Key Dates

• January 25 – deadline to apply
• April 25 – earliest job start date
• July 24 – latest job start date
• September 3 – latest job end date

Funding confirmation will be sent to employers starting in April 2022.

What’s Different?

No COVID-related flexibility

Last year CSJ was adjusted due to COVID-19. These temporary measures are no longer in effect. That means:

• Jobs need to end by September 3
• Jobs need to be a minimum of 30 hours/week
• Jobs need to last at least 6 weeks

Last year the subsidy was higher for private sector employers, part time jobs were allowed, and the allowable employment period was much longer.

Allowing for remote work

The Applicant Guide notes that remote work may be a necessity. Remote work is defined as “a flexible arrangement” that allows employees to carry out some or all of their work duties from a telework place.” Where work is performed remotely, employers are responsible for ensuring that:

• The location respects provincial laws and municipal by-laws
• There is continued and adequate supervision, mentoring, and safety provisions
• The location is within Canada

National Priorities

Applications are assessed using a variety of criteria. One of those is whether the job/project supports a national priority. For 2022 the national priorities are:

• Youth who are early leavers of high school, not in employment, education or training
• Black and other racialized youth
• Youth with disabilities
• Indigenous youth; and
• Small business and not-for-profit organizations that self-report as having leadership from groups that are underrepresented in the labour market

This is a change from the 2021 national priorities, which were:

• Youth who self-identify as being part of an underrepresented group or having additional barriers to entering or staying in the labour market (new immigrants or refugees, Indigenous youth, not completed high school, visible minorities, LGBTQ, women in STEM, youth for whom this would be their first job)
• Organizations that provide services to people with disabilities or intend to hire youth with disabilities
• Opportunities in rural areas, remote communities or official language minority communities
• Organizations that focus on protecting and conserving the environment
• Employers impacted by COVID-19

Local priorities are also used to assess applications. Those vary from constituency to constituency.

Application Process

You can save it!

If you’re using the online application, you’ll be able to save and access your application at a later date. To save your draft application, you have to provide your email address and create a password. You then have 48 hours to complete and submit the application. Your password cannot be reset, so make sure you don’t forget. Otherwise, all of your draft work will be lost!

You’ve got 20 minutes.

If you leave the online application inactive for 20 minutes, it will become unavailable. If you need more time, you’ll probably want to save a draft and come back to you so you don’t lose your work.

The paper version of the application has been formatted differently so that it’s easier to use.

Fine Print

In the Articles of Agreement, there are a few new sections of fine print for 2022. This includes:

• Notices – it sets out how notice is given to parties, whether by mail or email or courier, and when the recipient is deemed to have received that notice
• Severability – if a part of the Agreement is held void or unenforceable by a court or tribunal, the rest of it is still enforceable
• Waiver – failing to exercise a right, power or remedy under the agreement is not a waiver of those rights

The “Access to Information” section from the 2021 Articles of Agreement has been removed. It explained that all information pertaining to the Agreement was public information and could be disclosed to third parties who make requests under the Access to Information Act. That section largely duplicated an existing section about “Access to Information and Proactive Disclosure” which is maintained in the 2022 Articles of Agreement.

What’s the Same?

Attestation

The attestation remains the same as 2021 and 2020. It requires that “any funding under the Canada Summer Jobs program will not be used to undermine or restrict the exercise of rights legally protected in Canada.”

Ineligible Projects

Similarly, the description of ineligible projects remains the same as 2021 and 2020. Ineligible projects and job activities are those that:

• Restrict access to programs or, services, or employment, or otherwise discriminate, contrary to applicable laws, on the basis of prohibited grounds, including sex, genetic characteristics, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression;
• Advocate intolerance, discrimination and/or prejudice; or
• Actively work to undermine or restrict a woman’s access to sexual and reproductive health services.

Definitions of “Project”, “Advocate”, and “Undermine or Restrict”

These terms are all defined the same as in 2021 and 2020:

• Project means the “hiring, administration of, job activities, and organization’s activities as described in the Application Agreement”
• Advocate means “to promote, foster, or actively support intolerance, discrimination, and/or prejudice”
• Undermine or restrict means “to weaken or limit a woman’s ability to access sexual and reproductive health services. The Government of Canada defines sexual and reproductive health services as including comprehensive sexuality education, family planning, prevention and response to sexual and gender-based violence, safe and legal abortion, and post-abortion care”

Program Objectives

The three CSJ program objectives remain the same as in 2021 and 2020:

1. Provide quality work experiences for youth
2. Respond to national and local priorities to improve access to the labour market for youth who face unique barriers
3. Provide opportunities for youth to develop and improve their skills

These objectives fall within the same broad aim of ensuring that all the CSJ opportunities “take place in safe, inclusive and healthy work environments free from harassment and discrimination.”

List of Mandatory Workplace Policies

Employers have to show that they have implemented Health & Safety practices and policies and practices to create a work environment free of harassment and discrimination. In 2021, the format changed to a check-box, with a list of policies or practices for each of those categories. The list included a number of new policies for 2021. The list remains the same for 2022, with the exception that COVID-19 policies are not included. Instead the Applicant Guide reminds employers that they’re responsible for staying informed of and following all applicable COVID-19-related guidance.

15-Point Eligibility Criteria

1. Meet the deadline
2. Check the attestation
3. Complete the application
4. Employer is eligible
5. Project is eligible
6. Job duration of 6–16 consecutive weeks *this is the norm after a temporary COVID-related change for 2021
7. Job hours of 30–40/week *this is the norm after a temporary COVID-related change for 2021
8. Declare other sources of funding
9. Salary respects minimum wage requirements
10. Declare any money owed to the government
11. Health and safety
12. Hiring practices and work environment
13. Supervision – describe the plan
14. Mentoring – describe the plan
15. How your organization has done in the past

How Applications are Assessed

It’s the same, but it bears repeating: the Department reviews all files associated with your organization to verify if there is evidence from previous agreements that would make your application ineligible. The Department may also review:

• Information in the public domain, including your website and media articles
• Previous applications
• All previous correspondence, including responses to requests for missing information or clarification
• Past financial irregularities, noted in consultation with CRA

What Will Happen this Year?

