Category: Indigenous

Posted on

Cowichan Tribes: How The Parties Concealed The Case From The Public

The shocking decision from the B.C. Supreme Court last year is in the midst of an Appeal. However, it seems that the public is not fully aware of the efforts to keep it hidden over the last decade.

Instead of a high level of incompetence, it appears the Municipal, Provincial and Federal officials did what they could to keep it hidden. While sounding the alarm now, they had over a decade to do so, but decided to conceal the risks from residents.

Madam Justice J. A. Power: “….my decision does not prevent any of the defendants from providing informal notice to private landowners if they wish to do so.” Cowichan Tribes v Canada (Attorney General), 2017 BCSC 1575 at paragraph 27.

Most people heard about this ruling last August. It’s where a B.C. Judge essentially declared a portion of Richmond to belong to Cowichan Tribes, a group in the area.

***Note: pardon the late follow-up. The story fell through the cracks, but is definitely worth reporting. This is especially true in light of “negotiations” that have recently started.

The case has been appealed, and a number of Cross-Appeals have been filed as well. There’s a lot more to cover. But an important point needs to be addressed: the parties went out of their way to conceal this case from the public at large. The Federal Government, B.C. Government and City of Richmond could have let people know years ago, but chose not to.

This is not to say that they couldn’t have notified Richmond residents. There was no prohibition stopping them. They simply decided not to.

Is this an outrageous claim? Perhaps, but in light of what has happened, it’s about the only logical conclusion one can draw from this.

Specifically, 5 points will be raised in support of this position.

  1. Cowichan filed the challenge in Victoria to reduce unwanted attention
  2. Cowichan had parts of their evidence declared private
  3. The entire case was removed from B.C. Court Services Online
  4. Governments did not alert property owners about case in 2016
  5. Governments did not alert property owners about case in 2017

Why wouldn’t Cowichan Tribes want heavy scrutiny about this case? Consider what they were asking for, and what the decision awarded them.

Declarations Made By B.C. Supreme Court

  1. The Cowichan have Aboriginal title to the Cowichan Title Lands within the meaning of s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982;
  2. The Crown grants of fee simple interest in the Cowichan Title Lands, and the Crown vesting of the soil and freehold interest in certain highway lands in the Cowichan Title Lands, unjustifiably infringe the Cowichan’s Aboriginal title;
  3. Except for Canada’s fee simple titles and interests in certain lands (the “Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Project Lands”), Canada and Richmond’s fee simple titles and interests in the Cowichan Title Lands are defective and invalid;
  4. With respect to the Cowichan Title Lands, Canada owes a duty to the Cowichan to negotiate in good faith reconciliation of Canada’s fee simple interests in the Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Project Lands with Cowichan Aboriginal title, in a manner consistent with the honour of the Crown;
  5. With respect to the Cowichan Title Lands, BC owes a duty to the Cowichan to negotiate in good faith reconciliation of the Crown granted fee simple interests held by third parties and the Crown vesting of the soil and freehold interest to Richmond with Cowichan Aboriginal title, in a manner consistent with the honour of the Crown; and
  6. The Cowichan have an Aboriginal right to fish the south arm of the Fraser River for food within the meaning of s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Cowichan Tribes has filed their own Appeal, arguing that the Judge should have given them everything, not just portions of the area.

1. Cowichan Filed In Victoria To Reduce Unwanted Attention

The case concerns land in Richmond, but was filed in Victoria. Vancouver was a far closer choice. New Westminister or Abbotsford would also require less commuting time. The obvious question: why go to a further Court?

This is going to sound incredibly cynical, but the likely reason for filing in Victoria was to reduce the chances that it would be leaked, prior to a ruling.

2. Cowichan Had Parts Of Their Evidence Declared Private

What makes thing more suspicious is that a number of sealing orders were made between 2021 and 2023. Even if one went to the Court in Victoria, these exhibits would still be restricted.

