimize the difficulties and risks and ensure the best possible results.

    Just from the LinkedIn page we can get lots of information about David Berger. He was a Member of Parliament for several terms, is a former Ambassador to Israel, and now works for the NGO, Canadian Council for refugees.

    4. Berger Pushed Asylum For UK “Refugee”

    Dr. Khalid, 32, was forced into exile in London in March, along with her husband, but maintains she had always intended to seek asylum in Canada, where her relatives live.

    Canada was one of the first countries to include gender-based persecution in its refugee determination process, and should come to the aid of the high-profile victim of violence, said Mr. Berger, a former Quebec Liberal MP (Westmount-St. Henri) who was posted to Israel as ambassador in 1995.

    “The U.K. may not be the safest place for her,” said Mr. Berger, a lawyer who has taken Dr. Khalid’s case pro bono.
    “It appears for some time Dr. Khalid has indicated she wanted to come to Canada and this is the country where she would be the happiest.”

    Two interesting points about this Globe and Mail article. The first is that Mr. Berger sees nothing wrong with asylum shopping, and that refugees should simply be allowed to go where they please.

    The other is that he claims the UK is not a safe country. Could this be because of their policy of bringing in huge numbers of Muslim migrants? Now the demographic shift has made the UK unsafe? In that case, why should we bring Muslims to Canada, and turn it into the UK (or essentially the 3rd world)?

    5. David Berger Part Of CCR

    Immigration lawyer and David Berger is a member of the Canadian Council of Refugees, an NGO that advocates for migrants. Berger is also Canada’s former Ambassador to Israel and a former member of Canada’s Parliament. “We’ve got a backlog today of 30,000 claims whereas about two years ago the backlog was 10 or 15 thousand,” he explained. He said there aren’t enough immigration judges, formally known in Canada as decision makers.

    “We believe the government has to appoint more decision makers. 120 decision makers is just not enough,” Berger continued. He added that Canada is a better country for the contributions refugees make. He represents or has represented people with advanced degrees in literature and finance, images that defy stereotypes harbored by some anti-immigrant forces.

    David Berger is part of the Canadian Council for Refugees, which, among other things, is working to strike down the Canada/U.S. Safe 3rd Country Agreement. If this is successful (it was initially, but overturned on appeal a decade ago), people from the warzone that is the United States will be free to waltz in and claim they are refugees, regardless of how meritless the claims may be.

    6. Jewish Refugee Action Network

    Overview of JRAN’s concerns
    Since 2012, significant changes have been made to Canada’s treatment of refugees. For decades, Canada’s refugee system worked towards protecting people in danger and other humanitarian goals. The new changes, however, do the following: discriminate between individuals based on their country of origin or how they arrived in Canada; create serious challenges in the refugee determination process, which could lead in some cases to the deportation of individuals to their home countries and a real risk of persecution or worse; and limit certain humanitarian protections. In addition, since 2012, a half century’s old system of providing healthcare coverage to people seeking refugee status has been cut, thereby stranding thousands of people who are lawfully in Canada without emergency or life-saving healthcare.

    1. Refugee Determination Process
    Since 2012, changes to the refugee determination system make it difficult for many refugee claimants to prove their claims, and limits their ability to get a fair hearing due to severely shortened timelines, restrictions on appeal rights, and restrictions on other legal processes. Without a fair refugee hearing, there is a risk that people will be deported to countries where they face danger to their safety, freedom, or even their lives….

    2. “Designated Countries of Origin” (DCOs)
    The new Designated Countries of Origin (DCO) scheme creates a new category of refugee claimant. Refugee claimants from designated countries are not entitled to the same legal process as refugee claimants from non-designated countries. Ostensibly created to distinguish between refugee claimants from “safe” countries and claimants from other countries, in reality the DCO scheme creates a two-tiered system that discriminates between refugee claimants based on their country of origin, and limits the ability of claimants to get a fair hearing regarding their individual case….

    3. “Designated Foreign Nationals” (DFNs)
    Under the new designated foreign national (DFN) scheme, the Minister of Public Safety may “designate” two or more refugee claimants who arrive in Canada without the appropriate Canadian visas or documents, if the Minister believes that they have paid someone to help them enter Canada, or if they lack the papers necessary to prove their identity in what the Minister believes is a “timely manner.” Being identified as a DFN has serious consequences, including mandatory group detention for what may be lengthy periods, restrictions on appeal rights, and restrictions on gaining permanent residence status…

    4. Cuts to Refugee Healthcare Coverage
    In 2012, the Canadian government made drastic cuts to healthcare coverage for refugee claimants. An Order in Council took away even basic emergency and life-saving medical care from thousands of refugee claimants who have lawfully sought Canada’s protection…

    The Jewish Refugee Action Network states that it is concerned about rights and social services for refugees coming into Canada. Interesting that Berger, a several term Member of Parliament, shows far more concern for the well being of foreigners than he does Canadians.