That’s not a question we can really answer. But if we look at past years, we can see that faith-based organizations’ applications were rejected for a variety of reasons. For example, statements of faith that adhere to a biblical definition of marriage, because all staff agree to sign statements of faith, or for other similar reasons. On that basis, we shouldn’t be surprised to see more of the same this year. However, we also have several court decisions relating to the CSJ program.

In Toronto Right to Life, the organization challenged the 2018 Attestation. The court held that the Minister had the authority to add the Attestation. Even though it was a form of coerced speech and did engage both free expression and religious freedom, the limit was justified and proportional. It was a one-time impact on potential, but not certain, funding.

However, earlier this year the Federal Court found that the government CSJ process was unfair to religious applicants. If an organization could establish that officials discriminated against faith-based institutions because of their religious beliefs, it may well result in a Charter violation.

Hopefully the court’s caution will give the government pause before rejecting applicants on the basis of statements of faith or other manifestations of sincere religious beliefs.

What to do?

Over the past three years, CCCC encouraged Christian charities to apply for funding since applicants were no longer required to attest to their agreement with government ideology on abortion and matters of sexuality.

As noted at the outset, we respect the view that merely applying for CSJ funding is to acquiesce to the government’s position on “sexual and reproductive health services” including abortion. And each charity must reach its own conclusion.

In the end, we arrive at the same conclusion as last year. Namely, that the phrase “undermining, or restricting” ought not deny the right of religious organizations to speak or teach or live their religious views, even if that doesn’t align with the government’s worldview. It is not contrary to applicable laws for faith-based organizations to hire in accordance with their faith. Therefore, we would again encourage Christian charities to apply for funding in 2022.

The post Canada Summer Jobs 2022 appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

The Bottom Line: CSJ Applicants Successful, Awarded Costs

Two religious organizations – BCM International and Redeemer University – successfully challenged their 2019 Canada Summer Jobs rejections. In both cases the Federal Court held that the government process was unfair to the applicant organizations and that alone would have been sufficient to find in their favour. But the Court went further in the BCM decision and found the denial unreasonable. Because the issue could be decided on procedural grounds, the Court did not make a decision on the various Charter claims.

In terms of a remedy, there was no option to send the applications back for re-assessment. Instead, the Court issued declarations that the government breached its procedural fairness obligations and awarded costs to the applicants.

The Procedure Was Unfair

An administrative decision maker has a duty of fairness. What fairness demands will depend on the facts of specific circumstances. Procedural fairness ensures that decisions are made in a fair and open procedure, knowing what the issue is (e.g. “the case to be met”), with an opportunity for participation – providing evidence, putting forward views – and having it all properly considered by the decision maker.

In both cases, the procedure was unfair. BCM was not given notice of the issues and was not given a chance to provide evidence. It could not have known it was going to be deemed “ineligible because it allegedly discriminates on the basis of prohibited grounds.”

Similarly, Redeemer was not given notice of the case to be met or an opportunity to provide relevant evidence. Nothing in the Minister’s letter shows the Minister believed Redeemer unlawfully discriminated or that the Minister had any issue with Redeemer’s policies. The Court held that the letter “was not … a genuine attempt to seek clarification or further information. […] Sending the letter was simply going through the motions to appear to be fair, not an exercise in fairness itself.”

The BCM Denial Was Unreasonable

For BCM, the Minister never actually assessed whether the project discriminated contrary to applicable laws. In “an after-the-fact attempt at justifying the decision” the government contended that a 2018 BCM summer camp staff application asked employees to divulge their beliefs about sexuality. According to the government, this was sufficient to raise concerns about BCM discriminating.

The Court disagreed. It found there was nothing in the record to show this was the basis for excluding BCM. And if there had been, it would “clearly engage BCM’s Charter interests.”  The decision did not show how BCM purportedly discriminates and it was unreasonable for the Minister to reject its application.

The Charter Claims

Even though the Charter issues weren’t addressed, one of the two judgments made an important comment: just because it wasn’t necessary to make a decision on the Charter questions, the government “should take no comfort from this conclusion.” Why? There was no evidence that they had “made any overt attempt” to consider the organization’s religious freedom, freedom of expression or freedom of association. The Court gave what appears to be a caution to the government, noting that

…should it be established in another case that officials discriminated in administering funding programs against faith-based institutions because of the sincerely held religious beliefs of their community, a finding of a Charter violation may well result. Such institutions must be treated not just with procedural fairness but also with respect for their Charter-protected rights.

This pair of decisions brings great news for religious CSJ applicants. The Court set out how procedural fairness standards apply in the CSJ context to ensure fair and reasonable decisions moving forward. This requires transparency in the decision-making process, an opportunity to provide relevant evidence, and a decision that shows the government actually assessed whether projects discriminate based on applicable laws by clearly indicating how the applicant discriminates.

CSJ Concerns Vindicated

CCCC is pleased to see this positive outcome. After many years of speaking out on CSJ issues through blogs, op-eds, academic papers, meeting with political leaders, and coordinating with other organizations to collectively advocate, CCCC welcomes these court decisions. They affirm the CSJ application process was, in these cases, unfair. The decisions bring a measure of justice and vindication to religious CSJ applicants and sets clear expectations for fairness in the future.

Both decisions are available online: BCM International Canada Inc. v Canada (Employment, Workforce Development and Labour), 2021 FC 687 and Redeemer University College v Canada (Employment, Workforce Development and Labour), 2021 FC 686.

We’ll post more on the decisions and their significance – stay tuned!

The post A Win for Religious Organizations Challenging Canada Summer Job Rejections appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

It’s that time of year again! Canada Summer Jobs (CSJ) applications are open. And as in past years, you’re probably again asking, “what does the attestation say?” or “has anything changed?” and “can we in good conscience apply?”

We fully recognize that charity leaders must make up their own minds as to whether they are comfortable with the terms and conditions (the strings) attached to funding. To help you decide, we’ll look at the requirements for 2021 as set out in the Applicant Guide and the Articles of Agreement.

But you’ll have to decide fairly quickly, as applications are due by January 29, 2021.

What’s the Same?

Attestation

The Attestation is word-for-word the same as last year. It remains “any funding under the Canada Summer Jobs program will not be used to undermine or restrict the exercise of rights legally protected in Canada.”