1. 6 July 2021: Sealing Order and Publication Ban made 22 & 26 January 2021 regarding Vancouver Fraser Port Authority documents;

2. 2 November 2021: Sealing Order made 26 July 2021, regarding Musqueam fisheries mandate information;

3. 24 June 2022: Sealing Order and Publication Ban made 25 October 2021, regarding information contained in DARS recording, Clerk’s Notes, and trial transcript for 25 October 2021;

4. 24 June 2022: Sealing Order made 25 October 2021, regarding Exhibits 1490–1588, unsealed as of 10:46:25AM, and resealed as of 4:16:00PM

5. 24 June 2022: Sealing Order and Publication Ban made 26 October 2021, regarding information contained in DARS Recording, Clerk’s Notes, and trial transcript for 26 October 2021;

6. 24 June 2022: Sealing Order made 26 October 2021, regarding Exhibits 1490–1588, unsealed as of 10:23:31AM, and resealed as of 12:23:29PM;

7. 24 June 2022: Sealing Order and Publication Ban made 29 October 2021, regarding information contained in DARS Recording, Clerk’s Notes, and trial transcript for 29 October 2021;

8. 24 June 2022: Sealing Order made 29 October 2021, regarding Exhibit 1556;

9. 29 November 2022: Sealing Order and Publication Ban made 2 November 2022, varying the Sealing Order and Publication Ban made 22 & 26 January 2021 (noted above) concerning Vancouver Fraser Port Authority documents;

10. 29 March 2023: Sealing Order made 28 February 2023, regarding Musqueam Indian Band’s privileged July 1996 recording;

11. 2 November 2023: Sealing Order and Publication Ban made 20 October 2023; a publication ban was engaged at 11:17:57AM and continued until 2:01:24PM;

12. 2 November 2023: Sealing Order and Publication Ban made 23 October 2023; a publication ban was engaged at 10:03:11AM and continued until 11:26:06AM.

“All parties agree that the evidence subject to sealing orders in the court below ought to be the subject of fresh sealing order(s) on appeal, with the exception of the plaintiffs, who have advised that they take no position pending receipt of the proposed consent order and a brief written submission regarding the basis for the sealing orders in due course, consistent with Publication Bans, Sealing Orders, and Anonymization Orders (Civil and Criminal Practice Directive, 10 June 2024).”

Many critical exhibits were sealed from public view over the duration of the case. The British Columbia Government asks that the seal be extended.

3. The Entire Case Was Removed From B.C. Court Services Online

BC CSO, or Court Services Online, is the website where people can look up *most* civil cases online. Also, traffic and Provincial criminal cases are generally accessible too. However, the Cowichan case was removed entirely, due to some documents being sealed.

Despite the public interest, a request to post at least some of the non-sealed material was refused. This is apparently standard procedure. Now, if people wish to see anything, they have to go to the Victoria Court in person.

4. Governments Did Not Alert Property Owners About Case (2016)

[1] Tsawwassen First Nation (“TFN”) makes application to be added as a defendant to this action.

[2] Cowichan Tribes (“Cowichan”) and others bring a representative action for declarations relating to aboriginal title of lands in what is now the City of Richmond, including at Tl’uqtinus and the south shore of Lulu Island, and relating to aboriginal fishing rights in the south arm of the lower Fraser River. As of November 2015, the defendants included Canada, British Columbia, and the City of Richmond.M.o

[3] The plaintiffs consented in November 2015 to deem notice letters to third parties as constituting formal notices of claim. These third parties included the Musqueam Indian Band (“Musqueam”), the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (the “VFPA”), and TFN. In January 2016, the plaintiffs consented to the addition of the VFPA and Musqueam as defendants to the action.

[10] Contemplating the predecessor to subrule (b)(ii), the court in Kitimat, at para. 30, referred to Morishita v. Corporation of the Township of Richmond (1990), 1990 CanLII 211 (BC CA), 44 B.C.L.R. (2d) 390 at 393 (C.A.), where it defined a necessary party as a person “whose direct interests might be affected by the granting of the relief sought.” The court in Kitimat considered it “difficult to see how a binding order can be made in the terms sought in the petition, limiting the instruments held by Alcan, without its participation” (para. 32). Because Alcan’s “direct interests might be affected by the granting of the relief sought” according to the terms of the petition, it was a necessary party for a full determination of the issues, including at the appellate level,” and was thus “one who ‘ought to have been joined as a party.’”

Tsawwassen First Nation was added as a party in 2016, because the Court decided that it had a legitimate interest in the outcome of the case. But none of the parties served any kind of notice on the public.

Interestingly, Canada and British Columbia both complained that they didn’t have enough detailed information to fully process and respond to the lawsuit. There’s a glaring irony in this, since they couldn’t be bothered to notify the public at large.

