CLICK HERE, for 2016 Triannual Report from Canada’s Chief Actuary. CLICK HERE, for Chief Actuary’s 2016 Supplemental Report. CLICK HERE, for information on Canada’s “Green Bonds”. CLICK HERE, for a previous article on “green bonds. CLICK HERE, for previous article, $2B in CPP funds sent to India. CLICK HERE, for a Financial Post article suggesting CPP is being used to prop up public sector pensions. CLICK HERE, for a Fraser Institute article on CPP unfunded liabilities.
CLICK HERE, for Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, for sustainability of CPP. Using “closed door approach” there are $884.2B in unfunded liabilities. Turn to pages 46-50.
Middle class Canadians are working harder than ever, but many are worried that they won’t have enough put away for their retirement. One in four families approaching retirement—1.1 million families—are at risk of not saving enough. That is why a stronger Canada Pension Plan (CPP) is a key part of the promise that the Government of Canada made to Canadians to help the middle class and those working hard to join it.
Today, Minister of Finance Bill Morneau tabled the Chief Actuary’s 28th Actuarial Report on the CPP in Parliament. The report confirms that the contribution and benefit levels proposed under the CPP enhancement agreed upon by Canada’s governments on June 20, 2016 will be sustainable over the long term, ensuring that Canadian workers can count on an even stronger, secure CPP for years to come.
On October 6, 2016, the Government of Canada delivered on its commitment to a stronger CPP with the introduction of legislation in Parliament to implement the agreement reached by Canada’s governments to enhance the CPP to give Canadians a stronger public pension that will help them retire in dignity.
This can’t really be taken at face value, as it is all self serving. The notice fails to even acknowledge the elephant in the room, which we will get into.
3. Quotes From Actuary’s 2016 Report
The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) invests base CPP funds according to its own investment policies which take into account the needs of contributors and beneficiaries, as well as financial market constraints. It is expected that a separate investment policy will be developed by the CPPIB with respect to the additional CPP assets. Since at the time of the preparation of the 28th Report there is no such separate investment policy in existence, the real rate of return assumption was developed to reflect the financing objective of the additional Plan. As the actual CPPIB investment strategy for the additional CPP assets becomes known, it will be reflected in subsequent actuarial reports by revising the real rate of return assumption
This is a bit troublesome. It will become “known” to the public, or it will become “known” to the people doing the investments? (Page 15 of report.)
(Page 30 of report.) The CPPIB estimates that the percentage of base contributions from investment profits will creep up, and that the additional CPP will eventually become mostly funded from investment income by 2075.
The future income and outgo of the additional CPP depend on many demographic and economic factors. Thus, many assumptions in respect of the future demographic and economic outlook are required to project the financial state of the additional Plan. These assumptions impact the contribution rates, cash flows, amount of assets, as well as other indicators of the financial state. This section discusses the sensitivity of the minimum first and second additional contribution rates to the use of different assumptions than the best estimate.
Can’t fault the report for admitting it has to make assumptions. However, the trends of the current government are not great. Admitting large numbers of “refugees” who are and will remain a burden will not contribute to public coffers. Nor will vast amounts of seniors or others who won’t work. Furthermore, making industrial projects more difficult (Bills C-48 and C-69), means additional Canadians not working.
The actuarial projections of the financial state of the Canada Pension Plan presented in this report reveal that if the CPP is amended as per Part 1 of Bill C-26, the constant minimum first and second additional contribution rates that result in projected contributions and investment income that are sufficient to fully pay the projected expenditures of the additional Canada Pension Plan would be, respectively, 1.93% for the year 2023 and thereafter and 7.72% for the year 2024 and thereafter.
This report confirms that if the Canada Pension Plan is amended as per Part 1 of Bill C-26, a legislated first additional contribution rate of 2.0% for the year 2023 and thereafter, and a legislated second additional contribution rate of 8.0% for the year 2024 and thereafter, result in projected contributions and investment income that are sufficient to fully pay the projected expenditures of the additional Plan over the long term. Under these rates, assets of the additional Plan would accumulate to $70 billion by 2025, and to $1,330 billion by 2050.
No real surprise. The report concludes that the changes that the Government wants to bring in are exactly what are needed to make the plan sustainable.
4. CPPIB Claims Plan Sustainable Past 2090
Within this strategic framework, fiscal 2017 was a good year for CPPIB. Our diversified portfolio achieved a net return of 11.8% after all costs. Assets increased by $37.8 billion, of which $33.5 billion came from the net income generated by CPPIB from investment activities, after all costs, and $4.3 billion from net contributions to the CPP. Our 10-year real rate of return of 5.1%, after all CPPIB costs, remains above the 3.9% average rate of return that the Chief Actuary of Canada assumes in assessing the sustainability of the CPP. In his latest triennial review issued in September 2016, the Chief Actuary reported that the Base CPP is sustainable until at least 2090.
CPPIB toots its own horn, stating that the plan is sustainable at least until 2090. Page 5 is a quote from the 2017 annual report.
5. Quotes From 2019 CPPIB Annual Report
This is a graph included at the beginning of the report (page 3). It projects that by the year 2040, the Canada Pension Plan will have over $1.5 trillion in assets. This is in comparison to the $393 billion that there currently is.
It shows that actual assets have been higher than projected assets for the last 3 years.
The most recent triennial report by the Chief Actuary of Canada indicated that the CPP is sustainable over a 75-year projection period. Projections of the CPP Fund, being the combined assets of the base and additional CPP accounts, are based on the nominal projections from the 29th Actuarial Report supplementing the 27th and 28th Actuarial Reports on the Canada Pension Plan as at December 31, 2015.
The report shows a graph with projected assets. However, it doesn’t seem to address liabilities. Specifically, the pension contributions of much younger people who are paying into the system and are entitled to get it out when they retire.
This is impressive. Over the last decade, $239 billion has been added to the fund, an equivalent of 11% annual growth. Of course, one may be forgiven for asking why premiums are so high if it’s all just going into a government fund.
6. CPPIB Claims Fund Is Worth Billions
Note: The sources for this data is in all of the annual reports, going back a decade, which are linked up in SECTION 1.
Inv. Income refers to investment income. This is money CPPIB claims that the funds make annually. Notice the rate of return varies from 6-18%. That is money that CPPIB makes, not money that YOU will be making from the pension plan.
Value of Fund
Rate of Return
The value of the pension fund is skyrocketing? Isn’t it? Looking at the values from the annual reports, it has tripled in value in just a decade. This is incredible growth.
What then is the problem?
7. CPPIB Has Billions In Unfunded Liabilities
Not just billions, but hundreds of billions in liabilities.
The Plan is intended to be long-term and enduring in nature, a fact that is reinforced by the federal, provincial, and territorial governments’ joint stewardship through the established strong governance and accountability framework of the Plan. Therefore, if the Plan’s financial sustainability is to be measured based on its asset excess or shortfall, it should be done so on an open group basis that reflects the partially funded nature of the Plan, that is, its reliance on both future contributions and invested assets as means of financing its future expenditures. The inclusion of future contributions and benefits with respect to both current and future participants in the assessment of the Plan’s financial state confirms that the Plan is able to meet its financial obligations over the long term1 2
What is the difference between open group basis and closed group basis?
The open group approach addresses assets and liabilities with respect to their expectations v.s. reality. The closed group approach, however, measures total assets and liabilities. And to see how much of a difference it makes, see the following two screenshots.
If you use the open group approach, everything looks fine. Reality comes very close to what you are expecting. However, the “closed group approach” takes everything into account, not just expectations.
Remember, when younger workers are paying into CPP, the organization has the money, but it isn’t theirs. It belongs to the workers, even if they won’t retire for 20, 30, or 40 years. The only way “open group approach” works is if the CPPIB had no intention of paying younger workers back.
All things considered, Canada Pension Plan is short $884.2 billion (as of 2016). This is if you don’t use selective accounting.
Paying off current obligations, by taking money from new people. Isn’t that how a ponzi scheme works? To be fair though, there is “some” investing done by CPPIB. It’s just that the bulk of the new money comes from the younger suckersworkers.
Guess this partially explains why all parties are so pro-mass-migration. Workers are needed to be shipped in to contribute deductions to fund the shortfall.
8. Is CPP Used To Prop Up Public Pensions?
As the federal and provincial governments continue discussing changes to the Canada Pension Plan, it is worth recalling that there are no public discussions of the most important pension issue in Canada: The unsustainable gap between the pensions of public servants and most everyone else. In fact, some critics maintain that the push to expand the CPP is driven by an unspoken need to prop up public-sector pension plans a little longer. However, doing so will only delay the inevitable overhaul of both the benefits and the funding of public-sector pensions.
The key issues surrounding public-service pension-plan benefits are mostly unspoken, both to their members and to taxpayers. Public-sector unions allow their members to believe the fiction that members contribute a fair share of their own retirement benefits, when really, the vast majority is funded by taxpayers. Few people appreciate how the CPP is folded into public-sector pension benefits: since benefits are “defined” in advance, an increase in CPP benefits reduces the amount that a public-sector pension needs to pay out to retired workers (leaving unchanged the total benefit payout to public-sector retirees). Meanwhile, taxpayers are kept in the dark about the full measure of unfunded future benefits they will have to pay, even as they shoulder more of the burden for their own retirement.
That is a theory floated over the years. Unfortunately, it gets difficult to prove given how CPPIB will not be honest about their $884.2 billion in unfunded liabilities. Their annual reports seem designed to conceal the truth.
An interesting argument though. If public sector union workers are retiring (or are retired), then they have likely been promised a good pension. However, if those union funds can’t cover it, would CPP be dipped into to make up the difference?
9. CPPIB “Invests” 85% Outside Of Canada
(From page 11 of the 2019 report)
Our 2025 strategy With two decades under our belt, CPPIB has hit its stride and truly knows its potential as a global active manager of capital. Last year, I wrote about the Board-approved strategic direction for CPPIB in 2025. Over this past year, we’ve continued to refine this 2025 strategy, and chart the course for the coming years.
Pillars of our 2025 plan include investing up to one-third of the Fund in emerging markets such as China, India and Latin America, increasing our opportunity set and pursuing the most attractive risk-adjusted returns. We have reoriented our investment departments to deliver on this growth plan, to manage a larger Fund and to achieve our desired geographic and asset diversification.
To ask the obvious question: why is the CPPIB so eager to plow its money into FOREIGN ventures? Wouldn’t putting the bulk of it into Canadian projects make more sense?
This is not just a return-on-investment issue. Plowing that money into Canadian industries would help Canadians, and help drive Canadian employment, would it not? This is supposed to be a “Canadian” pension fund.
(From page 13 of the 2019 report). The CPPIB expects that by 2050, nearly 1/2 of all income to the pension plan will be from interest and dividends on its portfolio
For reference, the fund value is calculated using this rough formula
Employee & Employer CPP Contributions + Fund Investment Returns – CPP payouts = Value
So how much of CPPIB investments are in Canada?
That’s right, just 15.5% in Canada. The other 84.5% is invested abroad. Where specifically is this money going?
(1) Midstream joint venture United States US$1.34 billion Formed a joint venture with Williams to establish midstream exposure in the U.S., with initial ownership stakes in two of Williams’ midstream systems.
(2) Grand Paris development Paris, France Formed a joint venture with CMNE, La Française’s majority shareholder, to develop real estate projects linked to the Grand Paris project, a significant infrastructure initiative in Paris.
(3) Ultimate Software United States Total value: US$11 billion Acquired a leading global provider of cloud-based human capital management solutions, alongside consortium partners Hellman & Friedman, Blackstone and GIC. (4) CPPIB Green Bond Issuance Canada and Europe C$1.5 billion/€$1.0 billion First pension fund to issue green bonds in 10-year fixed-rate notes. Our inaugural Green Bond was a Canadian dollar-denominated bond, followed by a eurodenominated bond.
(5) ChargePoint United States Total value: US$240 million Invested as part of a funding round in preferred shares of ChargePoint, the world’s leading electric vehicle charging network.
(6) European logistics facilities Europe €450 million Formed a partnership with GLP and Quadreal to develop modern logistics facilities in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Belgium.
(7) Companhia Energética de São Paulo (CESP) São Paulo, Brazil R$1.9 billion Together with Votorantim Energia, acquired a controlling stake in CESP, a Brazilian hydro-generation company.
(8) Pacifico Sur Mexico C$314 million (initial) Signed an agreement alongside Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan to acquire a 49% stake in a 309-kilometre toll road in Mexico from IDEAL.
(9) WestConnex Sydney, Australia Total value: A$9.26 billion Invested in WestConnex, a 33-kilometre toll road project in Sydney, alongside consortium partners Transurban, AustralianSuper and ADIA.
(10) Logistics facilities Korea Up to US$500 million Partnered with ESR to invest in modern logistics facilities in Korea.