Ineligible Projects

Also word-for-word the same is a description of ineligible projects where the programs or job activities:

• restrict access to programs or, services, or employment, or otherwise discriminate, contrary to applicable laws, on the basis of prohibited grounds, including sex, genetic characteristics, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression
• advocate intolerance, discrimination and/or prejudice, or
• actively work to undermine or restrict a woman’s access to sexual and reproductive health services.

The definitions of “project”, “advocate”, and “undermine or restrict” remain the same as last year.

• Project means the “hiring, administration of, job activities, and organization’s activities as described in the Application Agreement”
• Advocate means “to promote, foster, or actively support intolerance, discrimination, and/or prejudice”
• Undermine or restrict means “to weaken or limit a woman’s ability to access sexual and reproductive health services. The Government of Canada defines sexual and reproductive health services as including comprehensive sexuality education, family planning, prevention and response to sexual and gender-based violence, safe and legal abortion, and post-abortion care”

Program Objectives

The three CSJ program objectives are the same:

1. Provide quality work experiences for youth
2. Respond to national and local priorities to improve access to the labour market for youth who face unique barriers
3. Provide opportunities for youth to develop and improve their skills

These objectives fall within the same broad aim of ensuring that all the CSJ opportunities “take place in safe, inclusive and healthy work environments free from harassment and discrimination.”

Eligibility Criteria

The 15-point eligibility criteria also remain the same, but with some modifications to the content.

The first 10 are the same with non-substantive modifications:

1. Meet the deadline
2. Check the attestation
3. Complete the application

4. Employer is eligible
5. Project is eligible

6. Job duration of 6–23 consecutive weeks* (used to be 6–16 consecutive weeks)
7. Job hours of 12–40/week* (used to be 30–40/week)

8. Declare other sources of funding
9. Salary respects minimum wage requirements
10. Declare any money owed to the government

The remaining 5 are the same but with more substantive modifications (which will be discussed below).

11. Health and safety
12. Hiring practices and work environment
13. Supervision – describe the plan
14. Mentoring – describe the plan

15. How your organization has done in the past

In 2020 we noted there was a lot of emphasis on safe, healthy work environments, and hiring practices. That trend continues this year. It should be inherent to the culture of faith-based organizations to promote and ensure safety and health, and to strive for workplaces free of harassment and discrimination. But as we know, the term discrimination is often used in indiscriminate ways. And 2021 applicants are being asked for more information. So, let’s take a look at what’s new or has been notably revised.

What’s Different?

There are a few changes that we need to note.

Employer Flexibility

First, employer flexibility. Nothing is untouched by COVID-19, including CSJ 2021. The COVID-19 changes made to the 2020 program are continued. Specifically:

• Public and private sector employers are eligible for up to 75% wage subsidy (regular is 50%)
• Part time jobs are allowed, 12–40 hours/week (regular is 30+ hours/week)
• Employment period from April 26, 2021–February 26, 2022 (regular requires completion during the summer)
• Project and job activities may be amended if the project is impacted by restrictions; must contact Service Canada to discuss amendments and have them approved

Quality Job Placements

Second, the description of what makes a quality job placement. Here again, while the categories remain the same, COVID-19 has amended some of the substance.

In 2021, as in 2019 and 2020, the starting point for quality job placements remains a safe, inclusive and healthy work environment. The markers of quality jobs are:

• Paying above minimum wage
• Retaining the youth as an employee beyond the CSJ period
• Supervision – observing, evaluating and providing feedback
• Mentoring – support professional and career development
• Skills development
• Health and safety practices
• Work environment policies and practices

The 2021 COVID-19 related change falls under health and safety practices. Employers are “responsible for staying informed of provincial guidance on essential services, and municipal provincial and federal public health information and following all necessary local health guidance.”

Eligibility Criteria – Policies

Third, there is a heightened emphasis on policies in the eligibility requirements and how those are addressed in the actual application. It has moved from suggested types of policies and program plans to a checklist.

For Health and Safety Practices, the qualifier adequate has been added to what is required. You must demonstrate you have “implemented adequate measures to ensure youth awareness of health and safety practices.” The list of policies has expanded to include COVID-19 prevention measures, safety checks, providing safety equipment, and an emergency preparedness and response plan. These have been reformatted from what health and safety practices “may include” to a check-box format.

For both Supervision Plan and Mentoring Plans, the check-box approach now applies. Some new criteria have been added, such as the amount of the supervisor or mentor’s experience in a supervisory or mentorship role, exactly what the supervisor or mentor will provide, the specific type of feedback that will be provided and the formality of those relationships.

For Work Environment, the description has also added the qualifier adequate. The slight changes over the past three years are summarized in the chart below.

The list of policies in the new check-box format has expanded significantly. It includes:

• Hiring policies/practices
• Harassment polices / practices
• Conflict resolution policies / practices
• Employee and/or Management Training
• Other
• *NEW Discrimination policies / practices
• *NEW Accessibility and accommodation policies / practices
• *NEW Employment equity policies / practices
• *NEW Privacy polices / practices

Past Results

Fourth, the impact of past results.

In 2020 and continuing in 2021, application assessments take into account:

• all files associated with the organization to see if there is documentation from previous agreements that would render the current application ineligible (i.e. financial irregularities, health and safety concerns, or past project results)
• Possible consultation with Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) on past financial irregularities
• information in the public domain, including material on your website and media articles

New for 2021 is taking into account:

• Previous applications
• All previous correspondence, including:
  • Responses to requests for missing information
  • Responses to requests for clarification

Do the changes mean anything?

Well, it depends.

Work Environment is now an overt focus for application assessments. Much like last year, it’s unpredictable how those will be examined. Will the right of organizations to hire based on shared religious beliefs be respected (the attestation prohibits only projects that discriminate “contrary to applicable laws”)? Will the government adhere to its duty of state neutrality in how it evaluates applications?

We know last year many faith-based organizations were rejected because of Statements of Faith that adhere to a biblical definition of marriage, or because all staff agree to sign statements of faith and commit to live out those principles on a daily basis. It is likely, then, that we will see more organizations rejected on the basis of hiring policies that, though perfectly legal and falling within human rights code protections for faith-based organizations, are deemed unfashionable or unpalatable.