5. Governments Did Not Alert Property Owners About Case (2017)

There are dozens of interlocutory decisions related to this case, but one from September 2017 is quite revealing. Specifically:

[1] These reasons follow the hearing of an application, brought by the defendant Attorney General of Canada (“Canada”), concerning whether or not this Court should order formal notice to the private registered owners of fee simple lands within the area referred to, in the Second Further Amended Notice of Civil Claim, as the Lands of Tl’uqtinus (the “Claim Area”), whose interests may be adversely affected by the relief sought by the plaintiffs in this action.

[2] Canada seeks an order that the plaintiffs deliver formal notice within 45 days of the date of this decision, or alternatively that the defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia (“British Columbia”), deliver such formal notice to affected private landowners.

Conclusion
[25] While I am not persuaded by the plaintiffs that the authorities definitively decide the issue before me, I have concluded that in the context of these circumstances I should exercise my discretion by dismissing Canada’s application.

[26] As a result, I further decline to comment on the issue, raised by Canada, concerning whether it is more appropriate for the plaintiffs, as initiators of this litigation, or British Columbia, from whom private landowners derive their fee simple titles from, to be the party to provide formal notice.

[27] In these particular circumstances, I decline to exercise the court’s discretion to require the plaintiffs to serve formal notice on private landowners. However, as I have already outlined above, my decision does not prevent any of the defendants from providing informal notice to private landowners if they wish to do so.

In 2017, the Federal Government filed an Application to compel Cowichan Tribes to serve at least an informal notice on all of the potentially impacted property owners. In the alternative, Ottawa said that the B.C. Government should be doing it.

The Court never said that notice couldn’t be served, just that it couldn’t be compelled. However, neither the Federal nor Provincial Governments apparently did.

Many thousands of dollars was spent on an Application to demand that landowners be notified, when it could have just been done for less money.

What readers need to understand is that this case was deliberately kept hidden from the public for years. They didn’t want the scrutiny that would follow. One has to wonder if this was done so that Cowichan Tribes would have a stronger hand in the “negotiations” that follow.

COURT RULINGS:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2016/2016bcsc1660/2016bcsc1660.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2017/2017bcsc1575/2017bcsc1575.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2025/2025bcsc1490/2025bcsc1490.html

OTHER DOCUMENTS:
(1) Cowichan Notice Of Appeal Cowichan Tribes
(2) Cowichan Notice Of Appeal City Of Richmond
(3) Cowichan Notice Of Appeal Musqueam Indian Band
(4) Cowichan Notice Of Appeal Tsawwassen First Nation
(5) Cowichan Notice Of Appeal Vancouver Fraser Port Authority
(6) Cowichan BC Requests Sealing Order Be Maintained

MISCELLANEOUS:
(1) Cowichan Rosenberg Taxes Petition
(2) Cowichan Rosenberg Taxes Response

Posted on

B.C. Property Rights Class Action: Signing Away Your Land For Peanuts?

Back in August, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled that a section of land in Richmond actually belonged to the Cowichan Tribes. Understandably, this caused a lot of confusion for property and business owners, who learned about the decision after the fact. The case is being appealed, and that will be covered later.

It’s being reported that a Proposed Class Action has been filed in New Westminister. The Notice of Civil Claim is available, and it lists two Proposed Representative Plaintiffs: (a) Jasjeet Grewal; and (b) John Doe, who is unidentified.

Grewal is the owner of a hazardous materials removal business, but lives in Burnaby. He pleads that, despite not living in Richmond, his business affairs are now in question. The unidentified Plaintiff pleads that he owns property in Richmond, and is directly impacted by the ruling.

The Governments of Canada and British Columbia are named as Defendants.

While there may be issues with the filing itself, there’s a more immediate concern:

Class Action For Compensation If Owners SIGN AWAY Rights

There are 6 different remedies being sought. 4 of them are for damages, and the others are for Declaratory Relief. Sounds great, doesn’t it?

Despite the excitement that came with sharing this development, readers need to consider what’s going on with this case. Nowhere in the N.O.C.C. does it state that it’s fighting for landowners keeping their property. This lawsuit doesn’t demand either the Federal or Provincial Governments do anything to prevent similar Court decisions from coming up.

Instead, it’s to get property owners to sign away their rights in return for compensation.