(11) Challenger fund Australia and New Zealand A$500 million Partnered with Challenger Investment Partners to invest in middle-market real estate loans in Australia and New Zealand.
(12) Ant Financial China US$600 million Invested in Ant Financial, a company with an integrated technology platform and an ecosystem of partners to bring more secure and transparent financial services to individuals and small businesses.
(13) Renewable power assets Canada, U.S., Germany C$2.25 billion Acquired 49% of Enbridge’s interests in a portfolio of North American onshore wind and solar assets and two German offshore wind projects, and agreed to form a joint venture to pursue future European offshore wind investment opportunities.
(14) Berlin Packaging United States US$500 million Invested US$500 million in the recapitalization of Berlin Packaging L.L.C. alongside Oak Hill Capital Partners. Berlin Packaging is a leading supplier of packaging products and services to companies in multiple industries.
That’s right. Our Canadian pension fund is being used to prop up projects in: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Germany, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, South Korea, Spain and the United States.
We won’t invest in Canadian industries, but we will bail them out. Great idea.
What about item #4, those green bonds?
10. CPPIB Endorses Climate Change Scam
So called green bonds are now available for sale. So state the obvious, if climate change were really a threat to humanity, then this is blatantly taking advantage of it.
Support for environmental companies or projects and clean technology is a strategic priority for EDC as demand rises for goods and services that allow for a more efficient use of the planet’s resources. Opportunities to create trade are abundant in this sector and Canada possesses a large pool of both established and emerging expertise in clean technology subsectors such as water and wastewater, biofuel, and waste to energy, to name a few.
Eligible transactions will include loans that help mitigate climate change with clean technology or improved energy efficiency. They also include transactions that specifically focus on soil, or help mitigate climate change. Our rigorous due diligence requirements ensure that all projects and transactions we support are financially, environmentally and socially responsible.
What happens when it becomes politically untenable for these globalist politicians to keep wasting taxpayer money on this hoax? Will it collapse? Will we have to perpetuate the lie in order to ensure that our “investments” don’t disappear?
Another factor that is reshaping the global investment environment is climate change. As a long-term investor, understanding environmental impacts on our investments is a key consideration and we continue to chart both the risks and opportunities stemming from climate change. This year, we launched our inaugural Green Bond, becoming the first pension fund to do so. We followed that with a euro-denominated offering. These issuances provide additional funding for CPPIB as it increases its holdings in renewables and energy-efficient buildings as world demand gradually transitions in favour of such investible assets.
(From Page 10 of the 2019 report.) Perhaps no one informed them that the climate change agenda is a scam, and has become a money pit.
This is hardly the first time that green bonds have come up. It will not be the last either.
When they say “risks and opportunities”, what are the opportunities? Will it be investing in a bubble that is sure to burst? Will it be taking advantage of desperate people?
Euro-denominated offerings? Why, is it a bigger market there?
11. What You Aren’t Being Told
The CPPIB admits that the bulk of its fund (around 85%) is actually invested outside of the country. That’s right, Canadians’ pension contributions being used to finance foreign investments. People assume that their money will be recirculated locally, but that is not the case.
CPPIB admits that it embraces the climate change scam. It goes as far as to endorse so-called “green bonds”. Again, this isn’t something the average person would know.
There is a credible case to be made that CPP funds are being used to top of public sector accounts, which are underfunded.
The CPP Investment Board intentionally distorts the truth about the unfunded liabilities. Using the OPEN GROUP approach, they show that actual assets are very close to expected assets, and they can cover their liabilities.
However, the more honest CLOSED GROUP approach will address “all” assets and liabilities, not just current ones. As it turns out, in 2016, the Canada Pension Plan had $285.4B in assets, and $1169.5B ($1.169.5 trillion) in liabilities. This works out to a $884.2B shortfall.
CPP is grossly underfunded.
CPP is being used to top up public pensions.
CPP is being invested in “green” schemes.
CPP is mainly being “invested” out of Canada.
CPP requires ever growing populations.
In short, we are screwed.
CLICK HERE, for Part 1, proposed Canada/China Free Trade Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for WTO reference on Canada’s Multilevel Governance, Public Policy. CLICK HERE, for Bill C-57, World Trade Org. Implementation Act. CLICK HERE, for 1996 Trilateral agenda.
CLICK HERE, for an article on Investor State Dispute impacting poor countries. CLICK HERE, for Canadian Gov’t Link to Chapter 11 Cases. CLICK HERE, for NAFTA arbitrations against Canada CLICK HERE, for Ethyl Corp wanting $201M over MMT additive ban. CLICK HERE, for SD Myers wants $53M for PCB ban. CLICK HERE, for Pope & Talbot’s $500M softwood lumber suit. CLICK HERE, for USPS, $165M for unfair subsidies to Canada Post. CLICK HERE, for Sun Belt wanting $1.5B-$10B for lost water rights.
CLICK HERE, for the Multilateral Agreement on Investment document CLICK HERE, for a draft version of the MAI. CLICK HERE, for IMF blogs, which covers a variety of topics. CLICK HERE, for members of the Triateral Commission. CLICK HERE, for the Trilateral Commission. CLICK HERE, for biography of Roy MacLaren.
CLICK HERE, for job loss report from Economic Policy Institute, a US-based think tank. 900,000 due to NAFTA CLICK HERE, for EPI estimates for US job losses to China. 3.4 million (from 2001-2017)
2. Interesting Points From Bev Collins Video
-Semiconductor, aerospace, telecommunications industries were dismantled and sold off
-Mulroney gave QC special negotiating powers in event of succession
-Business Council on National Issues had $56M to market NAFTA
-600,000 jobs lost to free trade
-Small businesses gutted, corporations thrived
-92% of foreign investment came in to take over Canadian companies
-13,000 Canadian companies lost in meantime
-10,000 of those taken over by US transnationals
-1993 election, NAFTA huge issue, Mulroney/Campbell Gov’t wiped out
-Concern over water being sold off as commodity
-Liberals signed NAFTA “as is” in January 1994
-Roy MacLaren “both” Minister for International Trade and sat on the Trilateral Commission, a lobbying group.
-Canada push for a World Trade Body (Bill C-57)
-UN has 3 pillars:
Financial pillars (IMF)
World Trade Organization
-Costs Canada $275M/annually to sit on committee
-IMF supposed to arrange short term loans to 3rd World
-World Bank set up for long term development funds
-Canada funded 3 Rivers Gorges Dam in China
-Export Development Corporation spends $40B, unaudited, unaccountable
-“Investor State Suit” Clause allows Trans-Nats
-Ethyl Corp sued Canada b/c of MMT gasoline additive ban
-SD Myers sued Canada over PCB ban
-Pope & Talbot sued over softwood lumber quota
-Much of Ontario manufacturing base lost
-Multilateral Agreement on Investment launched not long after NAFTA
-lawsuit against MAI, Judge Dube friends with PM Jean Chretien
-29 MAI delegates shut out of talks
-MAI eventually destroyed, but content moved over to Free Trade Area of the Americas
-Prelude to mass migration. If goods and money are borderless, then isn’t this the next logical step?
-Canada can find its wages driven down
-Unions themselves now seen as barrier to trade
-WTO ruled against airline subsidizes
-43,000 agricultural producers lost to bankruptcy
-Many SK farms bought up at huge discount
3. Canada’s Bill C-57
From the WTO page:
In 1994 the Canadian Parliament adopted legislation to implement the Uruguay Round with virtually no opposition. The measure was easily passed by the House of Commons with a vote of 185-7. There was general acceptance that the World Trade Organization (WTO) was a necessity for Canada both to participate and to compete in the new international order. Not only did legislators believe that the WTO Agreement would enhance and facilitate Canadian exports, but there also was an expectation among parliamentarians that the new rules-based dispute settlement mechanism would act as a counter-force to US unilateralism in the international arena. Roy McLaren, the Minister for International Trade, explained that the arrangements would particularly benefit ‘small and medium-size trade players like Canada, which are inherently vulnerable to the threat of unilateralism by the economic giants’
McLaren was wrong. This arrangement does not benefit small and medium trade players like Canada. In fact, it will weaken Canada immensely, and lead to job losses and erosion of our sovereignty. Jere a few quotes from the WTO Agreement Implementation Act.
Prohibition of private cause of action under Agreement
6 No person has any cause of action and no proceedings of any kind shall be taken, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada, to enforce or determine any right or obligation that is claimed or arises solely under or by virtue of the Agreement.
This is a red flag. Nothing happens in Court unless the Attorney General of Canada signs off on it.
Non-application of Agreement to water
7 (1) For greater certainty, nothing in this Act or the Agreement, except the Canadian Schedule to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 set out in Annex 1A to the Agreement, applies to water.
This is promising though. Water was specifically excluded from NAFTA. Concerns were that once exports started, there would be no way to stop it.
Suspension of concessions to non-WTO Members
(2) The Governor in Council may, with respect to a country that is not a WTO Member, by order, do any one or more of the following: (a) suspend rights or privileges granted by Canada to that country or to goods, service providers, suppliers, investors or investments of that country under any federal law; (b) modify or suspend the application of any federal law with respect to that country or to goods, service providers, suppliers, investors or investments of that country;
(c) extend the application of any federal law to that country or to goods, service providers, suppliers, investors or investments of that country; and
(d) take any other measure that the Governor in Council considers necessary.
In short, this allows Canada to screw over non-WTO countries. Great way to force 3rd World nations in jumping on board. This is economic extortion.
4. Chapter 11, National Treatment Clause
This clause has been the basis of many lawsuits, since the text states that foreign companies must be treated the same as domestic companies.
Article 1102: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
2. Each Party shall accord to investments of investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments of its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
3. The treatment accorded by a Party under paragraphs 1 and 2 means, with respect to a state or province, treatment no less favorable than the most favorable treatment accorded, in like circumstances, by that state or province to investors, and to investments of investors, of the Party of which it forms a part.
4. For greater certainty, no Party may:
(a) impose on an investor of another Party a requirement that a minimum level of equity in an enterprise in the territory of the Party be held by its nationals, other than nominal qualifying shares for directors or incorporators of corporations; or
(b) require an investor of another Party, by reason of its nationality, to sell or otherwise dispose of an investment in the territory of the Party.
And “who” has been suing Canada under Chapter 11 of NAFTA?
Cases filed against the Government of Canada
Ongoing arbitrations to which Canada is a party
Lone Pine Resources Inc.
Mobil Investments Canada Inc.
Resolute Forest Products Inc.
Tennant Energy, LLC.
Westmoreland Coal Company
Concluded arbitrations to which Canada was a party
Centurion Health Corporation
Detroit International Bridge Company
Dow AgroSciences LLC
Eli Lilly and Company
Mercer International Inc.
Merrill & Ring Forestry L.P.
Mesa Power Group LLC
Mobil Investments Inc. and Murphy Oil Corporation
Pope & Talbot Inc.
S.D. Myers Inc.
St. Marys VCNA, LLC
United Parcel Service of America, Inc. (UPS)
V. G. Gallo
Windstream Energy LLC
Withdrawn or inactive claims
Contractual Obligation Productions, LLC, Charles Robert Underwood and Carl Paolino
GL Farms LLC and Carl Adams
William Jay Greiner and Malbaie River Outfitters Inc.
open access to information, about the various court proceedings. But do take a look. They almost all involve an alleged breach of the “National Treatment” Clause.
Now, this “only covers lawsuits against Canada. There have also been plenty of them against the US and Mexico for violating NAFTA.
5. Multilateral Agreement on Investment
2. Investment means: Every kind of asset owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by an investor, including: 1, 2
(i) an enterprise (being a legal person or any other entity constituted or organised under the applicable law of the Contracting Party, whether or not for profit, and whether private or government owned or controlled, and includes a corporation, trust, partnership, sole proprietorship, branch, joint venture, association or organisation);
(ii) shares, stocks or other forms of equity participation in an enterprise, and rights derived therefrom;
(iii) bonds, debentures, loans and other forms of debt, and rights derived therefrom;
(iv) rights under contracts, including turnkey, construction, management, production or revenue-sharing contracts;
(v) claims to money and claims to performance;
(vi) intellectual property rights;
(vii) rights conferred pursuant to law or contract such as concessions, licenses, authorisations, and permits;
(viii) any other tangible and intangible, movable and immovable property, and any related property rights, such as leases, mortgages, liens and pledges.
And remember that “National Treatment Clause”?
III. TREATMENT OF INVESTORS AND INVESTMENTS NATIONAL TREATMENT AND MOST FAVOURED NATION TREATMENT
1. Each Contracting Party shall accord to investors of another Contracting Party and to their investments, treatment no less favourable than the treatment it accords [in like circumstances] to its own investors and their investments with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, operation, management, maintenance, use, enjoyment and sale or other disposition of investments.
This would be the investment equivalent of NAFTA. All forms of investments would have to be given equal considerations. Although it was eventually stopped, the contents are still being considered for other opportunities.