    Now let’s get to what JRAN considers the “refugee issue”, and it attempts to give some historical context.

    Jews as Refugees – Biblical Connection
    The Exodus from Egypt, one of the central stories in Jewish tradition, is a foundation document of Jews as refugees. Having been held slaves under the pharoahs for several hundred years, the Israelites were desperate for their freedom. Their dramatic departure reached its climax at the Red Sea, when the Israelites were finally able to escape Pharoah’s soldiers and Egypt.
    .
    Jewish law – Spiritual Connection
    Jewish texts and laws provide a constant reminder about the Exodus and about the experience of slavery in Egypt. The Exodus is the central experience recounted in the Torah. It is mentioned as part of our weekly Friday night blessings, and is told in far greater detail at our annual Passover seders. At the seder, surrounded by comfort and good food, we are encouraged to remember the story as if we were the ones who had been slaves and refugees.
    The experience in Egypt is repeated often in the Torah, with the explicit admonition to treat others with compassion and justice. Our Biblical laws – requiring us to provide for the widow and orphan, to treat workers fairly, and to help the foreigners in our midst – explain that we must do so because we ourselves were foreigners in Egypt. This idea is echoed more than 30 times in the Torah. Here too, we are asked to put ourselves in the position of our ancestors: slaves and foreigners in Egypt.
    .
    Jews as Refugees – Historical Connections
    The Shoah (Holocaust) was another defining moment for the Jewish people. The genocide of six million Jews was a tragedy, heightened by the indifference of those free countries who refused to admit Jews to safety on their shores. Canada is one of several countries who bear the shame of having refused to receive 900 Jewish refugees who had managed to escape Germany aboard the ocean liner St. Louis. Many Canadian Jews remember the treatment of these desperate Jewish refugees.
    .
    Jews and Roma – Parallel Histories of Persecution
    The persecution of Jews in Europe for many centuries, bears certain similarities to that experienced by the Roma people, who also faced restrictions on their employment and permitted living areas, violence, expulsions, and other forms of oppression. The Roma people, like the Jews, were the only other group legally targeted for extermination by the Nazis, and experienced their own genocide known as the Porajmos. Unfortunately, the Roma in Europe continue to suffer many forms of violence, discrimination, at the hands of bigots and fascists with the collusion of some governments.

    Clearly, never missing an opportunity to play the victim narrative. David Berger is a Board Member of this group. This is the list.

    JRAN Members
    Honorary Members

    • Stephen Lewis, Honorary Canadian Co-Chair
    • Michele Landsberg, Honorary Canadian Co-Chair

    Board Members

    • Rabbi Arthur Bielfeld, founder of JRAN
    • Ken Rosenberg, Chair
    • Maureen Silcoff
    • Mary Jo Leddy
    • Noa Mendelsohn Aviv
    • Dr. Philip Berger
    • Bernie M Farber
    • Mitchell Goldberg
    • Valerie Hyman
    • Audrey Macklin
    • Anna Porter
    • Gabriela Ramo
    • Avrum Rosensweig
    • Jon Telch
    • Rivka Augenfeld
    • Cynthia Levine-Rasky
    • David Berger
    • Mira Oreck
    • Hesh Troper

    7. Berger, JRAN, Lobbied For “Syrian Refugees”

    As a wealthy and peaceful country, we have a shared international responsibility to be a safe haven for refugees and to treat them with fairness. As Jewish Canadians, we join other faith groups, legal organizations, and settlement workers in calling on our government to do our share for the vulnerable people fleeing Syria. Specifically:

    1. To put in place flexible provisions to allow family members of Canadian citizens, permanent residents, and recognized refugees to enter Canada by issuing Temporary Resident Permits, with the possibility of access to permanent residence later.

    2. In close consultation and coordination with sponsorship agreement holders, to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees from refugee camps within the next year. The UNHCR recently requested countries to settle 100,000 Syrian refugees. Canada has traditionally agreed to resettle 10 per cent of UNHCR requests.