Many have raised the argument that they shouldn’t have to pay property taxes if they don’t actually own the property. That is a valid point. However, demanding tax refunds from the Government (either Canada or B.C.) will necessitate handing it over.

This is a suit over compensation not land protection.

In Richmond specifically, probably the best argument landowners have is that they weren’t notified the Cowichan case was going on until after the fact. They weren’t able to participate, and were denied any sense of due process. That’s certainly true. But will they still have those rights if they take the money?

Nowhere in the lawsuit do the Plaintiffs challenge the implementation of UNDRIP, which helped make this possible. There’s nothing sought that would compel Governments to do more to protect property rights. Other than demands for future transparency, they aren’t seeking any change at all.

Notice Of Claim Has Some Procedural Defects

Let’s have some fun with this one.

The “Class” doesn’t appear to apply to either Representative Plaintiff. In paragraph 7, it lists people who may have suffered losses as a result of trying to refinance, sell, buy or mortgage property. Neither claim that they did, although perhaps it’s just not stated.

To be fair, there are presumably Plaintiffs in B.C. who would only be seeking compensation for losses, and not looking to sell. But in that case, there should have been multiple subclasses. This needs to be cleared up.

The Plaintiffs here don’t plead that they have been harmed or suffered damages.

Paragraph 8 states that the “Class” may also include all property owners in Provinces other than B.C., regardless of whether or not they suffered any losses. Again, this doesn’t include Grewal or John Doe. It’s unclear what grievances people from other regions could raise. This section is so vague it could also mean Plaintiffs living where there are no land claims whatsoever.

The torts aren’t adequately pleaded. When making these kinds of allegations, there’s a requirement to “provide particulars”, or to spell out in details what has happened. There are claims of negligence, deceit and malfeasance, but nothing is laid out. Who? What? Where? When? The Claim could be amended easily enough, but this information has to be there.

The N.O.C.C. doesn’t actually state that it will be seeking a Certification Order, although it may be assumed.

***In fairness, this isn’t the sort of disaster case that is normally covered here. But, there are some procedural issues that may come up. None of it should be fatal though, and better drafting should fix these errors.

With this in mind, it doesn’t change the primary concern: this lawsuit seems designed to convince Plaintiffs to hand over their land. Yes, it’s a cynical take. Do you really think you’ll be allowed to keep it once that tax refund goes through?

Sure, Plaintiffs may get *some* of their cash back, but will almost certainly be expected to sign away their deed in return. Does that seem worth it?

Also consider: in Class Actions, the lawyers typically have wide latitude to settle suits. This means that individual Plaintiffs may get very little in terms of their “tax refunds”. Then the lawyers will take some 30% to 45% from each client for fees.

CLASS ACTION COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Grewal Doc 001 Class Action Notice Of Civil Claim

COWICHAN RULING OF AUGUST, 2025:
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2025/2025bcsc1490/2025bcsc1490.html

(1) https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2022AG0065-000611
(2) https://news.gov.bc.ca/files/CivilLitigationDirectives.pdf

Posted on

Secwepemc Land Grab Of Kamloops: Going On For A Decade

Another case in British Columbia has come to light involving property rights, this time in Kamloops.

The Secwepemc Nation filed a lawsuit in September 2015, claiming to be the actual landowners. If granted, it would not only effectively give them control of the city itself, but much of the surrounding area. This would impact over 100,000 people. Stunningly, this only became public a day ago.

For context, consider this:

John Rustad took the position of Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation back in June 2013. For whatever reason, he decided to remain silent on legal challenges that would erase the property rights of residents of British Columbia. He is now in charge of the “Official Opposition” in the Province. From Wikipedia:

He retained his seat in the 2013 election and was appointed Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation by Premier Christy Clark. He kept his cabinet post following his re-election in 2017, and added the role of Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to his duties after Steve Thomson’s election as Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. Rustad continued in both ministerial roles until that July, when the Liberal minority government was defeated in a non-confidence motion.

Rustad was the Minister in charge the entire time, but chose not to inform the public. While in Opposition, he still doesn’t announce this news. Nor does the NDP. Presumably, he would have remained silent even as the case proceeded to Trial.

Peter Milobar, an MLA in Rustad’s Caucus, was Mayor of Kamloops from 2008 until 2017. He then got into Provincial politics. One would assume that he was aware of the suit.