6. Trilateral Commission
So, who founds the Trilateral Commission?
Where are they from?
Founding Members David Rockefeller was the principal founder of the Trilateral Commission in mid-1973. He served on the executive committee and was North American chairman from mid-1977 through November 1991. He is now honorary chairman and a lifetime trustee of the Commission.
Zbigniew Brzezinski played an important role in the formation of the Commission and served as its first director from 1973 to 1976. After serving in the Carter administration, Dr. Brzezinski rejoined the Commission in 1981 and served on the executive committee until 2009.
Other early North Americans leaders were Gerard C. Smith, first North American chairman; Jean-Luc Pepin, who headed the Canadian Group; and George S. Franklin, regional secretary. Richard Cooper, Henry Owen, and Philip Tresize were members of the first political, monetary, and trade task forces to report to the Commission.
Max Kohnstamm of the Netherlands was the first European chairman and Wolfgang Hager the first regional secretary. Georges Berthoin of France, one of the first members from the European Community and a former European chairman, is now an honorary European chairman. Otto Graf Lambsdorff, another original European member and former European chairman, served as honorary European chairman until his death in 2009. François Duchène, Claudio Sergré, and Don Guido Colonna di Paliano were the European authors of the first task force reports.
If nothing else, it is refreshing to be honest about who is founding it. Now to get to the trickier question of why it was formed.
I. What is the Trilateral Commission? When and why was it formed?
The Trilateral Commission is a non-governmental, policy-oriented discussion group of about 390 distinguished citizens from Europe, North America, and Pacific Asia formed to encourage understanding and closer cooperation among these three regions on shared global problems.
The idea of the Commission was developed in the early 1970s. This was a time of considerable discord among the United States and its democratic industrialized allies in Western Europe, Japan, and Canada. There was also a sense that the international system was changing in some basic ways with rather uncertain implications. Change was most obvious in the international economy, as Western Europe and Japan gained strength and the position of the U.S. economy became less dominant. The increase in global interdependence was affecting the United States in ways to which it was not accustomed.
When they talk about closer cooperation and understanding, these are really code words for “globalism”. Eliminate borders to trade, to financial services, and eventually, to people moving.
This all sounds lovely, but it is incrementally erasing nations. Not an accident, and quite intentional.
7. Commission/Parliament Conflict of Interest
Bev Collins is absolutely right about conflict of interest going on in the Canadian Parliament. Here are two egregious examples:
Roy Maclaren, is a former Minister of International Trade (1996-2000). He was also sitting on the Trilateral Commission the entire time it seems.
Bill Graham is a former Minister of Foreign Affairs, and also a member of the Trilateral Commission.
Canada’s Minister of International Trade, and also Minister of Foreign Affairs were also sitting on a Commission that promotes ever growing free trade agreements?! How does that look? But that’s hardly the whole picture.
NORTH AMERICAN GROUP
. Bertrand-Marc Allen, President, Boeing International, Arlington Graham Allison, Director, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; former Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government; former Special Advisor to the Secretary of Defense and former Assistant Secretary of Defense Rona Ambrose, former MP, former Interim Leader, Conservative Party; former Minister on the Status of Women, Environment, Health and Public Works, Ottawa Dominic Barton, Worldwide Managing Director, McKinsey & Company, London *Catherine Bertini, Professor, Public Administration and International Affairs, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University; Distinguished Fellow, The Chicago Council on Global Affairs Herminio Blanco Mendoza, Chairman, IQOM, Mexico City; former Mexican Secretary of Commerce and Industrial Development; former Chief NAFTA Negotiator Michael Bloomberg, Founder and CEO, Bloomberg LP, NewYork; fomer Mayor of New York City Esther Brimmer, Executive Director and CEO, NAFSA, Association for International Educators, Washington R. Nicholas Burns, Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy and International Politics and Member of the Board, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Jean Charest, Former Premier of Québec; former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, Montréal *Michael Chertoff, Chairman and Co-Founder, The Chertoff Group; former Secretary of Homeland Security; Former Judge, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; Former Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Justice, Washington Raymond Chrétien, Partner and Strategic Advisor, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Montreal, QC; Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Montréal Council on Foreign Relations (MCFR); former Associate Under Secretary of State of External Affairs; former Ambassador to the Congo, Belgium, Mexico, the United States, and France Timothy Collins, CEO and Senior Managing Director, Ripplewood Holdings, Inc., New York Richard N. Cooper, Maurits C. Boas Professor of International Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge; former Chairman, National Intelligence Council; former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Heidi Crebo-Rediker, CEO, International Capital Strategies, Washington; former Chief Economist, State Department Lee Cullum, Contributing Columnist, Dallas Morning News; Radio and Television Commentator, Dallas Luis de la Calle, Managing Director and Founding Partner, De la Calle, Madrazo, Mancera, S.C. (CMM), Mexico City; former Undersecretary for International Trade Negotiations Arthur A. DeFehr, CEO, Palliser Furniture Holdings Ltd., Winnipeg André Desmarais, President and Co-Chief Executive Officer, Power Corporation of Canada, Montréal; Deputy Chairman, Power Financial Corporation John M. Deutch, Institute Professor emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge; former Director of Central Intelligence; former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense and Undersecretary of Energy Paula J. Dobriansky, Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; Vice Chair, National Executive Committee, U.S. Water Partnership; former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Wendy Dobson, Professor and Co-Director, Institute for International Business, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto; former Canadian Associate Deputy Minister of Finance Gary Doer, former Canadian Ambassador to the United States, Winnipeg Thomas Donilon, Partner and Vice Chair, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington; Non-resident Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University; former U.S. National Security Advisor *Kenneth M. Duberstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, The Duberstein Group, Washington; former Chief of Staff to President Ronald Reagan Michael Duffy, former Executive Editor, TIME Magazine, Washington Douglas Elmendorf, Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge Richard Falkenrath, Chief Security Officer, Bridgewater Associates, Westport Dawn Farrell, President and CEO, TransAlta Corporation, Calgary Diana Farrell, Chief Executive Officer and President, JPMorgan Chase Institute, Washington; former Deputy Director, National Economic Council, and Deputy Assistant to the President for Economic Policy Martin S. Feldstein, George F. Baker Professor of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge; President Emeritus, National Bureau of Economic Research; former Chairman, Council of Economic Advisors Linda Frum, Member, Senate of Canada, Ottawa Juan Gallardo, Chairman of the Board, Grupo Embotelladoras Unidas, SA de CV, Mexico City *David R. Gergen, Professor of Public Service and Director of the Center for Public Leadership, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; CNN Senior Political Analyst Gordon Giffin, Partner, Dentons US LLP, Atlanta; former U.S. Ambassador to Canada Donald Gogel, President and Chief Executive Officer, Clayton Dubilier and Rice, Inc., New York Jamie S. Gorelick, Partner, WilmerHale, Washington; former Deputy Attorney General; former General Counsel, Department of Defense Bill Graham Chancellor, Trinity College, University of Toronto; former Member, House of Commons; former Minister of Foreign Affairs and former Minister of Defense, Ottawa Donald Graham, Chairman and CEO of Graham Holdings Company, former owner of The Washington Post Company, Washington Peter Harder, Member, Senate of Canada, Ottawa *Jane Harman, Director, President, and CEO, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington; former Member, U.S. House of Representatives Linda Hasenfratz, President and CEO, Linamar Corporation, Ontario Carlos Heredia, Associate Professor, Department of International Studies, Center for Research and Teaching in Economics (CIDE), Mexico City; Coordinator, Program for the Study of the United States, CIDE John B. Hess, Chairman of the Board and CEO, Hess Corporation, New York *Carla A. Hills, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Hills & Company, Washington; former U.S. Trade Representative; former U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development *Karen Elliott House, writer, Princeton, NJ; Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; former Senior Vice President, Dow Jones & Company, and Publisher, The Wall Street Journal Joseph K. Hurd, III, former Director, Emerging Business, Facebook, Menlo Park David Ignatius, Columnist, The Washington Post, Washington Merit E. Janow, Dean of the Faculty and Professor of Practice, International Economic Law and International Affairs, Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), New York; former Member, Appellate Body from North America, World Trade Organization P. Thomas Jenkins, Chair, Open Text, Waterloo; Chair, National Research Council of Canada Lewis Kaden, Chairman, Markle Foundation Board of Directors; Former Vice Chairman, Citigroup, New York Andy Karsner, Managing Partner of the Emerson Collective; Senior Strategist at X; former Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Juliette Kayyem, Lecturer in Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; Former Columnist, Boston Globe Timothy Keating, Senior Vice President, Government Operations, The Boeing Company, Arlington Colin Kenny, Member, Senate of Canada, Ottawa; former Special Assistant, Director of Operations, and Assistant Principal Secretary, to the Rt. Hon. P. E. Trudeau; Member, Special Senate Committee on Terrorism and Security, Special Joint Committee on Canadian Defence Policy; former Chair of Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence Robert M. Kimmitt, Senior International Counsel, WilmerHale, Washington; former U.S. Deputy Secretary of the Treasury; former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs; former U.S. Ambassador to Germany Henry A. Kissinger, Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc., New York; former U.S. Secretary of State; former Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs; Lifetime Trustee, Trilateral Commission Nicholas Kristof, Columnist, The New York Times, Scarsdale Stephanie Kusie, Member of Parliament, House of Commons, Ottawa Fred Langhammer, Chairman, Global Affairs, The Estée Lauder Companies, Inc., New York Hélène Laverdière, Member of Parliament, House of Commons, Ottawa *Monique Leroux, Chair of the Board of Investissement, Québec Andrew Leslie, Member of Parliament, House of Commons, Ottawa Marne Levine, former Chief Operating Officer, Instagram, Menlo Park Santiago Levy, Vice President for Sectors and Knowledge, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington David Lipton, First Deputy Managing Director, International Monetary Fund, Washington Linda Koch Lorimer, CEO, Abundantior; former Vice President for Global & Strategic Initiatives, Yale University *John Manley, Chair CIBC, CIBC Bank USA, and Chair CAE Inc. Judith A. McHale, President and Chief Executive Officer, Cane Investments, LLC, Hastings on Hudson; former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs; former President and Chief Executive Officer, Discovery Communications Thomas F. McLarty, III, President, McLarty Asssociates, Washington; former Chief of Staff to President Clinton Lourdes Melgar, Energy Scholar, MIT Center for International Studies, Mexico City Jami Miscik, President and Vice Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc., New York; former Deputy Director for Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency Andrea Mitchell, Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, NBC News, Washington Adm. Michael Mullen (Ret.), CEO, MGM Consulting, Annapolis; former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Heather Munroe-Blum, Chair of the Board, Canada Pension Investment Fund; Principal Emerita and Professor, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Toronto Lori Esposito Murray, Distinguished Chair for National Security, U.S. Naval Academy; former President & Chief Executive Officer, World Affairs Councils of America; former Special Advisor to the President on the Chemical Weapons Convention; former Assistant Director, U.S. Arms Control & Disarmament Agency John D. Negroponte, Vice Chairman, McLarty Associates, Washington; former Deputy Secretary of State; former Director of National Intelligence; former Ambassador to the United Nations, Honduras, Mexico, the Philippines and Iraq *Joseph S. Nye, Jr., University Distinguished Service Professor and former Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; former Chair, National Intelligence Council; former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs; former North American Chairman, Trilateral Commission *Meghan L. O’Sullivan, Evron and Jeane Kirkpatrick Professor of the Practice of International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; former Special Assistant to President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan; North American Chairman, Trilateral Commission Thomas R. Pickering, Vice Chair, Hills & Company, Washington; former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs; former U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation, India, Israel, El Salvador, Nigeria, Jordan, and the United Nations; former Senior Vice President, International Relations, Boeing Company John A. Quelch, Vice Provost for Education and Dean, School of Business Administration, University of Miami, Miami John Risley, Chairman and President, Clearwater, Bedford Andrés Rozental, former Mexican Deputy Foreign Minister; Nonresident Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Latin America Initiative, Brookings Institution, Mexico City David M. Rubenstein, Co-founder and Managing Director, The Carlyle Group, Washington *Luis Rubio, President, Mexican Council on Foreign Relations; Chairman, Center for Research Development (CIDAC), Mexico City Indira Samarasekera, Senior Advisor, Bennett Jones LLP, Vancouver David Sanger, Chief Washington Correspondent, The New York Times, Adjunct Lecturer in Public Policy, Harvard University, Cambridge Eric Schmidt, Technical Advisor and Board Member, Alphabet Inc., Mountain View Susan Schwab, Professor, Maryland School of Public Policy, University of Maryland, College Park; former U.S. Trade Representative Gerald Seib, Executive Washington Editor, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Jaime Serra, Chairman, SAI Law and Economics; Founder, Aklara, the Arbitration Center of Mexico, and the NAFTA Fund of Mexico, Mexico City; Deputy Chairman, North American Trilateral Commission Rajiv Shah, President, Rockefeller Foundation; Distinguished Fellow in Residence, Edward A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington; former Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development Wendy Sherman, Senior Advisor, Albright Stonebridge Group; Resident Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics; former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Jeffrey Simpson, Senior Fellow, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa; former National Affairs Columnist, The Globe and Mail, Senior Fellow, University of Ottawa, Ottawa Olympia Snowe, Former U.S. Senator; Senior Fellow, Bipartisan Policy Center, Portland Cecilia Soto Gonzalez, Federal Congresswoman, Mexico City Nancy Southern, President and Chief Executive Officer, ATCO Ltd. and Canadian Utilities Limited, Calgary *James B. Steinberg, former Dean, Maxwell School, and University Professor of Social Science, International Affairs and Law, Syracuse University, Syracuse; former Deputy Secretary of State, former Deputy National Security Advisor *Carole Taylor, Chancellor Emeritus, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver; former Minister of Finance, British Columbia; former Chair, CBC/Radio-Canada; former Chair, Canada Ports; public affairs broadcaster Luis Téllez Kuenzler, Special Advisor, KKR, President, NTT Everis; former Chairman of the Board, Mexican Stock Exchange, Mexico City; former Secretary of Communications and Transportation of Mexico G. Richard Thoman, Managing Partner, Corporate Perspectives, New York; Adjunct Professor of International Business, Columbia University; Professor of Practice in International Business, the Fletcher School, Tufts University; former President and Chief Executive Officer, Xerox Corporation; former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, IBM Corporation *Frances Townsend, Senior Vice President, Worldwide Government, Legal and Business Affairs, MacAndrews & Forbes Inc., New York; former Assistant to the President for Homeland Security Melanne Verveer, Executive Director, Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security, Georgetown University, Washington Guillermo F. Vogel, Director and Vice President of the Board, Tenaris, Mexico City *Paul A. Volcker, former Chairman, President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board; former Chairman, Wolfensohn & Co., Inc., New York; Frederick H. Schultz Professor Emeritus, International Economic Policy, Princeton University; former Chairman, Board of Governors, U.S. Federal Reserve System; Honorary North American Chairman and former North American Chairman, Trilateral Commission Yuen Pau Woo, Member of Parliament, House of Commons, Ottawa Robert Zoellick, Chairman, Alliance Bernstein, New York; former President, The World Bank Daniel Yergin, Vice Chairman, IHS, Cambridge
And no, job losses are not just an American problem. According to Statistics Canada, there were some very alarming trends across the developed world.