The 2018 Attestation was an up-front screening mechanism, with its blatant prejudice and discrimination articulated for all to see. Since then, we’ve seen screening mechanisms move behind the veil, so to speak. Rather than outright reject applicants in a public way, applicants now find themselves welcomed into a process only to be screened in accordance with the same set of values, but quietly and individually.

When groups are excluded up front, it is easy to band together and confront the policy and politicians that exclude. When groups are rejected after application, one by one, it is much harder to band together and confront the anonymous decision-makers in government bureaucracy.

We also know that applicants rejected in past years will likely have an uphill battle to secure funding, particularly if the policies, positions and principles that attracted criticism and controversy remain the same.

Where does CCCC land?

In 2019 and 2020 CCCC encouraged all Christian charities to apply for funding since applicants were no longer required to attest to their agreement with government ideology on abortion and sexual issues. As noted at the outset, we respect the view that merely applying for CSJ funding is to acquiesce to the government’s position on “sexual and reproductive health services” including abortion. And each charity must reach its own conclusion.

However, we at CCCC arrive at the same conclusion as last year. Namely, that the phrase “undermining, or restricting” does not deny the right of religious organisations to speak or teach or live their religious views in opposition to the government’s worldview, as this is not “contrary to applicable laws.” Nor is it contrary to applicable laws for faith-based organizations to hire in accordance with their faith. Therefore, we would again encourage Christian charities to apply for funding in 2021.

The post Canada Summer Jobs 2021: Applications Open appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Canada Summer Jobs (CSJ) approvals are now available online.

Charities and churches should have received notification about their approvals or denials now that the government has released its list of 2020 recipients to the public.

Last year faith-based organizations seemed to have less difficulty securing CSJ funds than in 2018 (although this is certainly not universal).

While the 2020 application did not change drastically from last year’s, we noted four differences, most of which centered around the existence of “safe, inclusive and healthy work environments free from harassment and discrimination” and a greater focus on hiring policies and hiring practices.

Applicants were reminded that the project could not consist of projects or activities that

• restrict access to programs, services, or employment, or otherwise discriminate, contrary to applicable laws, on the basis of prohibited grounds, including sex, genetic characteristics, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression

• advocate intolerance, discrimination and/or prejudice, or

• actively work to undermine or restrict a woman’s access to sexual and reproductive health services

Until applications are approved or rejected, it can be difficult to determine how the government interpreted its 2020 requirements.

As such, CCCC encourages its members who were not approved to contact us so that we can ascertain why they were denied funding and whether further action is necessary. 

The post Canada Summer Jobs 2020: Approvals Now Available appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

No doubt you’re asking, “what is the attestation this year?” and “can we in good conscience apply?” As with past CSJ applications, we fully recognize that charity leaders must make up their own minds as to whether they are comfortable with the terms and conditions (the strings) attached to funding. To help you decide, we’ll look at the requirements for 2020 as set out in the Applicant Guide and the Articles of Agreement.

What’s the Same?

The Attestation is word for word the same as last year. It remains “any funding under the Canada Summer Jobs program will not be used to undermine or restrict the exercise of rights legally protected in Canada.”

The 15-point eligibility criteria also remain the same. The 15 requirements include the obvious items:

1. Meet the deadline
2. Check the attestation
3. Complete the application

…some seemingly redundant items:

4. Employer is eligible
5. Project is eligible

…job timing:

6. Duration of 6-16 consecutive weeks
7. Full time hours (30-40/week)

…money considerations:

8. Identify other sources of funding
9. Salary respects minimum wage requirements
10. Organization declares any money owed to the government

…plans and policies:

11. Health and safety – demonstrate measures have been implemented that relate to the type of work environment, job type, and job activities
12. Hiring practices and work environment – hiring policies and work environment policies to ensure no harassment or discrimination
13. Supervision – describe the plan
14. Mentoring – describe the plan

…and lastly:

15. How your organization has done in the past.

Here the government will review “all files associated with your organization” for “documented evidence” that would make the 2020 application ineligible. What would that documentation be? It includes – but is not limited to – financial irregularities, health and safety concerns or past project results. This was new in 2019 and has been carried over into 2020.

The objectives to provide quality work experiences for youth, respond to local and national priorities to improve access to the labour market for youth who face unique barriers, and provide skills-development opportunities to youth, all remain the same.

There is a lot of emphasis on safe, healthy work environments free of harassment and discrimination. It should be self-evident that faith-based organizations ought to be promoting and ensuring safety and health, and striving for workplaces free of harassment and discrimination. But as we know, the term discrimination is often used in an indiscriminate way. So let’s take a look at what’s new for 2020.

What’s Different?

There are a few changes that we need to note.

First, the aim.

In 2019 the aim was to “ensure that youth job opportunities funded by the program take place in an environment that respects the rights of all Canadians.” In 2020 the aim is to “ensure that youth job opportunities funded by the program take place in safe, inclusive and healthy work environments free from harassment and discrimination.”

Second, the description of what makes a quality job placement.

In 2019 the starting point for quality job placements was a safe, inclusive and healthy work environment, along with other specific characteristics:

• Paying above minimum wage
• Retaining the youth as an employee beyond the CSJ period
• Providing short and long-term support for success – supervision & mentoring plans
• Provide skills-development opportunities
• A safe, inclusive work environment as demonstrated by detailed health and safety practices

In 2020, all of these factors still apply with two small changes. First, the starting point is broader; it is a safe, inclusive and healthy work environment free from harassment and discrimination. Second, health and safety practices are separate and distinct from work environment policies and practices. Employers need to have implemented measures to provide a work environment free from harassment and discrimination, including non-discriminatory hiring practices.

Third, there is a heightened emphasis on hiring policies in the eligibility requirements.

In 2019, employers had to demonstrate that hiring practices and work environments were free of harassment and discrimination by implementing measures such as raising awareness and prevention activities.

In 2020, employers must demonstrate that they have implemented measures to ensure their hiring practices and work environment are free of harassment and discrimination.

This is a subtle shift in language, and perhaps it is nothing more than a refinement of the Guide. More on this below.

Fourth, the employer information required.

In 2019, organizations had to describe measures to ensure hiring practices and a work environment were free of harassment and discrimination.