Elenore Sturko: MLA Willing To Stand Up For Truth

Elenore Sturko, MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale, broke this story. She’s calling for full disclosure on all such claims being advanced in B.C. Courts. Of course, this raises all kinds of questions.

For starters, how and when did she find out?

What Do They Actually Want?

1. A declaration that the Secwepemc Nation holds aboriginal title to all or part of the Stk’emlupsemc te Secwepemc Territory, which is part of Secwepemc Traditional Territory.

2. A declaration that the Secwepemc Nation holds aboriginal title to all or part of the land subject to the Authorizations in the Kamloops region of British Columbia, which is in Secwepemc Traditional Territory;

3. A declaration that the Secwepemc people hold aboriginal rights in all or part of the Stk’emlupsemc te Secwepemc Territory, and in all or part of the land subject to the Authorizations, both of which are part of Secwepemc Traditional Territory, which rightsinclude some or all of the following:
(a) the right to hunt and trap;
(b) the right to fish;
(c) the right to harvest timber;
(d) the right to harvest bark;
(e) the right to harvest berries;
(f) the right to harvest and cultivate plants for food and traditional medicine;
(g) the right to carry on traditional customs and spiritual activities in the historical
location where those activities were and are traditionally carried on;
(h) the right to mine and trade in copper, gold, and other mineral resources;
(i) the right to a Secwepemc economy; and
(j) the right to sustainable watersheds, airshed, and a healthy ecosystem.

4. A declaration that the Authorizations unjustifiably infringe the aboriginal title and/or the aboriginal rights of the Secwepemc Nation;

5. A declaration that continued mining pursuant to the Authorizations would unjustifiably infringe the aboriginal rights and/or aboriginal title of the Secwepemc Nation;

6. A declaration that the Mines Act does not apply to the Secwepemc aboriginal title land;

7. A declaration that the provisions of the Mines Act that cumulatively prohibit the Secwepemc Nation from mining in copper and gold, are unjustifiable infringements of the Secwepemc Nation’s boriginal rights and/or title and are of no force and effect pursuant to s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982;

8. A declaration that the infringements of aboriginal title authorized by British Columbia unlawfully intrude upon Parliament’s exclusive right to legislate in respect of Indians and Lands reserved for the Indians and therefore such authorization and legislation is of no force and effect;

9. Damages for the past and continued infringement of the Secwepemc Nation’s aboriginal rights and/or title;

10. An accounting by British Columbia and/or Canada of all monies received in the form of Crown grants, mineral taxes, property tax, sales tax, corporate income tax, retail sales tax, and lease or other revenues arising out of, or with respect to, the mining of minerals pursuant to the Authorizations;

11. An interim and permanent injunction enjoining any drilling, mining, timber harvesting or road building, or any other activity pursuant to the Authorizations;

12. Interest and costs; and

13. Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court sees fit, including the declarations sought above in respect of such lesser tracts of land as the Court may determine are subject to aboriginal rights or title.

This is from page 25 in the most recent Notice of Civil Claim. There is speculation that this is really a “power play” to prevent mining and development in the area. Of course, if granted, it would effectively hand over the entire city of Kamloops.

Court Case Making Relatively Little Progress

The case has not yet gone to Trial. The Claim has been amended 3 separate times, with the most recent version being in March 2025.

Like with the Cowichan case, it appears that there was no attempt whatsoever to notify property owners (or residents in general) that a verdict could have profound consequences. Rustad was also the Minister when that one was filed in 2014.

The Cowichan case is more nefarious though. Although the case involved Richmond property owners, it was filed in Victoria, presumably to help conceal from the public. The case was also scrubbed from BCCSO entirely, and there are publication bans on certain documents.

Expect a follow-up as things progress.