Shrinking employment in manufacturing is a common trend in almost all OECD countries. From 1998 to 2008, the United States lost close to one-quarter (4.1 million) of its manufacturing jobs. Elsewhere in the OECD, from 1990 to 2003, manufacturing employment fell by 29% in the United Kingdom, 24% in Japan, 20% in Belgium and Sweden and 14% in France.
Canada’s manufacturing industry lost 278,000 jobs (1 in 6) from 2000 to 2007, which reduced the sector’s share of total employment from 16% to 12%. That share then declined to 10% in 2009 after the 2008–2009 recession when manufacturers faced weaker demand and cuts to industrial capacity, resulting in the loss of 188,000 jobs.
Regions where employment is highly concentrated in the manufacturing sector—mainly in Quebec and Ontario—experienced the greatest manufacturing job losses. From 2000 to 2007, Canadian manufacturing workers aged 20 to 29 in these regions were the most affected by the employment decline in this sector, as they were up to twice as likely to experience a loss of income as those holding a comparable job in a region with a low concentration of manufacturing.
In addition, job security deteriorated in regions of high manufacturing concentration in 2007, leaving workers at greater risk of unemployment and more likely to be receiving Employment Insurance (EI) benefits. Manufacturing workers in these regions were 39% more likely to receive EI benefits than their counterparts in regions with a low concentration of manufacturing.
Why have all these nations taken huge job losses, especially in manufacturing? Could be because “free trade” allows companies to shop around for cheaper labour costs.
When 2 nations are very similar in their employment laws and standards, this can theoretically work. But the problem is that these deals create a “race to the bottom”, where cost cutting and the bottom line are the only considerations.
These deals give foreign companies rights to marketplaces and workforces that domestic companies do. This may sound great, but the reality is the undercutting domestic producers can put lots of people out of work.
As demonstrated by Chapter 11 of NAFTA, there is a lot potential for new litigation for companies not getting the results or the market share they want. Who pays for it? Taxpayers.
Politicians like Roy Maclaren or Bill Graham can also sit on corporate boards, while still claiming to advocate for the Canadian public. And these conflict-of-interests are hardly limited to Canada. It raises valid questions about who they really work for. Furthermore, for the Liberals to campaign on amending NAFTA (then scrap the promise), makes people wonder if they ever intended to keep the promise.
The well being of communities doesn’t get emphasized enough. Large employers essentially provide for many families, and help keep things stable. If it suddenly becomes advantageous to pack up and leave, then a lot of people get screwed over.
Is this a rejection of business or capitalism? No. However, there are other things to consider than simply profits and GDP.
CLICK HERE, for the last piece, a call to restore the 1934 Bank of Canada Act. CLICK HERE, for www.comer.org. CLICK HERE, for a failed Court bid to reform the banking process in Canada. CLICK HERE, for COMER’s 2011 press release. CLICK HERE, for 2012 Proceedings. CLICK HERE, for the ruling to strike our the claim, without leave to amend. CLICK HERE, for April 24, 2014 ruling, which overturned the portion of the striking out, instead, allowing an amended statement to be filed. CLICK HERE, for press release on April 24, 2014 decision, overturning a Pronothary’s dismissal. CLICK HERE, for the 2015 Federal Court of Appeal ruling. CLICK HERE, for the 2015 Federal Court of Appeal
2. From COMER’s 2011 Press Release
The action also constitutionally challenges the government’s fallacious accounting methods in its tabling of the budget by not calculating nor revealing the true and total revenues of the nation before transferring back “tax credits” to corporations and other taxpayers.
The Plaintiffs state that since 1974 there has been a gradual but sure slide into the reality that the Bank of Canada and Canada’s monetary and financial policy are dictated by private foreign banks and financial interests contrary to the Bank of Canada Act.
The Plaintiffs state that the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the Financial Stability Forum (FSF) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) were all created with the cognizant intent of keeping poorer nations in their place which has now expanded to all nations in that these financial institutions largely succeed in over-riding governments and constitutional orders in countries such as Canada over which they exert financial control.
The Plaintiffs state that the meetings of the BIS and Financial Stability Board (FSB) (successor of FSF), their minutes, their discussions and deliberations are secret and not available nor accountable to Parliament, the executive, nor the Canadian public notwithstanding that the Bank of Canada policies directly emanate from these meetings. These organizations are essentially private, foreign entities controlling Canada’s banking system and socio-economic policies.
The gist of the press release, and of the Claim overall, is that Canada’s banking system has been hijacked and usurped. As such, it is controlled by foreign entities such as the Bank of International Settlements and the International Monetary Fund.
As was outlined in the last article, Canada’s banking “was” effectively turned over. The result is that Canada, instead of loaning money to itself, is now borrowing from private banks. As such, it is being bled dry.
In fact, COMER’s claims can be easily validated by online research. The question for the Court to decide: is this actually legal?
3. Ruling Striking Out Statement of Claim
 The core elements of COMER’s Claim can be reduced to three parts:
1. The Bank of Canada (Bank) and Crown refuse to provide interest-free loans for capital expenditures.
2. The Crown uses flawed accounting methods in describing public finances, which provides the rationale for refusing to grant such loans.
3. These and other harms are caused by the Bank being controlled by private foreign interests.
The Pronothary summarizing the main issues the Plaintiffs raise
 Against these competing positions, it must be remembered that the test for striking an action is a high one. The action must be bereft of any chance of success and as noted above just because it is a novel cause of action it does not automatically fail.
 The Supreme Court of Canada has recently summarized the principles to be applied on a motion to strike. In R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., the Chief Justice, writing for the Court made the following observations regarding a motion to strike:
17. The parties agree on the test applicable on a motion to strike for not disclosing a reasonable cause of action under r. 19(24)(a) of the B.C. Supreme Court Rules. This Court has reiterated the test on many occasions. A claim will only be struck if it is plain and obvious, assuming the facts pleaded to be true, that the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action: Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, 2003 SCC 69 (CanLII),  3 S.C.R. 263, at para. 15; Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC),  2 S.C.R. 959, at p. 980. Another way of putting the test is that the claim has no reasonable prospect of [page 67] success. Where a reasonable prospect of success exists, the matter should be allowed to proceed to trial: see, generally, Syl Apps Secure Treatment Centre v. B.D., 2007 SCC 38 (CanLII),  3 S.C.R. 83; Odhavji Estate; Hunt; Attorney General of Canada v. Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, 1980 CanLII 21 (SCC),  2 S.C.R. 735.
. . .
21. Valuable as it is, the motion to strike is a tool that must be used with care. The law is not static and unchanging. Actions that yesterday were deemed hopeless may tomorrow succeed. Before Donoghue v. Stevenson,  A.C. 562 (H.L.) introduced a general duty of care to one’s neighbour premised [page68] on foreseeability, few would have predicted that, absent a contractual relationship, a bottling company could be held liable for physical injury and emotional trauma resulting from a snail in a bottle of ginger beer. Before Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners, Ltd.,  2 All E.R. 575 (H.L.), a tort action for negligent misstatement would have been regarded as incapable of success. The history of our law reveals that often new developments in the law first surface on motions to strike or similar preliminary motions, like the one at issue in Donoghue v. Stevenson. Therefore, on a motion to strike, it is not determinative that the law has not yet recognized the particular claim. The court must rather ask whether, assuming the facts pleaded are true, there is a reasonable prospect that the claim will succeed. The approach must be generous and err on the side of permitting a novel but arguable claim to proceed to trial.
What we can gain from this is that striking out a Statement of Claim is something that must be done cautiously, and only when it is plain and obvious that there is no chance to succeed.
Some of what may be “struck out” now, may in fact later be the basis for new laws, so the Courts should exercise caution and not jump to conclusions.
 The Crown further contends that COMER’s claim is outside this Court’s jurisdiction as it fails to meet the three-part test set out in ITO-International Terminal Operators Ltd v. Miida Electronics Inc. In ITO, the Supreme Court considered the jurisdiction of the Federal Court in the context of an admiralty action. The Supreme Court determined that jurisdiction in the Federal Court depends on three factors:
1. There must be a statutory grant of jurisdiction by the Federal Parliament.
2. There must be an existing of body of federal law which is essential to the disposition of the case and which nourishes the statutory grant of jurisdiction.
3. The law on which the case is based must be a “law of Canada” as the phrase is used in s. 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867 [page 766]
 The jurisdictional issue raised by the Crown engages the three part test set out in ITO as discussed above. The Crown argues that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain tort claims against Federal authorities.
 However, pursuant to sections 2, 17 and 18 of the Federal Courts Act, the wording is sufficiently wide to capture these types of claims against federal actors and Crown servants. It is therefore not plain and obvious that this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain claims seeking declaratory relief as here.
One of the major contentions is that the Government alleged that the Federal Court had no jurisdiction to even hear the case. The Pronothary took a different view. However, there were other problems which ended with this.
 There is ample authority in this Court and in the jurisprudence generally that where a claim has some kernel of a legitimate claim it should not be tossed aside but permitted to be amended to determine if the clam in law can be cured.
 Given that the Claim, in my view, is not justiciable, leave to amend will not cure the defects. Leave to amend is therefore not granted.
The case was thrown out on a motion to strike. However, that will not be the end of it. The Plaintiffs would appeal to a Justice of the Federal Court.
The striking out (without permission to amend) was appealed to a Justice of the Federal Court. This was a partial victory, as the dismissal “was” upheld, but it allowed the Plaintiff’s to file an amended Claim. This would be another “chance” to get it right.
5. COMER Tries To File Again
After the Justice of the Federal Court upheld the dismissal (but giving leave to amend the Statement of Claim), COMER appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal, and the Government cross-appealed.
In short, the Plaintiffs were trying to get the dismissal overturned entirely, while the Government tried to remove the clause to allow COMER to file an amended Statement of Claim.
The Federal Appeals Court panel (3 Justices) threw out both the appeal and cross-appeal.
 In terms of the general principles that ought to be applied on a motion to strike, the Plaintiffs assert that the facts pleaded by the Plaintiffs must be taken as proven: Canada (Attorney General) v Inuit Tapirasat of Canada, 1980 CanLII 21 (SCC),  2 SCR 735; Nelles v Ontario (1989), DLR (4th) 609 (SCC) [Nelles]; Operation Dismantle, above; Hunt v Carey Canada Inc 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC),  2 SCR 959 [Hunt]; Dumont v Canada (Attorney General), 1990 CanLII 131 (SCC),  1 SCR 279 [Dumont]; Nash v Ontario (1995), 1995 CanLII 2934 (ON CA), 27 OR (3d) 1 (Ont CA) [Nash]; Canada v Arsenault, 2009 FCA 242 (CanLII) [Arsenault].