In 2020, organizations must identify and describe the work environment policies and practices that have been implemented. It is mandatory to provide such an environment, and organizations must identify and describe the following:

• Hiring policies & practices
• Harassment policies & practices
• Conflict resolution policies
• Employee and/or management training
• Other: any additional practices that demonstrate concrete efforts to create an inclusive work environment.

Here, applicants are reminded that the project cannot consist of projects or activities that

• restrict access to programs or, services, or employment, or otherwise discriminate, contrary to applicable laws, on the basis of prohibited grounds, including sex, genetic characteristics, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression
• advocate intolerance, discrimination and/or prejudice, or
• actively work to undermine or restrict a woman’s access to sexual and reproductive health services.

These restrictions as well as the definition of “project”,[1] “advocate”,[2] and “undermine or restrict”[3] remain the same as last year. They have been moved from the description of project eligibility in 2019 to the employer information section in 2020.

Do the changes mean anything?

Well, it depends.

It depends on how the hiring policies are examined. It depends on whether the right of organizations to hire based on shared religious beliefs is respected (the attestation prohibits only projects that discriminate “contrary to applicable laws”). It depends on whether the government adheres to its duty of state neutrality in how it evaluates applications.

As in 2019 we find ourselves in the position of uncertainty as to how the government will interpret its 2020 requirements. We can be certain that hiring policies will be scrutinized to a much greater degree. But how that translates into approvals or rejections is unclear.

We can see that hiring policies are more important in the application process this year. And we know that last year, organizations that were asked to provide additional documentation about these policies were often not approved. It is possible that we may not see much change from last year, but it would also not come as a surprise to see more organizations rejected on the basis of hiring policies that, though perfectly legal and falling within human rights code protections for faith-based organizations, are unpalatable to our governing elites.

Where does CCCC land?

In 2019, CCCC encouraged all Christian charities to apply for funding since applicants were no longer required to attest to their agreement with government ideology on abortion and sexual issues. As noted at the outset, we respect the view that merely applying for CSJ funding is to acquiesce to the government’s position on “sexual and reproductive health services” including abortion. And each charity must reach its own conclusion.

However, we at CCCC arrive at the same conclusion as last year. Namely, that the phrase “undermining, or restricting” does not deny the right of religious organisations to speak or teach or live their religious views in opposition to the government’s worldview, as this is not “contrary to applicable laws.” Nor is it contrary to applicable laws for faith-based organizations to hire in accordance to their faith. Therefore, we would again encourage Christian charities to apply for funding in 2020.

[1] Project means the “hiring, administration of, job activities, and organization’s activities as described in the Application Agreement.”

[2] Advocate means “to promote, foster, or actively support intolerance, discrimination, and/or prejudice.”

[3] Undermine or restrict means “to weaken or limit a woman’s ability to access sexual and reproductive health services. The Government of Canada defines sexual and reproductive health services as including comprehensive sexuality education, family planning, prevention and response to sexual and gender-based violence, safe and legal abortion, and post-abortion care.”

The post Canada Summer Jobs 2020 – Applications Open! appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Over the past two years, the Federal Government has come under criticism for its requirement that all applicants sign an attestation that both the job and the organization’s core mandate respect individual human rights including reproductive rights and that there exists a right to access safe and legal abortion. Over 1500 charities refused to sign and were denied CSJ grants, a key source of funding for summer student jobs and programs for 2018.

In response, the Federal Government revised its policy and issued a toned-down agreement for 2019 funding. Instead of an Attestation, applicants had to agree that the funding would not be used to “undermine or restrict the exercise of rights legally protected in Canada.” CCCC carefully examined the new requirements and encouraged all Christian charities to apply for funding. 

In the 2019 process, many groups such as church camps and churches were required to file further information as their application was deemed “incomplete.” Charities and churches should have received notification about their approvals or denials now that the government has released its list of 2019 recipients to the public.

CCCC encourages its members who were not approved to contact us so that we can ascertain why they were denied funding and whether further action is necessary. 

The post 2019 Canada Summer Jobs Update appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

This article will review why 2018 was so offensive; explain what the government did differently for 2019; highlight the unanswered questions the government has yet to clarify; and then, finally, suggest a way forward for Christian charities in the valley of decision on whether to apply.

Christian charities in Canada now face another decision involving the Canada Summer Jobs program – whether to apply for funding in 2019. There is good reason to be hesitant. The saying, “once bitten, twice as shy,” comes to mind. 2018 saw the federal government ignore the concerns of Christians who could not in clear conscience sign on to the government’s attestation requirement – and that experience still resonates with many. The 2019 modifications do appear to be an improvement over last year’s application, but we must be vigilant to ensure the rights of all Canadians are protected.

The 2018 Offense

In 2018 the federal government implemented a new requirement that CSJ applicants had to attest to the government’s worldview. The controversial wording stated:

“Both the job and my organization’s core mandate respect individual human rights in Canada, including the values underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as other rights. These include reproductive rights and the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability or sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression.”

As I noted in a series of blog posts and editorials, the attestation was problematic for a variety of reasons, including the ambiguity of so-called “Charter values.” What was particularly offensive was that employers had to agree with the government’s claim that there exists a “right to access safe and legal abortion.” 

First, although abortion was decriminalized in 1988, there is no such constitutional right. Of course, that could change, given the activist nature of the Supreme Court of Canada in recent decades – but, to date, the Court has not declared a positive, unrestricted right to abortion. The current government ignores that fact and wishes the law to be what it is not. “You can have anything in life,” said Peter Pan, “if you will sacrifice everything else for it.” 

Second, the government’s ideological commitment to abortion and other issues involving sexuality was imposed, without exemption or accommodation, on the CSJ applicants. This totalitarian approach was roundly rejected by religious and secular groups across the country. Yet the government refused to back down; even though it produced “supplementary” material, it did not change the attestation. The net result was that over 1,500 charities refused to participate in the 2018 CSJ program.

The 2019 Compromise

It is not lost on anyone that 2019 is an election year. The government decided that things had to change, if for no other reason than political expediency. For the 2019 CSJ program, it removed the offensive provision of 2018 and put in its place this statement for the attestation:

“Any funding under the Canada Summer Jobs program will not be used to undermine or restrict the exercise of rights legally protected in Canada.”