Sturko MLA Letter Kamloops Action

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Secwepemc Doc 001 Notice Of Civil Claim
(2) Secwepemc Doc 002 Requisition
(3) Secwepemc Doc 003 Requisition
(4) Secwepemc Doc 004 Response To Civil Claim
(5) Secwepemc Doc 005 Response To Civil Claim
(6) Secwepemc Doc 006 Response To Civil Claim
(7) Secwepemc Doc 007 Amended Notice Of Civil Claim
(8) Secwepemc Doc 008 Reply
(9) Secwepemc Doc 009 Reply
(10) Secwepemc Doc 010 Reply
(11) Secwepemc Doc 011 Response To Civil Claim
(12) Secwepemc Doc 013 Consent Order
(13) Secwepemc Doc 015 Requisition
(14) Secwepemc Doc 023 Notice Of Application
(15) Secwepemc Doc 024 Requisition
(16) Secwepemc Doc 025 Requisition And General Adjournment
(17) Secwepemc Doc 028 Requisition
(18) Secwepemc Doc 030 Notice Of Application
(19) Secwepemc Doc 035 Application Response
(20) Secwepemc Doc 038 Application Response
(21) Secwepemc Doc 041 Application Response
(22) Secwepemc Doc 051 Requisition
(23) Secwepemc Doc 058 Consent Order
(24) Secwepemc Doc 060 Consent Order
(25) Secwepemc Doc 062 Consent Order
(26) Secwepemc Doc 066 Consent Order
(27) Secwepemc Doc 067 Further Amended Notice Of Civil Claim
(28) Secwepemc Doc 069 Consent Order
(29) Secwepemc Doc 073 Requisition
(30) Secwepemc Doc 075 Consent Order
(31) Secwepemc Doc 076 Requisition
(32) Secwepemc Doc 080 Requisition
(33) Secwepemc Doc 086 Requisition
(34) Secwepemc Doc 092 Case Plan Order
(35) Secwepemc Doc 095 Consent Order Further Statement Of Claim
(36) Secwepemc Doc 096 Third Amended Notice Of Civil Claim
(37) Secwepemc Doc 103 Method Of Attendance

Posted on

Private Member’s Bill C-413: Jail Time For Residential School “Denialism”

Leah Gazan, New Democrat M.P. for Winnipeg Centre, has made good on an earlier promise. Bill C-413 has now had First Reading in Parliament. If passed, it would ban “Residential School Denialism”, and people could face prison time for doing so.

In case people still think voting matters — for some reason — let’s differentiate between “left wing” politics and “right wing” politics in Canada. Hopefully, this clears things up.

Left Wing Politics: Jail Time For “Residential School Denialism”

Gazan, who is Jewish, touts the “Never Again” motto as a rationale for bringing in this Bill.

Interestingly, she rails against war crimes committed in the Middle East, by Israel. However, she seems to support the same kind of censorship laws that Zionists do regarding the Holocaust. This appears to involve some mental gymnastics, especially given her enthusiasm for abortion.

Anyhow, this is what she recently contributed:

Criminal Code
1 (1) Section 319 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (2.‍1):
Willful promotion of hatred — Indigenous peoples

(2.‍2) Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against Indigenous peoples by condoning, denying, downplaying or justifying the Indian residential school system in Canada or by misrepresenting facts relating to it
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) Subsections 319(4) to (6) of the Act are replaced by the following:
Defences — subsection (2.‍2)
(3.‍2) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.‍2)
(a) if they establish that the statements communicated were true;
.
(b) if, in good faith, they expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
.
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds they believed them to be true; or
.
(d) if, in good faith, they intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward Indigenous peoples.

Forfeiture
(4) If a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), (2), (2.‍1) or (2.‍2) or section 318, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to His Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Exemption from seizure of communication facilities
(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to subsection (1), (2), (2.‍1) or (2.‍2) or section 318.

Consent
(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2), (2.‍1) or (2.‍2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

If the text of Bill C-413 looks familiar, it should. It’s identical to Bill C-250. That was introduced in 2022 by “Conservative” Kevin Waugh to criminalize Holocaust denial. More on that later.

Both this Bill, and the one criminalizing Holocaust denial contain a provision that requires consent from the Attorney General to proceed. While this may be viewed as a safety mechanism, it can also mean that politically motivated cases would be filed only.

The Bill allows for the seizure and forfeiture of “anything in relation to the offence”, which presumably refers to computers and cell phones.

Right Wing Politics: Jail Time For “Holocaust Denial”

The text of Bill C-413 is modelled on Bill C-250, which was started by Kevin Waugh. However, the contents of that Bill were eventually incorporated into a budget, so this became irrelevant. As a result, people who “publicly deny the Holocaust” can now be locked up for 2 years.

This wasn’t just Waugh going rogue. The “Conservative” Party of Canada bragged about this being brought in, at least initially. Although the article was scrubbed, an archive of it is still available.