    3. That all pending applications for Syrian refugees be processed expeditiously, and that in no case should the processing of a refugee claim take more than one year.

    4. That processing of Syrians not replace or divert any resources from other refugee or family reunification programs.

    Refugees from Syria cannot afford to lose any more time. People are in crisis, and the world is watching. Prime Minister, the government must act now. We would be pleased to meet with you or members of your staff to further discuss this urgent issue.

    Yours very truly,
    .
    Noa Mendelsohn Aviv
    Rivka Augenfeld
    David Berger, former Ambassador to Israel
    Dr. Philip Berger
    Rabbi Arthur Bielfeld
    Bernie Farber
    Mitchell Goldberg
    Valerie Hyman
    Michele Landsberg, OC
    Maureen Silcoff
    Jon Telch
    Ken Rosenberg

    The Jewish Refugee Action Network (which Berger is a Director of) was a major player in lobbying then PM Harper to take in so-called Syrian refugees.

    Was Berger “ever” working for Canadians? Even during his several terms as an MP, or his tenure as Ambassador to Israel? Or was he a refugee lobbyist this entire time?

    8. David Berger’s Many Roles

    • Canadian Bar Association (Immigration Section)
    • Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers
    • Jewish Refugee Action Network
    • associate member of the Canadian Council for Refugees
    • former President of the Canadian Football League
    • former Member of Parliament
    • former Ambassador to Israel

    8. David Berger’s Law Practice

    David Berger, B.A., B.C.L.
    David Berger, B.A. (Toronto) 1971; B.C.L. (McGill) 1975, was admitted to the Barreau du Québec in 1986.
    David relies on a unique experience in elective office, diplomacy, business, and law in advising and representing his clients.
    .
    From 1979 to 1994, David served as a Member of the House of Commons of Canada, representing the constituencies of Laurier and St-Henri-Westmount.
    .
    From 1995 to 1999, David served as Canadian ambassador to the State of Israel, representative to the Palestinian Authority and High Commissioner to Cyprus.
    .
    Earlier in his career, from 1975 to 1979, David was executive vice-president of the Montreal Alouette Football Club, Inc. In 1978-1979, he served as President of the Canadian Football League.
    David assists people in applications for temporary and permanent residence, including work and study permits and visitor visas, skilled worker applications, business immigration, family sponsorships and humanitarian and compassionate applications.
    .
    He represents clients in refugee claims, appeals to the Immigration Appeal Division, and judicial review applications to the Federal Court of Canada and the Quebec Superior Court.
    David speaks English, French and Spanish.
    .
    David is a member of AQAADI (L’Association Québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration), the Canadian Bar Association (Immigration Section), the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the Jewish Refugee Action Network, and an associate member of the Canadian Council for Refugees.
    .
    David is a director of several not for profit organizations including the Canada International Scientific Exchange Program (CISEPO), the Jerusalem Foundation of Canada, the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (Canada), and the Trevor Williams Kids Foundation.

    9. Israel Refuses To Take Refugees

    During a solidarity visit to Tel Aviv last Thursday, Netanyahu, Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan and Culture Minister Miri Regev toured south Tel Aviv and vowed that the government would “give back” the neighborhood to its Israeli residents.

    Netanyahu has previously said the government would take a three-pronged approach to the issue: a security fence along the Egyptian border, which has already succeeded in significantly reducing the number of migrants who cross into Israel from African countries; increased enforcement against those employ illegal migrants and migrants who break the law; and the ministerial committee, which the prime minister said he will lead himself.

    Expulsion to a third country is largely unprecedented in the Western world. Italy and Australia signed similar agreements with third-party countries — Italy with Libya, and Australia with Malaysia — but both proposals were shot down by local courts. In both cases, courts ruled the bills inconsistent with international law and the 1951 UN convention on refugees — to which Israel is also a party.

    Interesting. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel claims that the migrants in the country are not refugees, and seems content to deport them. Where is the outrage of people like David Berger? If Canada should do its part to take in people in a vast humanitarian effort, why the outrage at Israel refusing to do the same?

    Netanyahu wants to keep Israel a Jewish nation, and he doesn’t want hordes of very different people irreversibly changing the demographics. Yet Berger, and people like him, see nothing wrong with forcibly remaking the west.

    Why isn’t the former Ambassador to Israel lobbying for Israel to take refugees and open up its borders? After all, isn’t humanity and compassion supposed to be universal? Why the double standard?