 The Plaintiffs echo the test referenced by the Defendants, asserting that a claim can be struck only in plain and obvious cases where the pleading is bad beyond argument: Nelles, above, at para 3. The Court has provided further guidance in Dumont, above, that an outcome should be “plain and obvious” or “beyond doubt” before striking can be invoked (at para 2). Striking cannot be justified by a claim that raises an “arguable, difficult or important point of law”: Hunt, above, at para 55.
 The novelty of the Amended Claim is not reason in and of itself to strike it: Nash, above, at para 11; Hanson v Bank of Nova Scotia (1994), 1994 CanLII 573 (ON CA), 19 OR (3d) 142 (CA); Adams-Smith v Christian Horizons (1997), 3 OR (3d) 640 (Ont Gen Div). Additionally, matters that are not fully settled by the jurisprudence should not be disposed of on a motion to strike: RD Belanger & Associates Ltd v Stadium Corp of Ontario Ltd (1991), 1991 CanLII 2731 (ON CA), 5 OR (3d) 778 (CA). In order for the Defendants to succeed, the Plaintiffs state that a case from the same jurisdiction that squarely deals with, and rejects, the very same issue must be presented: Dalex Co v Schwartz Levitsky Feldman (1994), 19 OR (3d) 215 (CA). The Court should be generous when interpreting the drafting of the pleadings, and allow for amendments prior to striking: Grant v Cormier – Grant et al (2001), 2001 CanLII 3041 (ON CA), 56 OR (3d) 215 (CA).
 The Plaintiffs also remind the Court that the line between fact and evidence is not always clear (Liebmann v Canada, 1993 CanLII 3006 (FC),  2 FC 3 at para 20) and that the Amended Claim must be taken as pleaded by the Plaintiffs, not as reconfigured by the Defendants: Arsenault, above, at para 10.
Plaintiffs arguing that the Defendant has not actually met the burden to strike out a Statement of Claim. However, the Justice decides differently.
 In the present case, the Plaintiffs have not, in their Amended Claim, pleaded facts to demonstrate a “real” issue concerning the relative interests of each party, and the nexus of that real issue to the Plaintiffs and their claim for relief. Although as I pointed out in my Order of April 24, 2014, the Plaintiffs do distinguish between legal issues and policy issues, the legal issues remain theoretical with no real nexus to some interest of the Plaintiffs, other than an interest in having the Court endorse their opinion on the Bank Act issues raised.
 The Plaintiffs have not addressed the jurisdictional problems I referred to in paras 85 to 91 of my Order of April 24, 2014 and/or what might generally be referred to as the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain, or its willingness to grant, free-standing requests for declaration.
The Justice Rules that the original problems are left unfixed. As such, the case is thrown out. This time, there is no leave to amend, so if this is to continue, it must go back to the Federal Court of Appeals.
 The essence of the Federal Court judge’s reasoning for striking the amended statement of claim is summed up at paragraph 144 of his reasons: It seems to me, then, that the latest Amended Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action and has no prospect of success at trial. It also seems to me that the Plaintiffs are still asking the Court for an advisory opinion in the form of declarations that their view of the way the Bank Act and the Constitution should be read is correct. It also seems to me that they have failed to show a statutory grant of jurisdiction by Parliament that this Court can entertain and rule on their claim as presently constituted, or that they have any specific rights under the legislation which they invoke, or a legal framework for any such rights. As the Supreme Court of Canada pointed out in Operation Dismantle, above, the preventive function of a declaratory judgment must be more than hypothetical and requires “a cognizable threat to a legal interest before the Court will entertain the use of its process as a preventative measure” (para 33). The Court is not here to declare the law generally or to give an advisory opinion. The Court is here to decide and declare contested legal rights.
 The appellants assert that the opinion so expressed is wrong in law. In support of this proposition, they essentially reiterate the arguments which they urged upon the Federal Court judge and ask that we come to a different conclusion. Counsel for the appellants focused his argument during the hearing on the issue of standing and the right to seek declarations of constitutionality. It remains however that, as the Federal Court judge found, the right to a remedy is conditional on the existence of a justiciable issue.
The Federal Appeals Court believes that COMER is still asking for an advisory opinion. Furthermore, the FCA still believes that no justiciable issue has been raised.
The Supreme Court refuses to hear the case, which means it is legally over. It would have been nice to have some actual reasons included. However, due to the volume of cases it receives, rejected applications generally don’t receive them.
9. Issues Still Remain Unaddressed
Despite repeated rejection by the Courts, the questions about the changes in banking policy were never really addressed. Does giving control of our central bank to foreign powers break the law?
This is supposedly a “political” issue, but no politicians are willing to talk about it.
As of now, Canada is still borrowing money from private banks, as opposed to ourselves. We are racking up huge levels of debt that we shouldn’t be.
CLICK HERE, for a prior review on Jordan Peterson. CLICK HERE, for a prior review on Bill C-16 (gender identity) CLICK HERE, for Louder With Crowder interview.
(See 49:00 and 50:20 for Peterson comments on OHRC policies) CLICK HERE, for Peterson & Cathy Newman (cringe) CLICK HERE, and HERE, for Peterson’s cognitive dissonance deplatforming Faith Goldy at free speech event. CLICK HERE, for Shepherd’s site: identitygrifting.ca. CLICK HERE, for Peterson announcing $1.5M lawsuit and Wilfrid Laurier University and 3 employees. CLICK HERE, for Peterson interview on lawsuit (2:55) CLICK HERE, for National Post article on WLU 3rd party defence. CLICK HERE, for the Ontario Human Rights Code. CLICK HERE, for Ontario Court forms index. CLICK HERE, for Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure. CLICK HERE, for Ontario Libel and Slander Act. CLICK HERE, for Hill v. Church of Scientology, 1995. CLICK HERE, for Ontario Bill 52, protecting expression in matters of public interest.
The details of the Wilfrid Laurier University scandal (Lindsay Shepherd, the 3 staff members, and Jordan Peterson), is old news at this point. The article just focuses on the lawsuits brought against WLU and its staff by Peterson and Shepherd.
It is the opinion here that although the facts alleged are basically true, the claims are fraudulent. They are combined seeking 5 million dollars (Shepherd $3.6, Peterson $1.5M). This is an abuse of the court system, and a way to unjustly enrich themselves.
Keep in mind, Peterson’s only claim to damages was that the tape defamed him (comparing him to Hitler, and other comments). His critics were vilified by the media. He suffered no actual damage, other than being named in a tape that Shepherd released.
Shepherd claims that not only was this 42 minute meeting difficult (surely it was), but that she was never treated the same way again. She cites a few examples, but nothing that would lead a reasonable person to think this would be worth millions in damages. Shepherd claims to be unemployable in academia, but her new love for media probably helped that.
Did WLU staff act like d*****bags? YES
Were inappropriate things said? YES
Was a tape of this leaked to the media? YES
Does any of this amount to millions in damages? NO
During the Louder With Crowder interview, Peterson (at 50:20) criticizes the Ontario Human Rights Code for automatically making employers vicariously liable for things employees say. However, he has no issue with USING vicarious liability in order to name the University in his lawsuit.
Peterson claimed that it was libel for Rambukkana to compare him to Hitler, yet Peterson compares trans activists to Communists, who have caused the deaths of millions of people.
Peterson has come to fame claiming to be a free speech champion, but has no issue deplatforming speakers he doesn’t agree with. Faith Goldy is a particularly bad example.
Shepherd and Peterson both claim to be free speech champions, but then sue over words they don’t like.
KARMA IS A B****
In 2018, Shepherd launched a $3.6 million lawsuit against Wilfrid Laurier University and 3 of its staff (Nathan Rambukkana, Herbert Pimlott, and Adria Joel). Although the infamous meeting was cited, there were other problems occurring later which were cited in the statement of defense.
Jordan Peterson filed a $1.5 million lawsuit of his own, claiming that Laurier hadn’t learned its lesson. Peterson claimed that the infamous tape had damaged his reputation.
Regarding Peterson’s claim, the WLU filed a 3rd party claim (Form 29A). It stated that if Peterson actually had suffered damages, he should be suing Lindsay Shepherd, as she made the tape secretly and released it.
Shepherd was outraged. After filing a lawsuit against her university, she is shocked that they would use her as a defence in a related lawsuit. She brought this on herself.
WLU should consider Rule 2.1.01
Rule 2.1 General Powers to Stay or Dismiss if Vexatious, etc.
Stay, Dismissal of frivolous, vexatious, abusive Proceeding
Order to Stay, Dismiss Proceeding
2.1.01 (1) The court may, on its own initiative, stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. O. Reg. 43/14, s. 1
Although litigation tends to drag on a long time, something like this should be used. The litigation (particularly Peterson’s) is an abuse of process.
From the Ontario Libel & Slander Act:
1 (1) In this Act,
“broadcasting” means the dissemination of writing, signs, signals, pictures and sounds of all kinds, intended to be received by the public either directly or through the medium of relay stations, by means of,
(a) any form of wireless radioelectric communication utilizing Hertzian waves, including radiotelegraph and radiotelephone, or
(b) cables, wires, fibre-optic linkages or laser beams,
and “broadcast” has a corresponding meaning; (“radiodiffusion ou télédiffusion”, “radiodiffuser ou télédiffuser”)
“newspaper” means a paper containing public news, intelligence, or occurrences, or remarks or observations thereon, or containing only, or principally, advertisements, printed for distribution to the public and published periodically, or in parts or numbers, at least twelve times a year. (“journal”) R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12, s. 1 (1).
Wilfrid Laurier and its 3 staff members did not do this. Shepherd did. She released the recording to the media, with the intent of making it widely distributed. So Rambukkana and Pimlott have a valid point. If Peterson did suffer damages, it was caused by Lindsay Shepherd.
Yes, Rambukkana and Pimlott were unprofessional for making the comments in the first place. However, it is clear they never meant to be recorded.
There is also some ambiguity as to the Statute of Limitations, whether it would be 3 months, or 2 years. If it is 3 months, then it has already lapsed.
SOME CANADIAN CASES
Here is Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto (1995), which dropped “actual malice” as a requirement.
Here is Grant v Torstar (2009), which created an exception for responsible journalism.
Here is Crookes v Newton (2011), which ruled that linking, or hyperlinking stories does not count as publishing.
However, all of this may be irrelevant, since it was Shepherd who SECRETLY recorded the meeting, and then chose to publish it WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT of the other parties.
ONTARIO’S BILL 52 (2015)
Not sure if this would be relied on in the proceedings, but in 2015, the Ontario Government passed Bill 52 on this subject. Interesting is section 137.1
Dismissal of proceeding that limits debate
Rejet d’une instance limitant les débats
137.1 (1) The purposes of this section and sections 137.2 to 137.5 are,
(a) to encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest;
(b) to promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest;
(c) to discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and
(d) to reduce the risk that participation by the public in debates on matters of public interest will be hampered by fear of legal action.
The topic of tort reform is a popular one in recent years, particularly in the United States. Putting a cap on maximum damages, or making it harder to collect on bogus claims is a goal worth pursuing.
Any google or online search of “tort reform” will lead to an almost endless number of matches.
This is not at all to say that a person should “never” go to civil court. If an employer doesn’t pay your wages, or your property is damaged, or bills are not paid, then litigation can be a very valid path. Admittedly, “reasonable” is very subjective. However, most people can agree that one must suffer actual damages to go to court.
However, Shepherd and Peterson have both laid million dollar lawsuits because people said mean things to them. (Shepherd’s claim cites more detail). And hypocritically, both think nothing of mocking their detractors.
These 2 are not the free speech champions they pretend to be. Rather, they support free speech when it is convenient to do so. They are “free-speech grifters”.
CBC, a.k.a The “Communist Broadbasting Corporation”, or the “Caliphate Broadcasting Corporation”, is a government funded “news” organization. It receives about $1.5 billion annually to spew out anti-Canadian stories. Taxpayers don’t get a say in the matter.
CLICK HERE, to reach the CBC Propaganda Masterlist. It is far from complete, but being added to regularly.
This current masterpiece touts the value of state-funded narcotics as a way to ”reduce harm” and to save lives.
No, this doesn’t mean methodone, or any treatment designed to wane users off their addiction. It doesn’t mean treatment in the hopes of getting people back into society as functioning adults.
This simply is about providing narcotics to users free of charge as a ”harm reduction” policy. Furthermore, medical staff are employed (again, at taxpayer expense), to administer this program. Let’s go through the article.