Things didn’t stop there. Yves-François Blanchet and Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, both part of the Bloc Québécois, introduced Bills C-367 and C-373, respectively. These identical pieces of legislation were aimed at removing the “religious exemption” defence of Holocaust denial.

Back in July 2018, Kevin Waugh took a taxpayer funded trip to Israel. He billed $16,200 for this. It’s apparently commonplace to bring Members of Parliament (and spouses) each year to “foster cultural understanding”. To be fair, it seems to be commonplace that MPs are travelling to other countries at taxpayer expense.

Waugh, Blanchet and Brunelle-Duceppe were all lobbied by CIJA prior to their respective Bills being introduced. This is the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, the Canadian equivalent of AIPAC.

This is the left v.s. right political framework in Canada. There doesn’t seem to be any principled protection or dedication to free speech. Instead, special rules are brought in, depending on the political leanings of the people involved.

Time after time, we are seeing hate speech laws being brought for the protection of a specific group. But, will we ever see any legislation that prohibits the “willful promotion of hatred” against whites? Don’t count on it.

GAZAN’S BILL C-413:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-413
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/leah-gazan(87121)
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-413/first-reading

WAUGH’S BILL C-250:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-250
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/kevin-waugh(89084)
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=521753
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=111&regId=917368&blnk=1
(5) https://www.conservative.ca/mp-waugh-introduces-legislation-to-prohibit-holocaust-denial/
(6) https://archive.ph/fCnNn

BLANCHET’S BILL C-367:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-367
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/yves-francois-blanchet(104669)
(3) https://www.parl.ca/diplomacy/en/groups/cail
(4) https://www.parl.ca/documentviewer/en/IIA/constitution/8385503
(5) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-367/first-reading
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=584234

BRUNELLE-DUCEPPE’S BILL C-373:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/overview
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-373
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/alexis-brunelle-duceppe(104786)
(4) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-373/first-reading
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=592585

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(1) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(2) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(3) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(4) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(5) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(6) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(7) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(8) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(9) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(10.1) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(10.2) Bill C-293: Concerns Raised In Hearings Over Food Supplies
(11) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(12) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(13) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(14) Bill C-373: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism 2.0
(15) Bill C-388: Fast Tracking Weapons, Energy, Gas To Ukraine
(16) Bill C-390: Expanding Euthanasia Into PROVINCIAL Frameworks
(17) Bills C-398/C-399: Homeless Encampments, Immigration “Equity”
(18) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(19) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(20) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(21) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights
(22) Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

Posted on

Private Member’s Bill C-245 DEFEATED: Would Entrench Climate Change Into Canadian Infrastructure Bank

Last year a Private Member’s Bill was defeated, and it wasn’t widely reported. This is interesting because of the subject matter, namely, embedding climate change into the agenda of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. This would have allowed the C.I.B. to become even more of a giant slush fund, doling out money for eco causes.

It was introduced February 8th, 2022, by N.D.P. M.P. Niki Ashton of Manitoba. It was soon defeated in Parliament, on June 22nd.

Of course, the usual disclaimer must be added in: just because this particular Bill was defeated, that doesn’t mean it won’t be reintroduced. Nor does it mean that it won’t be embedded into some larger legislation at some point in the future.

1 Section 6 of the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act is replaced by the following:
.
Purpose of Bank
6 The purpose of the Bank is to invest in infrastructure projects in Canada or partly in Canada that are end in the public interest by, for example, supporting conditions that foster climate change mitigation or adaptation, or by contributing to the sustainability of infrastructure in Canada.

3 Section 7 is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):
Priority
(1.‍1) In carrying out the functions set out in subsection (1), the Bank must give priority to:
(a) investments from public institutions, all levels of governments and Northern and Indigenous communities;
(b) infrastructure projects that propose measures aimed at mitigating or adapting to climate change; and
(c) infrastructure projects that are not harmful to the environment.

4 Section 8 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):
Membership
(1.‍1) The membership of the Board must include at least
(a) one person recommended by an Indigenous organization that represents the interests of First Nations;
(b) one person recommended by an Indigenous organization that represents the interests of the Inuit; and
(c) one person recommended by an Indigenous organization that represents the interests of the Métis.

Worth noting as well: had this Bill passed in its original form, it would have put racial quotas into the Board of the C.I.B.