To “undermine or restrict” abortion means, according to the government:

“to weaken or limit a woman’s ability to access sexual and reproductive health services. The Government of Canada defines sexual and reproductive health services as including comprehensive sexuality education, family planning, prevention and response to gender-based violence, safe and legal abortion, and post-abortion care.”

What are we to make of the words “to weaken or limit” the rights in question? If an organisation speaks out against abortion, would that be deemed by the government as “weakening” “a woman’s ability to access sexual and reproductive health?” We do not know. However, it must be said that no citizen can “weaken or limit” legally protected rights in Canada. We have no authority or power to do so. Governments can; citizens cannot. So, why is this in the CSJ 2019 materials? 

The Way Forward

Given that we live in a country ruled by law, we must assume that the Government of Canada will act in accordance with the law. That includes the Charter freedoms of conscience and religion, and the rights contained in human rights legislation. It should hardly be necessary to point out these facts. But we cannot hide from the political reality that the government is not at all sympathetic to communities that adhere to traditional pro-life and sexual ethics. We know as much from our CSJ experience in 2018, and from the language as noted above for the 2019 CSJ program. It is, nevertheless, reasonable to conclude that government will respect the right of Canadians to hold diverse opinions and organize life differently from the government, because that is the law.

Human Rights Exemption

The 2019 CSJ application asks the employer to describe how they are “providing a safe, inclusive, and healthy work environment free of harassment and discrimination (eg. hiring practices, policies, guidelines).”

This may require legal advice as to how you ought to fill in this section. It would appear that the government is still seeking to impose its ideology on the process. The government is trying to determine whether there is, in their view, discrimination against those who do not agree with the religious beliefs and practices of a religious charity. Special care must be taken in filling this out to ensure there is nothing to “trigger” the ideological concerns of government bureaucrats. At the same time, applicants must remain honest and accurate – it would not be advisable to deliberately or inadvertently mislead the government or misuse funds for a job that does not match the description given.

Human rights legislation across Canada allows Canadians, in certain circumstances, to discriminate. Christian organisations can require employees to abide by a lifestyle agreement, or a code of conduct, which is in keeping with their religious beliefs and practices. The organisation has to show that it is a “bona fide occupational requirement.” I will use the Ontario Human Rights Code as an example of how this works. The general principles would apply in similar legislation across the country:

Section 5(1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code states that there must be equality in employment:

“5 (1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability.”

However, there is an exemption made for religious organisations. Section 24(1)(a) reads:

“24(1) The right under section 5 to equal treatment with respect to employment is not infringed where,

(a) a religious, philanthropic, educational, fraternal or social institution or organization that is primarily engaged in serving the interests of persons identified by their race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, creed, sex, age, marital status or disability employs only, or gives preference in employment to, persons similarly identified if the qualification is a reasonable and bona fide qualification because of the nature of the employment[.]”

Hence the religious organisation can discriminate where it is “primarily engaged in serving the interests of persons identified by their … creed.” It can give preferential hire to a “person similarly identified if the qualification is a reasonable and bona fide qualification because of the nature of the employment.”

This requires a careful evaluation of each specific situation. Is the organisation primarily engaged in serving the religious community? If so, it can give preference in hiring a person who agrees with its beliefs and practices, if it is reasonable and made in good faith because of the type of work that is being carried out by that position.

I will apply these criteria to a couple of examples to determine how this works. Please understand that I am sharing my opinion based upon my personal experience and reading of the legislation and the case law. What I present is not to be taken as legal advice; you should contact your own legal counsel to ensure your specific situation is properly canvassed for legal compliance.

Example 1: Christian Summer Camps. If a camp is “primarily engaged” in serving the interests of the religious community, then it can preferentially hire those who agree with its religious teachings and practices. However, it must be reasonable and in good faith. For instance, a camp counselor works closely with the campers as a role model and is responsible for inculcating religious beliefs. By the very nature of the employment, this would, in my view, be one hire that the camp could require adherence to the religious beliefs and practices of the community. Other jobs at the camp would have to be evaluated similarly.

Example 2: Church Vacation Bible Schools. These programs are designed to provide neighbourhood children with engaging Bible teaching during the summer months. The employees would be directly involved in ministering to the children through such programming as puppet theatre, gospel-themed crafts or games, singing Christian songs, and so forth. Again, it would appear to me that the churches would have the right to ensure that their employees agree with their teachings and practices.

In all of this we must recognise, as the law stands, there may be situations where Christian organisations cannot legally enforce a lifestyle agreement on certain employees, depending upon the circumstances. Further, the government’s 2019 CSJ attestation appears, at a minimum, to be a reiteration of the law as described above; and, at maximum, an attempt to force its ideological framework further than the law allows. I will address this point further.

The 2019 CSJ program requires a contractual agreement. The government is giving CSJ employers money to hire students. In return, the government demands adherence to its outlined criteria. These are contained in the application[1], Applicant Guide[2], and the Articles of Agreement[3].  Two sections stand out:

Article 2.1: “Project” is defined as “the hiring, administration of, job activities, and organization’s activities as described in the Application Agreement.” This suggests that activities that an organisation is engaged in, even outside of the particular job in question, are subject to the government’s evaluation. Again, the government may be attempting to impose its ideology on the organisation through this means.

Article 12.1: There the employer contracts that none of the CSJ money it receives will “undermine or restrict the exercise of rights legally protected in Canada.” Does this mean something beyond the statutory and constitutional law? In other words, is it a “supra anti-discrimination” provision that the government deems necessary because it does not think the current legal protections are enough? If it is, can the government legally make that further requirement? 

These unanswered questions will have to be settled by a court of law should it become necessary. It seems, at this point, we will have to wait to see which projects and organisations are denied funding and then determine whether there is sufficient ground to legally challenge the decisions.

Conclusion

In the meantime, charities and small businesses must make up their own minds as to which is the best path forward for their circumstances. Many rely on grants from the federal government. Given that some charities were forced to reduce or even close their community outreach programs because of the financial shortfall in 2018, it might be time to reconsider whether having programs so reliant on government funding is worth the risk. Indeed, wherever possible, it would be prudent to identify alternative sources of funding in the event we are faced with another challenge.

However, since applicants are no longer required to attest to their agreement with government ideology on abortion and sexual issues, the Canadian Council of Christian Charities is encouraging all Christian charities to apply for funding.

We recognize that there is no guarantee that the government will not enforce an interpretation of its 2019 CSJ program that violates employers’ freedom of religion and conscience. The government is willing to push for a “progressive” interpretation of the law in court, in accordance with its ideological commitments. But we will have to evaluate any such development on a case-by-case basis.

There are some who suggest that merely applying for the CSJ funding is to acquiesce to the government’s position. That is a view that must be respected. After all, so the argument goes, you agree not to “undermine or restrict a woman’s access to sexual and reproductive health services” in the Articles of Agreement. The logic is that we “know” what the government means by such statements: abortion ought to be a right even if it is not technically. Good point. It is one that each charity will have to answer for themselves.

However, we at CCCCs take the position that the phrase “undermining, or restricting” does not deny the right of religious organisations to speak or teach or live their religious views in opposition to the government’s worldview. If we are challenged by the government on this, then we will use all the means available to us to fight any such injustice. It will become a legal and political issue should the government refuse to accommodate religious beliefs.

There can be no denying that the government has caused the pro-life Christian community much anguish over the last two years. The totalitarian impulse of this government’s ideological framework has been revealed for what it is. The fact that in 2019 the government has rescinded its problematic 2018 attestation is not an indication that the troubling ideology has been removed. It has only been kept in temporary abeyance for the time being. Vigilance is the price we must pay for liberty. And, vigilant we must be.  

As Christian charities navigate this political labyrinth, we will need the wisdom of Solomon and the determination of Paul to ensure that we are treated justly, so that our ministries can continue unhindered. Having everyone apply will force the government to make decisions on whether to fund religious charities. This will expose just how far the government is willing to go to enforce the “right view” of the world. And that will help us better gauge what we are up against in the inevitable challenges we will face with such a determined regime.

[1] See online: https://catalogue.servicecanada.gc.ca/content/EForms/en/CallForm.html?URL=/content/dam/eforms/en/ESDC-EMP5396A.pdf&Asset=ESDC-EMP5396A.pdf

[2] See online: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/canada/employment-social-development/services/funding/CSJ2019_applicant_guide.pdf

[3] See online: https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/funding/canada-summer-jobs/agreement.html

The post To Apply or Not to Apply for Canada Summer Jobs Funding? appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Published in National Post December 11, 2018

Barry W. Bussey

“What we heard from faith-based groups,” explained Labour Minister Patty Hajdu, as reported by Maclean’s on Dec. 6, 2018, “is that they want to be very clear that this isn’t a judgement about what they believe.” She continued by saying, “I think we’ve managed to do that. The application is very clear that this is about projects and activities, it’s not about faiths and beliefs.”

Good.

I am happy to see that the government finally listened and responded to the concerns of the faith communities across Canada who revolted against the government’s attestation requirement in the Canada Summer Jobs (CSJ) application. That’s the program that grants funding to charities and small businesses to hire students in the summer months. It allows young people not only to make money but to gain valuable work experience. Last year, the wording on the application demanded fealty to the government’s worldview in exchange for funding.

Read more online

The post The government finally blinks on the summer jobs attestation — or so it seems appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

A news report was published today stating that the government has changed the wording of the Canada Summer Jobs application form so that “pro-abortion beliefs to funding eligibility is being dropped.” However, we have yet to receive the final wording on the federal government’s 2019 Canada Summer Jobs attestation requirement.

I am looking forward to receiving a copy of the wording to ensure it is wording our members will be comfortable in signing when they apply for the 2019 program.

Last year, about the same time as now, the government put forward a requirement that applicants were required to endorse a statement saying that they agreed with the government’s position on abortion and other undefined “Charter values.”  That led to a massive protest throughout the country among many religious charities, including CCCC’s members.  We simply could not, in clear conscience, recommend our members sign on, as it was an imposed “values test.”  We organized a campaign, along with other organisations including the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto, Christian Legal Fellowship, and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, against this policy.

It took a while, but eventually the government began to listen to our concerns.  Unfortunately, the government refused to modify the language for the 2018 program.  As a result, over 1500 charities refused to “check the box” and many more chose not to apply at all.  Changing the language for 2019 is definitely a step in the right decision.

It is pleasing to know that the government is making moves to remove last year’s offending language.  The media reports that the new language will “require applicants to declare they don’t work to infringe on any Canadian’s legal rights.”   No organisation that I am aware of has ever sought to remove or infringe on anyone’s legal rights.  They simply want to be able to go about doing their charitable work without the government imposing its worldview on them.

Barry W. Bussey with Liberal MP Scott Simms. Mr. Simms was removed as Chair of the House of Commons Fisheries Committee because  he stood against the Government’s CSJ policy.

The report also states that the changes will “disqualify any project or summer job that tries to restrict access a woman’s ability to access sexual or reproductive health services. Other disqualifying traits include jobs that restrict the exercise of human rights or that discriminate based on sex, religion, race or ethnic origin.”

Again, I have not seen any charity do these kinds of things, either.  What we do know is that abortion advocates were upset over the fact that groups who oppose abortion on principle were receiving government money.  The government responded to the complaint by making such a broad generalization it resulted in confusion and unnecessary stress on religious charities that had nothing to do with abortion or removing anyone’s “rights.”

Here’s hoping that the 2019 policy will be something that all Canadians of goodwill can support.  We will find out soon.  Stay tuned.

The post BREAKING NEWS on Canada Summer Jobs appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Help us defend freedom in Canada. New ideological requirements for the Canada Summer Jobs (CSJ) program are a violation of conscience and an abuse of the Charter.

The rights of everyone are at stake.

We are taking a legal stand against the government’s unlawful discrimination, and we need your support.

By contributing now, you will play a crucial part in protecting and preserving the rights of all Canadians.

With gratitude,

Barry W. Bussey, BA, LL.B., MA, LL.M., MPACS

Director, Legal Affairs

A must-win case is before us

Donations to the Legal Defence Fund have allowed CCCC to go to our highest courts several times to preserve religious freedom in Canada.

Donations to the fund allow us to research and write to influence issues crucial to allowing you to keep operating your Christian charity.

This year, the federal government made the unprecedented move to require all applicants to the CSJ program to endorse the government’s ideological positions on abortion.

Every community has a right to express its faith, and all faith communities must abide by human rights legislation. That is not new, so the CSJ attestation was not required for human rights law to continue to be upheld.

To be eligible to access a CSJ grant, groups must now “attest” that “both the job and the organization’s core mandate respect individual human rights in Canada, including the values underlying the Charter, as well as other rights. These include reproductive rights, and the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.”

The website clarifies that “reproductive rights” means “the right to access safe and legal abortions.”

Despite using inclusive rhetoric, the government is actually excluding the religious community. This is contrary to the very heart of Canadian diversity and freedom.

Ideological control does not belong in a democracy – it befits a totalitarian regime, wherein citizens are forced to sacrifice their moral consciences in exchange for survival: “tick the box if you want the money.”

Such violations must not be allowed to continue. This is why religious charities are taking a stand – and why they need your help today.

Every dollar will help us defend the rights of all Canadians to participate in a free, democratic, diverse society. We will use the funds for litigation as necessary and to provide us with the means to keep on top of public policy issues so that we maintain our freedom to operate.

The Ramifications

For some of us, this issue has dominated the last five months. Perhaps you, too, have been avidly following each development in the news. Perhaps you wrestled with your conscience over signing the application forms; perhaps you were denied funds and are now struggling to find the resources to make your summer ministries possible. Or, perhaps you’ve only seen a few headlines.

Whether this issue is at the forefront of your mind or in the background of your experience, every Canadian (whether religious or not) should be concerned when our fundamental freedoms are threatened.

Already, the attestation is being applied to other programs (such as the Canada Service Corps), and concerns have been raised that it could be used to strip religious charities of their charitable status.

This has dangerous implications for the future. If the government can refuse public funds, licencing, or other benefits to religious groups, such logic leads to discrimination against individuals of faith, and, ultimately, against any who hold dissenting opinions.

Tying government services to partisan ideology is unacceptable. When government programs treat citizens differently based on their conscientiously held views, our democratic justice is violated.

The legal challenge is about to begin. We need your help to ensure that we have the funds needed for taking the case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada if necessary. We are going to be strategic, not only with litigation, but also with writing and other advocacy.

Why Litigation?

You may be wondering why we aren’t trying to find a solution outside of the court system.

Litigation was not a first resort. Over the past months, we have attempted to work with government officials to seek accommodation for religious beliefs. We’ve spoken several times with the Honourable Patty Hajdu, Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour.

In March, we were among a coalition of religious leaders who presented an alternate attestation that expressed support for human rights without specifying abortion. Yet the Minister has absolutely refused to entertain any alternatives, modifications, or exemptions.

In the face of unyielding opposition, we’ve been left with no alternative but to protect the rights and freedoms of all Canadians through a legal challenge.

We see the attestation as part of a larger development against religious groups in Canada; it reveals a systemic disregard for difference. If left unchecked and unchallenged, we are concerned that this attitude will continue to erode the freedoms of all citizens that are so vital to a diverse, multicultural democracy.

Will We Win?

You may also be wondering about the likelihood of success. After all, the government has insisted that the attestation is “consistent with individual human rights in Canada, Charter rights, and case law.”

Minister Hajdu has argued that discrimination is against the law in Canada, and that groups who require employees to sign a statement of faith are in contravention of labour law.

However, those claims are not supported by the Constitution or by human rights legislation.

In fact, the attestation distorts the entire purpose of the Charter:

Private entities are not responsible for upholding the Charter. Religious groups are shielded against government abuses by the Charter, and religious groups have no Charter obligations.

Instead, the government is misusing the Charter to force private religious organizations out of the public square.

We are not and should not become a unitary state. Canada is a pluralist community with different views of the world that are respected and accommodated.

The government has also argued that religious groups who do not support abortion are against the Charter.

Abortion is a contentious issue, yet in liberal democracies, we freely and peacefully discuss contentious issues all the time. Whether pro-life or pro-choice, the government should treat all equally; the government should not withhold services from those with whom they disagree.

That did not happen here. As Kelly McParland noted in a National Post article, “People and organizations can oppose abortion and still be respectable, law-abiding citizens. It’s not clear whether the Prime Minister understands this distinction, or prefers to ignore it in favour of a less honest approach.”¹

So, while success is never completely certain, we have a strong case to make, and given the issues at stake, we cannot stand idly by while the rights and freedoms of all Canadians are threatened.

Your Contribution

We are grateful for your support as we take on the very long, arduous legal battle that is before us; we will be vigilant in writing, speaking, and meeting with policy-makers to ensure that your voice is being heard. Please consider a sacrificial gift to ensure that we do all we can to protect freedom for Canadians today and tomorrow.

Using the inclusion narrative to exclude others, this government has taken a very dangerous step towards limiting the rights of all Canadians. The Charter makes provisions for citizens to challenge the government when it infringes on their rights. This is what many courageous Christian charities are now doing, and this is what we invite you to support along with us.

Chantal Hebert, a Toronto Star columnist, was prescient when she observed that “government efforts to force-march the electorate to a pre-ordained vision of society have a high potential of achieving the opposite.”²

Indeed, the many Christian charities that have decided to go to court are responding to this “force-march,” unwilling to stay silent as an exclusionary agenda is pushed in the name of inclusion.

We simply cannot watch this happen and wish we had acted.

How will we use your donations to the Legal Defence Fund?

We use your donations to pay for litigation in matters that have had or could have a profound impact on the ability of our members to carry out their charitable work.

We also use these funds for research, writing, speaking, and lobbying government, public policy and opinion makers with the purpose of ensuring the climate for ministry remains positive. The Canada Summer Jobs issue will involve hours of research, interviews, reviews, drafting legal documents, coordination with legal counsel, and other legal preparation.

Your support of the Legal Defence Fund will be used to defend the rights and freedoms that all Canadians are guaranteed as members of a democratic, diverse, pluralistic society.

To be successful, we need your financial help. Please pray, and please give. Doing so will make a difference in keeping freedom in Canada strong.

1. nationalpost.com/opinion/kelly-mcparland-our-flippant-prime-minister-simply-wont-tolerate-differing-views
2. thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/03/21/by-linking-abortion-rights-to-jobs-funding-the-liberals-have-opened-up-a-new-front-in-a-culture-war.html

The post We Need Your Financial Help to Support Litigation Against the Government of Canada’s Violation of Freedom appeared first on CCCC Blogs.