“Carissa Sutherland’s history with drugs is a lot like many others in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.
The 29-year-old started about 10 years ago with morphine and hydromorphone pills marketed under the brand name Dilaudid or “Dilly” as it’s known on the street.
“I kind of just progressed more and more, and then I couldn’t get Dillies very much — or they were more expensive than heroin, so that I ended up just doing heroin,” said Sutherland, who soon added methamphetamine to the mix.
For her, an especially low point came when she overdosed, alone, in a Wendy’s bathroom about two years ago. Luckily, someone found her, and her life was saved.”
This is saddening to hear, but perhaps trying another solution would be better. Switching to heroin simply because it’s cheaper is asking for trouble.
“Now, a “safe supply” program for people in Sutherland’s situation is launching in the neighbourhood.
Operated by the Portland Hotel Society (PHS) out of its Molson Overdose Prevention Site (OPS), the pilot program will distribute free Dilaudid pills for 50 patients.
The hydromorphone pills, which are manufactured to be taken orally, will be crushed up and rendered as an injectable drug, just like heroin. It’s the first time in Canada that opioids will be prescribed in this way and an idea that came directly from the street.”
Okay, these pills are designed to be taken orally, but instead will be crushed up so they can be injected. Absurd, it means taking prescription medication and knowingly not using it in its intended form. This is harm reduction? Is there medical research?
Not hearing any sort of plan on actual treatment for these people, but perhaps that will come later in the article.
”According to Coco Culbertson, who is overseeing the program for PHS, the dosage will be prescribed by a physician, and participants will be able to get up to five doses per day, to be injected under the supervision of PHS staff and volunteers.
Culbertson said the pills, which are worth about 36 cents when bought legally, cost drug users $20 – $30 on the street. According to Sutherland, a user on the street can make up to four or five pick ups per day to support a habit, sometimes buying multiple pills each time.
“We’re really looking for our “hard target” folks that are experiencing repeated overdose and that are subject to a toxic drug supply on the street,” said Culbertson, who added that there’s already a list of about 75 people for the program, which starts on Tuesday.”
A physician will be prescribing these pills, to be taken orally. Yet he knows that they will be crushed up and used in injection form. This person’s medical license should be revoked.
You are worried about a toxic drug supply on the street? Did it cross your mind that perhaps these pills, when injected (again, not their intended form) may be toxic?
Still no mention of any treatment program. Instead, the public will be funding not only drugs for illicit purposes, but medical staff to “safely” administer?!?!
””This is safe. It’s effective. It’s cost effective. It reduces mortality, reduces crime — both violent crime and property crime — and it reduces the burden on taxpayers,” said MacDonald, who believes the facility’s pharmacy could distribute injectable doses for as many as 800 people across the region. ”
(a) It’s cost effective? How so? It forces the public to may both ”material and labour” to continue a drug addict’s spiral?
(b) It reduces crime? Perhaps, if you view legalizing illicit drug use as a form of reducing crime, you are correct, in a morbid sort of way.
(c) 800 people across the region? Does it occur to you that this will not stop people who have drug problems, rather, it will encourage others to get drugs for free.
(d) Still no mention of any plan to get these addicts back into society.
Sutherland’s life has taken a dramatic turn for the better since her overdose. She’s still a regular drug user, but for the past year and a half, she’s been injecting under supervision at Molson OPS
She quickly started volunteering there and now Sutherland’s on the payroll as a peer support worker. She’s taken part in reversing dozens of potentially fatal overdoses. She’s also found housing through PHS.
But despite the more stable life, the drugs have still put her in risky situations. Sutherland is hoping that will disappear if she’s accepted in the new ‘safe supply’ program.
“I’m hoping that once I get on the Dilly program, I won’t have to do that — I won’t have to go boost from stores — or steal from stores or sell things to get money to get drugs,” she said.
For her, she says, safe supply doesn’t just mean drugs that won’t contain unknown amounts of deadly fentanyl, it also means a drug supply that leads to a much safer lifestyle.”
(I) That is the end of the article, and not one mention about getting drug addicts any real sense of a life.
(II) No talk whatsoever about weaning them off drugs, or any long term treatment plan. It all seems to be about state-funded use forever.
(III) Okay, public pays for drugs, pays for medical staff, and now putting actual drug users on the payroll?
How is it that this is being allowed? All without any sort of public mandate?
Don’t get the wrong idea. People with drug problems do need to have them addressed. However, this is not the solution. Actual treatment is the solution, and getting them off the drugs is what we should be focusing on. Continuing to supply and fund hard drug use seems to be kicking the can down the road.
Every ”medical professional” involved in this needs to have their license revoked. This is blatant malpractice, and neglect for patient well being.
One final thought: could actual drug dealers take advantage of this? (Yes, this is being flippant), but the dealer wouldn’t be drug dealers, they would merely be practicing without a license.
UN GMC Challenged In Calgary Fed Court, 300-635 8th Ave SW.
Case File: T-2089-18. Filed December 6, 2018. CLICK HERE for more information.
(1) Some Background Information About the Issue
(2) Written Response From I.C.B.C. Staff
(3) Written Response From I.C.B.C. Lawyer Alandra Harlengton
(4) What The Constitution Says On The Matter
(5) About The Case: Canada Egg Market Agency v. Richardson, (1998) 3 S.C.R.
(6) The Limitations Act
(7) Would This Work In Court?
(1) Some Background Information About the Issue
The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (I.C.B.C.), is a government crown corporate that holds a legal monopoly on automobile insurance in the province. Although additional coverage is available privately, those wishing to legally drive must buy the $200,000 3rd party liability insurance through I.C.B.C.
Needless to say, since this is a government monopoly, there is no incentive to operate efficiently, or to provide good service. Even so, they routine post huge losses. No worries, just jack up rates on the drivers. It’s a captive market. They can complain, but there is no avenue of recourse.
But this article is about a specific grievance: that I.C.B.C. has different rules for drivers when it comes to calculating the base rate, SEE HERE. In short, new drivers start at a CRS of zero ”0”, and it is adjusted up or down depending on whether you have accidents, or drive claims free.
But here is the difference:
(a) A BC-born driver immediately begins accruing years of ”claims free driving” as soon as he/she gets a license. No experience or skill is required. If you got a license at age 16, but don’t get insured until age 30, you would begin at -14, or the maximum 43% discount.
(b) A driver born in another province who moves to BC is subjected to different rules. Here, you don’t get ”claims free driving” for mere possession of a license. You can get up to 8 years from another jurisdiction, but only for time which you actually held insurance. If you came from Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, etc… you may have had a license since age 16, but will still start at 0 when you finally get insurance.
Note: should you move to BC a a year or more prior to getting insurance, that time will be considered ”claims free driving”.
Since simple possession of a BC license means ”experience” and of ”claims free driving” then actual experience is irrelevant. It is this double standard that is illegal.
(2) Written Responses From I.C.B.C. Staff From Customer Service Rep Catherine Dixon:
”…Under the CRS system the maximum discount on compulsory basic insurance is 43 per cent, and that discount percentage applies to policies that reflect nine or more claim-free years. If you, as a new resident with a 40 per cent discount, stay claims-free for one more year, you will have the best discount on Basic, which is three percent more than the out of province entry point.
“New residents” are defined as customers whose auto insurance history with insurers is outside British Columbia or when they return to British Columbia after an absence of more than eight years. Since January 1, 2001, new certificates of ICBC insurance issued to new residents are subject to the following:
Each full year of being claim-free represents a five per cent discount on the base premium up to a maximum of 40 per cent.
The maximum discount allowed is level -8 (40 per cent) effective the ICBC history start date.
When a customer has been outside of British Columbia for more than eight years, ICBC follows the Basic Insurance Tariff, which has the force of a Regulation in the province of British Columbia. The Tariff outlines that ICBC will start from the date of the application for insurance and count backwards the number of “full chargeable claim payment free years” to a maximum of 8 years. The Tariff states that a new resident applying for a discount must provide verification letters from each previous insurer documenting a continuous record of the applicant’s coverage history. This history is a maximum of eight years and must immediately precede the date of the application for insurance in British Columbia. The Basic Insurance Tariff can be found on ICBC’s website: http://www.icbc.com/about-icbc/company-info/Documents/bcuc/basic-tariff.pdf#search=Tariff.
Information on moving to British Columbia can be found on the ICBC website, at: http://www.icbc.com/autoplan/moving-insurance/Pages/Default.aspx.
Ms. Dixon confirms in writing that out of province drivers are subjected to different rules.
While she is careful to avoid expressing saying ”double standard”, she goes on at length to explain how I.C.B.C. treats non-BC born drivers differently. She is also careful to avoid answering the question of Sections 6 (Mobility) and 15(1) (Equality) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Those will be addressed later.
(3) Written Response From I.C.B.C. Lawyer Alandra Harlengton From I.C.B.C. Lawyer Alandra Harlengton
“….The distinct roles of ICBC and the British Columbia Utilities Commission
Section 2 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 231, provides that, if the Insurance Corporation Act authorizes ICBC to operate a plan of universal compulsory vehicle insurance, ICBC must operate the plan of universal compulsory vehicle insurance in accordance with the Insurance (Vehicle) Act and regulations.
The Insurance (Vehicle) Act provides ICBC the authority to establish classes and subclasses of vehicles and drivers of vehicles, and basic premiums that apply to those classes as well as premium discounts and additional premiums based on, among other things, the accident record of the owner or driver: Insurance (Vehicle) Act, ss. 34(1) and 35.
The Utilities Commission Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 473, applies to and in respect of ICBC’s rates for basic insurance as if it were a public utility, except where expressly precluded under the Insurance Corporation Act.
The British Columbia Utilities Commission (the “Commission”) is a statutory body continued under s. 2 of the Utilities Commission Act.
ICBC and the Commission have distinct but interrelated roles. The Commission may determine and set adequate, efficient, just and reasonable standards, practices or procedures to be used by ICBC in providing universal compulsory vehicle insurance and may order ICBC to comply with those standards, practices or procedures: Insurance Corporation Act, s. 45(2).
ICBC must make available universal compulsory vehicle insurance in a manner, and in accordance with practice and procedures, that the Commission considers are in all respects adequate, efficient, just and reasonable: Insurance Corporation Act, s. 45(1).
The Commission may exercise its powers and duties under the Insurance Corporation Act in relation to ICBC’s provision of universal compulsory vehicle insurance, but not in relation to the provision of insurance to any one customer: Insurance Corporation Act, s. 45(5).
The rates to be applied to applications for basic insurance premiums are approved by the Commission pursuant to s. 46.2 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, ss. 44 and 45 of the Insurance Corporation Act, ss. 58 to 60 of the Utilities Commission Act, and the Special Direction IC2 to the British Columbia Utilities Commission, B.C. Reg. 307/2004, which provides direction to the Commission regarding ICBC.
The Insurance (Vehicle) Act specifically confers jurisdiction on the Commission to approve, require replacement of, or to override and replace, classes and subclasses of vehicles and drivers, basic premiums, additional premiums, and discounts for universal compulsory vehicle insurance: Insurance (Vehicle) Act, s. 46.2.
The Special Direction IC2 to the British Columbia Utilities Commission, as amended, provides that, subject to certain exceptions, the Commission may not determine rates based on age, gender, or marital status (s. 3(1)(i)). Under the Insurance Corporation Act and Utilities Commission Act, an insured’s driving history is not a protected ground.
As part of its mandate, the Commission is empowered to inquire into, hear and determine any application by or on behalf of any interested party or on its own motion regarding whether ICBC is administering the universal compulsory vehicle insurance in a manner that is adequate, efficient, just and reasonable. Upon doing so, the Commission may make an order granting the whole or part of the relief applied for or may grant further or other relief, as the Commission considers advisable: Insurance Corporation Act, s. 45(2); see also, Utilities Commission Act, ss. 2.1, 58, 72, 99 to 105.
The rates for basic insurance premiums contained in the Basic Insurance Tariff
and applied to the plaintiff were approved by the Commission, after ICBC received a direction from the Province of British Columbia to prepare and implement a basic insurance rate design plan that required ICBC to, among other things, retain the CRS until at least the 2011 rate year.
ICBC cannot charge a rate for universal compulsory vehicle insurance other than the rates approved by the Commission. The Utilities Commission Act stipulates that rates approved by the Commission are the only lawful enforceable, and collectable rates of ICBC for universal compulsory insurance, and no other rate may be collected, charged, or enforced: Utilities Commission Act, s. 61(3)…”
It is interesting that Ms. Harlengton goes on to ”deny” that there is any double standard of how non-BC born drivers are treated. She very explicitly denies this.
She then spends a lot of time ”justifiying” why this double standard exists, citing the: 1/ Basic Insurance Tariff; 2/ Insurance Corporation Act; and 3/ Utilities Commission Act.
Here’s the thing: when you start explaining why a double standard exists, you are no longer denying the double standard. Rather you are justifying it.
Logically, once you start justifying an action, you are in fact admitting that action.
As an example: Suppose a robber breaks into my home, and I shoot him to protect my family. I then call the police. I am not denying that I did the shooting, but rather, am justifying or explaining why it happened.
Justifying involves admitting the underlying facts.
And again, if all one needs for claims-free driving is a BC driver’s license, then actual experience is not needed. So a license from any province should be suitable.
(4) What The Constitution Says On The Matter
Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
So, if you believe that other constitutional rights are being violated, under Section 24, you may seek a remedy in the courts. In this case, BC Supreme Court is the place
Note #1: Even though the Civil Resolution Tribunal covers very small amounts, they will not get involved in any case that involves a government body.
Note #2: Although Small Claims Court would be suitable for small amounts, they will not get involved in cases that involve questions of law.
Mobility of citizens
6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
Marginal note:Rights to move and gain livelihood
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to
(a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and
(b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services
Marginal note:Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Before anyone gets fussy, the wording means this list is not exclusive, and may include other grounds.
Furthermore, the Canadian Constitution is supreme over these provincial acts I.C.B.C. relies on. Here are 2 more sections, 32 and 52:
Application of Charter
32. (1) This Charter applies
(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.
Primacy of Constitution of Canada
52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
Marginal note:Constitution of Canada
(2) The Constitution of Canada includes
(a) the Canada Act 1982, including this Act;
(b) the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule; and
(c) any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
Marginal note:Amendments to Constitution of Canada
(3) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada.
(6) About The Case: Canada Egg Market Agency v. Richardson, (1998) 3 S.C.R. CLICK HERE,
for the case of: Canada Egg Market Agency v. Richardson, (1998)
49 Section 6 of the Charter states:
6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to
(a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; an
(b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.
The scope given to these words has significant implications for the exercise of the federal and provincial powers enumerated in ss. 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, respectively. This context makes it necessary to consider carefully the purpose and role of the mobility section, and of the Charter itself in our constitutional order. The necessity of returning to first principles is heightened by the scarcity of both jurisprudence and academic commentary on s. 6.
(a) The Nature of the Right
50 The specific sections of the Charter raised in this case are s. 6(2)(b) and s. 6(3)(a). A preliminary problem is whether the two paragraphs should be read together as establishing a single right which is internally qualified, or whether, alternatively, the first paragraph establishes a self-contained right which is externally qualified by the second paragraph. Section 6(2)(b) guarantees the right to “pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province”. Section 6(3)(a) then dramatically narrows the ambit of that right, making it subject to laws of general application in the province, except those which discriminate against individuals “primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence”. In our view, it is impossible to ascertain the purpose of the extremely broad statement in s. 6(2)(b) without importing the limitation contained in s. 6(3)(a).
51 In Malartic Hygrade Gold Mines Ltd. v. The Queen in Right of Quebec (1982), 1982 CanLII 2870 (QC CS), 142 D.L.R. (3d) 512 (Que. Sup. Ct.), the relationship between the two paragraphs is explained according to the following dialectic, at p. 521:
(a) The principle: The right to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province;
(b) The exception: This right is subject to any laws or practices of a general application in force in that province;
(c) The exception to the exception: Except if these laws discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of the province of residence.
On close examination, it will be observed that (b) almost entirely undermines the guarantee set out in (a); meaning, scope and purpose can only be attributed to (a) by reading it in conjunction with (c). The correctness of this general approach was recognized in both of the major Supreme Court decisions on s. 6, Law Society of Upper Canada v. Skapinker, 1984 CanLII 3 (SCC),  1 S.C.R. 357, and Black v. Law Society of Alberta, 1989 CanLII 132 (SCC),  1 S.C.R. 591.
Although the circumstances of the case are quite different than I.C.B.C. and auto insurance, the principle outlined here still applies.
(a) The principle: The right to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province;
(b) The exception: This right is subject to any laws or practices of a general application in force in that province;
(c) The exception to the exception: Except if these laws discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of the province of residence.
Here, the principle would be the right of any Canadian citizen to move to any province, including that of British Columbia.
The exception would be that all those wishing to drive must go through I.C.B.C., regardless of what their previous insurance rules were.
The exception to the exception is that drivers new to BC would not be subjected to the ”moving to BC” guidelines that I.C.B.C. lays out, since they financially punish drivers for the crime of not being born in BC.
Once more, since simply having a BC driver’s license counts as ”claims free driving”, then actual experience becomes irrelevant.
(6) The Limitations Act
What about illegal overpayments from a long time ago?
Division 1 — Establishment of Basic Limitation Period
Basic limitation period
6 (1) Subject to this Act, a court proceeding in respect of a claim must not be commenced more than 2 years after the day on which the claim is discovered.
(2) The 2 year limitation period established under subsection (1) of this section does not apply to a court proceeding referred to in section 7.
Admittedly, this is trickier. However, there are other things to consider (Note: a Court may not agree)
General discovery rules
8 Except for those special situations referred to in sections 9 to 11, a claim is discovered by a person on the first day on which the person knew or reasonably ought to have known all of the following:
(a) that injury, loss or damage had occurred;
(b) that the injury, loss or damage was caused by or contributed to by an act or omission;
(c) that the act or omission was that of the person against whom the claim is or may be made;
(d) that, having regard to the nature of the injury, loss or damage, a court proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek to remedy the injury, loss or damage.
Limitation periods extended if liability acknowledged
24 (1) If, before the expiry of either of the limitation periods that, under this Act, apply to a claim, a person acknowledges liability in respect of the claim,
(a) the claim must not be considered to have been discovered on any day earlier than the day on which the acknowledgement is made, and
(b) the act or omission on which the claim is based is deemed to have taken place on the day on which the acknowledgement is made.
(2) An acknowledgement of liability in respect of a claim for interest is also an acknowledgement of liability in respect of a claim for
(a) the outstanding principal, if any, and
(b) interest falling due after the acknowledgement is made.
Other possible arguments would involve that I.C.B.C. commits fraud (section 380 of criminal code) with their policies, or that it is a corrupt enterprise.
Note: These arguments, even if they fail, does not mean the claim would not be valid, just that a person couldn’t go further back to make a claim for over payment.
(7) Would This Work In Court?
Difficult to say, as Judges don’t always behave in consistent or logical ways. However, consider this:
THE FACTS are on the side of the non-BC born driver. I.C.B.C. admits they have different sets of rules. They justify them at great length, but then deny there is actually a double standard.
THE LAWS are on the side of the non-BC born driver. Sections 6 (mobility) and 15 (equality) are spelled out quite clearly in the Charter. Sections 32 (applicability) and 52 (supremacy) show that the constitution is supreme to other laws. Other laws that conflict have no effect and are unenforceable. To be fair, the Limitations Act may make older overpayments hard to collect on.
I.C.B.C. is proposing changing this rule anyway.SEE HERE. Among the new proposals would change the rules so that all you need is a driver’s license, regardless of province.Pretty hard to argue their current policies are justified.
Very interesting to see how this will play out in such a case.
UN GMC Challenged In Calgary Fed Court, 300-635 8th Ave SW.
Case File: T-2089-18. Filed December 6, 2018. CLICK HERE for more information.
An Ontario Judge has ruled that Mike Duffy cannot sue the Senate for a decision that caused him to be suspended without pay for almost 2 years.
CLICK HERE, for the actual ruling from Justice Sally Gomery. (Quotes in bold/italics. Commentary in regular font).
CLICK HERE, for the original verdict, acquitting Duffy.
 Senator Michael Duffy is suing the Senate of Canada for over $7 million in damages.
 On November 5, 2013, the Senate voted to suspend Senator Duffy based on a report from its standing committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration (the “CIBA”). This CIBA report concluded that he had violated rules on living and travel expenses. Senator Duffy was later criminally charged with breach of trust, fraud and accepting a bribe. On April 21, 2016, after a trial that lasted more than a year, he was acquitted of all charges. Justice Vaillancourt, the judge who heard the criminal trial, concluded that the Prime Minister’s Office (“PMO”) directed one or more senators to interfere with an audit of Senator Duffy’s expenses. 2018 ONSC 7523 (CanLII) He also concluded that, in making living expense claims, Senator Duffy “committed no prohibited act, violated no Senate rules”, and neither engaged in criminal fraud nor intended to do so.
 In his lawsuit, Senator Duffy claims that the CIBA report and the Senate’s decision to suspend him were politically motivated, unconstitutional, procedurally unfair and contrary to his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms1. Given the judge’s findings when he was acquitted of criminal charges, Senator Duffy argues that actions by various senators and the Senate as a whole were clearly wrong and unlawfully deprived him of salary, allowances and pension contributions. He also says that, since he was acquitted and the suspension was lifted, the Senate has once again unfairly denied him reimbursement for further legitimate expenses. He seeks compensation for the amounts he says he is entitled to as well as compensatory and punitive damages.
 This matter is before me now because the Senate says that Senator Duffy’s action should be dismissed. The Senate contends that the lawsuit cannot proceed because the actions that Senator Duffy seeks to challenge fall squarely within the scope of parliamentary privilege. Determining the questions that arise in Senator Duffy’s lawsuit would accordingly require a court to do exactly what parliamentary privilege is designed to prevent.
An interesting approach. While Duffy was ultimately acquitted on the criminal charges, the Trial Judge didn’t exactly exonerate him completely. More on that later. And this deflection and projection does not change the fact that there was considerable grounds for the suspension. This reads like an attempt to cash in.
 For the purpose of a motion like this one, I must assume that all of the factual allegations in Senator Duffy’s statement of claim are true. He makes many allegations about the improper motivations of various senators and the denial of any due process. But the core allegation, what he says entitles him to damages, is that the decisions by the CIBA and the Senate to suspend him and to deny his claims for compensation were unlawful and unfair. I must determine whether these decisions are protected by parliamentary privilege and therefore shielded from any review by this court.
This is an important distinction to make here: the Judge is saying that it must be “assumed” for the purposes of the motion that the factual allegations are true. This is not to claim that they actually are.
 I conclude that they are. The Senate enjoys certain categories of privilege by virtue of the Constitution Act, 1867. 6 Four types of privilege prevent a court from reviewing the actions by the Senate at issue in this case.
 First, parliamentary privilege extends to decisions by the Senate to discipline its own members. The privilege clearly applies to decisions about whether a senator should be suspended or expelled. In some cases, a court may review disciplinary decisions with respect to employees of a legislative body, if the management of such employees does not fall within the scope of what is necessary to protect the independent functioning of that body. There is however no question that the privilege prevents judicial review of discipline or suspension of a member of the legislature itself.
 Second, parliamentary privilege applies to the Senate’s management of its internal affairs, including the allocation and use of parliamentary resources. This privilege extends to decisions on the approval of expenses claimed by senators. I find that the privilege applies to decisions by an internal committee of senators, such as the CIBA, with respect to the allocation or withholding of parliamentary resources to a senator.
 Third, Parliament has exclusive control over, and privilege with respect to, its own debates and proceedings.
 Finally, parliamentary privilege protects freedom of speech in the Senate. Allegations in a statement of claim about what was said in parliament must be struck, because statements in parliament cannot be reviewed by a court. Neither a senator nor a third party can be compelled to testify in court about anything they said or did in the course of Senate proceedings. Transcripts of proceedings, and reports produced by or commissioned for the Senate, can likewise not be produced in court proceedings. The Senate’s failure to object to disclosure of some evidence that might have been subject to privilege during Senator Duffy’s criminal trial does not mean that it has relinquished its right to invoke privilege in this case.
The Judge is setting out the reasons here: The Senate is allowed under the law to discipline its own members. The ruling will go on to cite many examples and circumstances, but this will suffice for now.
 Senator Duffy contends that the application of parliamentary privilege in this case leaves him without any meaningful remedy. He says that he cannot hope to get justice from the very body that has treated him so badly in the past, and that the courts should not allow Charter violations to go unchecked, particularly in circumstances where those violations arise from interference by one branch of government (the PMO) with another (the Senate).
 I am however obliged to respect constitutional imperatives. Allowing a court to revisit the Senate’s decisions at issue here would interfere with the Senate’s ability to function as an independent legislative body, equal to other branches of government. These decisions, as well as the Senate record relevant to them, are protected by parliamentary privilege and are accordingly immune from judicial review or reconsideration. Since the actions at issue fall within those actions protected by parliamentary privilege, I cannot give any consideration to whether they were wrong or unfair or even contrary to Senator Duffy’s Charter rights. All of these are determinations that the Senate, and the Senate alone, can make. The Senate’s motion to dismiss Senator Duffy’s action against it is therefore granted.
Interesting, that Duffy has been in the Senate since 2009, but seems to know so little about how it works.
From the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, 21 and 25.11:
21.01 (1) A party may move before a judge,
(a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law raised by a pleading in an action where the determination of the question may dispose of all or part of the action, substantially shorten the trial or result in a substantial saving of costs; or
(b) to strike out a pleading on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence,
and the judge may make an order or grant judgment accordingly. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 21.01 (1).
STRIKING OUT A PLEADING OR OTHER DOCUMENT
25.11 The court may strike out or expunge all or part of a pleading or other document, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that the pleading or other document,
(a) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action;
(b) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or
(c) is an abuse of the process of the court. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 25.11.
The Senate invokes 2 sections of the Ontario rules, claiming that since Parliamentary privilege applies that the Senate should not be a defendant in the case.
 Over time, the concept of parliamentary privilege was expanded to protect not only speech and procedures, but any action within parliament over which it must necessarily have exclusive control, as an independent and coequal branch of government. Parliamentary privilege is accordingly:
the necessary immunity that the law provides for Members of Parliament … in order for these legislators to do their legislative work. It is also the necessary immunity that the law provides for anyone while taking part in a proceeding in Parliament … Finally, it is the authority and power of each House of Parliament … to enforce that immunity.
Section 18 of the 1867 Constitution Act states:
Privileges, etc., of Houses
18. The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, but so that any Act of the Parliament of Canada defining such privileges, immunities, and powers shall not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding those at the passing of such Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof
In one context, it is nice that the Court here does apply and uphold some separation between branches of government.
However, from a taxpayer who likes accountability from public officials, there is another viewpoint. Many would like to see the truth of the matter fleshed out, something that hasn’t really happened. However, this seems to be a case of “procedure over facts”.
It will be interesting to see what happens with the RCMP, as they will be all too happy to throw Duffy under the bus to show they acted properly.
Backstory Events Leading Up to Lawsuit Against RCMP and Senate
In November 2013, Conservative Senators: 1/ Patrick Brazeau; 2/ Pamela Wallin’ and 3/ Mike Duffy were all suspended from the Canadian Senate for 2 years without pay, over illegal spending.
Mike Duffy faced 31 criminal charges, including: 15 counts of fraud, 15 counts of breach of trust, and 1 count of bribery, (for allegedly receiving $90,000 gift to pay back expenses).
Bribery of judicial officers, etc.
119 (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years who
(a) being the holder of a judicial office, or being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, directly or indirectly, corruptly accepts, obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for themselves or another person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by them in their official capacity, or
(b) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives or offers to a person mentioned in paragraph (a), or to anyone for the benefit of that person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by that person in their official capacity.
Breach of trust by public officer
122 Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 111.
380 (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars; or
(b) is guilty
(i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
(ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction,
where the value of the subject-matter of the offence does not exceed five thousand dollars.
UN GMC Challenged In Calgary Fed Court, 300-635 8th Ave SW.
Case File: T-2089-18. Filed December 6, 2018. CLICK HERE for more information.
This is a case-law book which has a collection of Supreme Court of Canada decisions over the last century.
Each case is covered in about 5-6 pages. It combines actual quotes from the Court rulings along with commentary on the reasoning. The reviews directly come from the rulings, and are not filtered through media bias.
Certainly, everyone has their own opinions as to which cases should be included, but Mr. Pound selects 57 cases from a wide cross section of law. Here are a few of them
(The issue of bank data being seized is raised in Parliament)
The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.
Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE
This article was released by Global News on October 26, 2018, and CanuckLaw covered it here on October 28. In short, Statistics Canada wants to seize the banking information of 500,000 Canadians (each year), and do it without the knowledge or consent of Canadians.
(at 1:40 in the video) Statistics Canada representative James Tabreke in a very blunt way claims that this is a ”new way of getting economic data to make government decisions”. He also claims that StatsCan is being open with the public, and that the Canadian Banks were aware of this.
(at 2:32 in the video) Claim that the Privacy Commissioner has okayed the project.
Prime Minister Trudeau, in his typically partisan manner, defended the data seizure. Of course blamed Stephen Harper for eliminating the long form census in 2010. He claimed StatsCan was working closely with the Privacy Commissioner.
Now the lies get exposed:
First, Trudeau is distorting the truth with reference to Harper gutting the long-form census. In the original video, Statistics Canada claimed bank seizure was a move done to replace the long form census. So Harper cancelling the LFC in 2010 was actually irrelevant, as StatsCan was going to pull this stunt anyway.
Second, StatsCan claims that they have been open with what they are doing. Yet, these talks have been going on for a year now without the public’s knowledge.
Third, the C.B.A. (Canadian Bankers Association) has publicly objected, claiming they thought StatsCan was just in an exploratory stage. C.B.A. says they didn’t know StatsCan was going ahead with this, and says they will oppose the measure. Here is their statement:
Statement from the Canadian Bankers Association
Protecting the information privacy of their valued customers is a top priority for banks in Canada. Banks believed this proposed data acquisition project was still in the exploratory stages and were not aware that Statistics Canada was moving to compel disclosure of this information. No customer transaction data or other personal information has been transferred to Statistics Canada under this request. The CBA is working with members to understand the nature of this request and next steps.
Fourth, the Privacy Commissioner, seen here appearing before the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, refutes the claim that he ”okayed the move”. Instead, he stated that he does not have the authority to approve such a thing, and is only able to provide general advice on privacy laws.
Fifth, the Privacy Commissioner claims he was unaware until very recently that Statistics Canada that they wanted to do this to 500,000 Canadians. He says numbers were not discussed. In the hearing he states, ”Proportionality is very important.”
Sixth, the Privacy Commissioner states he was unaware or just how much information would be seized by such a move.
Seventh, the Privacy Commissioner admits that StatsCan was not nearly as transparent as it could have been.
Eighth, and this is a glaring omission: StatsCan doesn’t say how this massive intrusion would actually help. There are just vague references to ”economic information”.
Certainly, that 15 years of credit card data had recently been seized also doesn’t sit well with many Canadians.
Now that formal complaints against this measure have been filed with the Privacy Commissioner, there is no longer the option of just giving general legal information. At this point, an investigation is mandated by law.
The proposal appears to be dead in the water, as public outrage and the threats of legal action are forcing StatsCan to back off. But it will be interesting to see if the Federal Liberals continue to support this Orwellian measure.
Statistics Canada, Equifax, Transunion, the C.B.A., and the major banks have all been contacted by CanuckLaw for comment. Any responses will be posted here as updates.
Canadian Banker’s Association rep Aaron Boles Thanks, Alex.
The most important take-away from yesterday is that StatsCan is suspending any movement on its proposed project until the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has completed its report, which we understand will be January at the earliest. We were firm in our appearance before the Senate Committee that all options are on the table in terms of defending the privacy and security of bank customers’ personal information and transaction records. Until the OPC report is tabled and StatsCan responds about what it proposes to do thereafter, there’s little point in speculating on how information on spending habits would be collected, if at all.
Hi Alex – please refer to the CBA for comment on this.
AJ Goodman I Director, External Communications, Personal & Commercial Banking I
From TD Canada
We refer your inquiry to the CBA, however can tell you that TD takes the trust our customers place in us extremely seriously and has not agreed to share customer data.
From Statistics Canada Hello,
“I can assure you that we will not proceed with this project until we have addressed the privacy concerns expressed by Canadians by working cooperatively with the Privacy Commissioner and with financial institutions.”
Anil Arora, Chief Statistician of Canada (Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, November 8, 2018)
Manager (Acting), Media Relations, Communications
Statistics Canada, Government of Canada
In our database, Equifax Canada has information on ~27M Canadian consumers, which we maintain as a registered Canadian credit bureau in accordance with applicable credit reporting and privacy laws. Statistics Canada has never directed Equifax Canada to provide them with, and subsequently, Equifax Canada has not provided to Statistics Canada all of its data pursuant to its enabling legislation.
In any instance where a regulated body relying on legislative authority requests information from Equifax, our standard process is to conduct a review against our internal data governance and security processes, as well as to consider applicable law prior to disclosure.
We don’t have any information on the rumour you mentioned about credit data from 15 years ago.
Media Relations | Equifax Canada Co.
5700 Yonge St., Suite 1700, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M2M 4K2
The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.
Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE
Need some extra cash? Don’t feel like working hard? Well, here at CanuckLaw, we have the solution for you.
Simply make some vague claim about: (a) being offended; (b) having hurt feelings; (c) loss of self confidence, and you will be well on your way to making your next year’s salary virtually overnight.
Need that new sports car? Or have a girlfriend with really expensive taste? Now you don’t have to feel like a cheapskate. Just file a human rights complaint, and that cash is as good as yours. Just appear before the tribunal and cry up a storm.
In court, you will be forced to ”prove damages” and likely ”hire a lawyer”. Not the case here. Just say you are offended, and the Province will pick up your tab. The slimy accused will still have to pay his bill though.
And if you want to come to Canada, but don’t qualify, then just claim to be oppressed and fearful of persecution. And since it’s all in your head, no proof necessary.
All joking aside, the Provincial Human Rights Tribunals are in fact a very lucrative way to cash in. We will explain here.
One interesting case, is Sanford v. Koop, 2005 HRTO 53 (CanLII) at paras. 34-38. CLICK HERE for a link to it. It sets out a disturbingly vague, yet extensive list which people can get extra money under. Although this is Ontario, other provinces have very similar guidelines. From paragraph 35:
 The Commission provided a number of cases which set out the criteria to be used in assessing the appropriate quantum of general damages. These factors include:
• Humiliation experienced by the complainant
• Hurt feelings experienced by the complainant
• A complainant’s loss of self-respect
• A complainant’s loss of dignity
• A complainant’s loss of self-esteem
• A complainant’s loss of confidence
• The experience of victimization
• Vulnerability of the complainant
• The seriousness, frequency and duration of the offensive treatment
See: Baylis-Flannery v. DeWilde (No.2) (2003), 48 C.H.R.R. D/197 (total general damages of $35,000); Arias v. Desai, (No.2) (2003) 45 C.H.H.R. D/308 (HRTO) (total general damages of $25,000); Curling v. Torimiro (No.4) (2000), 38 C.H.R.R. D/216 (Ont. Bd. Inq.) (total general damages of $21,000); Ketola v. Value Propane Inc. (No. 2), (2002), 44 C.H.H.R.R. D/37 (Ont. Bd. Inq.) (total award of $20,000 for general damages and mental anguish); deSouza v. Gauthier (2002), 43 C.H.R.R. D/128 (Ont. Bd. Inq.) (total award of $25,000 for general damages and mental anguish)
 The Tribunal accepts the submissions of the Commission. Considering the evidence in this matter, and the similarity of the facts in this case with the facts in the cases cited by the Commission, the Tribunal awards $25,000 in general damages.
Damages for Mental Anguish for the Reckless and Wilful Infringement of the Complainant’s Rights
 Pursuant to Section 41(1)(b) of the Code the Tribunal may award damages of up to $10,000 for mental anguish, injury to dignity, feelings and pride, where such infringement has been engaged in wilfully or recklessly.
 The Commission identified the factors used to assess mental anguish damages pursuant to Section 41(1)(b):
Yes, you are reading that correctly: having hurt feelings can get you lots of money, according to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. In fact, they even give a price range.
Prospective Canadians: now, if waiting years, spending money, and doing paperwork are not your thing, don’t worry. Just hop a place to the U.S. with a tourist visa,seen here, walk across the Canadian border, and get yourself detained. Free housing, food and medical care while you wait for your claim.
Immigration and Refugee Boards (IRB) and Human Rights Tribunals (HRT) are clogged with bogus cases. In fact, a quick search reveals thousands, and those are just the ones that are published. Here are some cases pulled at random.
(1) CLICK HERE for an attempt to silence speech critical of Islam.
(2) CLICK HERE for getting a job in a restaurant, then refusing to do it later based on religious grounds.
(3) CLICK HERE for a funny one, taking action against each other for discrimination.
(4) CLICK HERE for a member of the Islamic Salvation Front wanting refugee status.
(5) CLICK HERE for a claim that asking a prospective tenant for a 12 month lease is discrimination.
(6) CLICK HERE for a member of Hamas (a terrorist group), wanting to be declared a refugee.
(7) CLICK HERE for an unsubstantiated claim of fear of safety.
(8) CLICK HERE for a member of the Students Islamic Movement of India, with at least 6 arrests, wanting asylum based on persecution.
(9) CLICK HERE for a woman seeking asylum due to an interfaith marriage gone wrong (Islam and Hindu)
(10) CLICK HERE for a blind man being denied to bring his guide dog due to cab driver’s religion.
(11) CLICK HERE for a judicial review (and a well cited case) of an asylum decision.
(12) CLICK HERE for taking Rebel Media to he cleaners for offering commentary deemed offensive.
(13) CLICK HERE for a claim about saying mean words to someone.
http://canlii.org is a free site, available to anyone. You can do actual legal research from here, and research decisions from all over the country. Thing is, no lawyer is necessary.