  • Canadian Climate Institute
  • Environmental Defence Canada
  • ONE Global (Canada)

Environmental Defence Canada is an interesting group to lobby Parliament. Why? Because Nathaniel Wallace, one of their lobbyists, was a Parliamentary Assistant (part Time) for Niki Ashton. No conflict of interest here.

Again, just because this specific Bill was voted down, that doesn’t mean that it won’t come back in some form. Stay vigilant.

Sources:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills?page=3
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-245
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-245/first-reading
(4) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/niki-ashton(36037)
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=536746
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=358871&regId=922011&blnk=1
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=13022&regId=931577

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(A) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(B) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(C) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(D) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(E) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(F) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(G) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(H) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(I) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(J) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(K) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(L) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(M) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(N) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(O) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights

Posted on

Little Pushback On Efforts To Criminalize “Residential School ‘Denialism'”

This was announced a few weeks back, and it would have been worth watching to any of the free speech warriors in power challenge this proposal. But that doesn’t seem to be the case.

Last Fall, Winnipeg Member of Parliament Leah Gazan (N.D.P.) pushed a Motion to formally recognize what happened at Residential Schools as a “genocide”. There was no opposition to the Motion, and it appeared to be coordinated between all parties.

However, that apparently wasn’t enough. Now, Gazan is interested in advancing a Bill to make it a hate crime to deny the genocide in the declaration that she helped advance. Presumably this would impact the Human Rights Code of Canada, but could also be applied to the Criminal Code.

NDP MP Leah Gazan, who got the House of Commons last October to unanimously recognize that genocide occurred at residential schools, now wants to take the issue a step further by drafting legislation to outlaw attempts to deny that genocide and make false assertions about residential schools.

“Denying genocide is a form of hate speech,” said Gazan, who represents the riding of Winnipeg Centre.

“That kind of speech is violent and re-traumatizes those who attended residential school.”

Gazan’s proposal is causing controversy, even among those who want the facts about residential schools widely known. But the Office of Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Marc Miller said he would be interested in reviewing the proposed legislation.

“Residential school denialism attempts to hide the horrors that took place in these institutions,” Miller’s office told CBC News.

This of course flies in the face of the maxim that the best way to counter bad speech is with better speech. It’s unclear whether any such Bill would lead to criminal charges and/or prison sentences for people who violate it.

Gazan’s other legislative efforts include Bill C-223, a guaranteed living income, or U.B.I. She has twice pushed Bill C-232, to create a climate emergency action framework”. She also supports creating a separate notification system for missing Indigenous women. She has also spoken out in favour of decriminalizing sex work (a.k.a. prostitution).

Of course, the precedent for criminalizing “denialism” in Canada has already been set. Kevin Waugh of Manitoba introduced Bill C-250, which would have put Holocaust deniers in prison for up to 2 years.

Far from being shocked by this, the Conservative Party of Canada celebrated efforts by one of their M.P.s to criminalize discussion on a controversial topic. Waugh brought Private Member’s Bill C-250, to do just that. It was ultimately abandoned when near identical provisions were put into Bill C-19, an omnibus budget Bill.

As such, it isn’t really a surprise that the “Official Opposition” isn’t pushing back on efforts to ban denialism of Residential Schools. But will any such legislation actually pass? Who knows?

It’s also uncertain to what degree disagreement would be permitted. It’s not specified whether outright denial would be required to constitute hate speech, or just questioning details within.

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/Leah-Gazan(87121)
(2) https://twitter.com/LeahGazan/status/1585726302044229632
(3) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/should-residential-school-denialism-declared-hate-speech-1.6744100
(4) https://twitter.com/CityNewsTO/status/1628425241717538816
(6) https://toronto.citynews.ca/2023/02/22/red-dress-alert-for-missing-indigenous-women/
(7) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/house-motion-recognize-genocide-1.6632450
(8) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-223
(9) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/43-1/c-232
(10) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/43-2/c-232
(11) https://twitter.com/LeahGazan/status/1630956370244542464

HOLOCAUST DENIAL PUNISHABLE BY PRISON TIME:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-19
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-19/third-reading
(4) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-250
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/kevin-waugh(89084)
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=521753
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=111&regId=917368&blnk=1
(8) https://twitter.com/Paulatics/status/1537078472820006915
(9) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/simons-paula/interventions/581135/47#hID
(10) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iNiV2uAsQg&feature=youtu.be

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress