Parental Rights Are Essential

Governments have introduced measures such as the carbon tax to address environmental concerns. However, the impact of these policies on the cost of living cannot be ignored.

The carbon tax has had drastic consequences. The increased costs associated with transportation, including planes, trains, and trucks, have been passed on to consumers, further inflating the prices of goods and services. This has placed a significant burden on individuals and families already struggling to make ends meet who live from paycheck to paycheck.

Moreover, the inflationary pressures stemming from irresponsible government spending have exacerbated the situation. The rising mortgage interest rates, now reaching around 5%, have made homeownership increasingly unaffordable for many. Keeping a roof over one's head has become a pressing concern for a growing number of individuals.

The impact on the cost of living cannot be overlooked. Policymakers must consider the financial well-being of all Canadians. Measures that alleviate the burden on those struggling to make ends meet are essential.

 In the past four years, we have witnessed a concerning trend of government overreach into the personal lives of British Columbians. As your elected representative for Abbotsford West, I am committed to being a strong voice for the people and fiercely defending your parental rights.

The issue of parental rights has become increasingly complex, with the introduction of new terminology and the normalization of behaviors that raise serious concerns. It is unacceptable for our government to coin phrases like "minor-attracted people" instead of identifying pedophiles as the criminals they are. Similarly, the presence of drag queen shows for children in our communities is a clear violation of our criminal code and a concerning trend that must be addressed.

As your representative, I will fight to ensure that the fundamental rights of parents to make decisions for their children are respected. This includes safeguarding the safety and well-being of our children, particularly in sensitive spaces like restrooms, where the traditional separation of boys' and girls' facilities must be maintained.

The people of British Columbia deserve a government that listens to their concerns and prioritizes the protection of our children. It is time for a fresh perspective, and I am ready to be that voice of change. Together, we can reclaim our parental rights and ensure that our children's futures are secure.

The criminal code exists to protect the vulnerable, including children, from predatory behavior. As a representative, I will ensure that the full extent of the law is applied to any cases of sexual misconduct, grooming, or exploitation, especially within educational institutions.

Removing harmful ideologies from the curriculum and holding teachers accountable for keeping personal beliefs out of the classroom is crucial. Practices like administering hormone blockers or genital mutilation to minors are unacceptable and will be met with the appropriate criminal consequences.

Upholding integrity and accountability in all matters is of the utmost importance. Sections 172-172(3) of the criminal code outline the serious penalties for these types of offenses, and I will work tirelessly to enforce them and protect our community.2(3)

Our healthcare system must remain independent from political interference. Politicizing medical treatment is detrimental to the well-being of British Columbians. Our healthcare professionals understand the unique needs of our community better than government officials.

In critical moments, patients may not receive the care they require if politics dictates medical decisions. British Columbia is the only province in Canada that has not rehired healthcare workers who declined the COVID-19 vaccination. This is not based on science, but rather on political compliance.

It is time for British Columbians to question why we are being deprived of the healthcare providers we deserve. I recommend researching provincial Bill 36, which was quietly passed in November 2022. Our elected leaders must repeal this bill and rehire the medical professionals who can best serve our community.

The recent legislation legalizing the possession of up to 2.5 grams of hard drugs like cocaine, crack, heroin, and methamphetamine is a concerning development that raises serious questions. As a parent and grandparent, this direction taken by the government is deeply troubling and sends the wrong message to our younger generations.

The legalization of these dangerous substances is not a solution, but rather a gateway to further problems. It puts our communities and, more importantly, our children at risk. These are not recreational drugs - they are highly addictive and can have devastating consequences, both on individual lives and our society as a whole.

Rather than taking this misguided approach, we should be focusing on rehabilitation and support for those struggling with addiction. Treating drug use as a public health issue, rather than a criminal one, is a more compassionate and effective way to address this crisis.

The government's decision to effectively decriminalize hard drugs under the guise of a "safe supply" is a concerning overreach that undermines the well-being of British Columbians. We must call this what it is - organized crime masquerading as progressive policy.

It's time to take a stand and demand real solutions that prioritize the safety and well-being of our communities. The legalization of hard drugs is not the answer, and we cannot allow our tax dollars to be used to fund political agendas that put our loved ones at risk.

Building a strong community starts with open and honest dialogue. As your representative, I will prioritize listening to your needs and working collaboratively to create positive change.

Over the next four years, I hope to see increased investment in skills training and job creation programs that empower Abbotsford residents to find meaningful, well-paid employment. Developing a skilled local workforce is key to the city's continued growth and prosperity.

Public safety is also a top concern. We need a balanced approach that holds criminals accountable while also addressing root causes and providing rehabilitation opportunities. Simply releasing offenders without consequences is ineffective - it's time to restore common sense to our justice system.

I'm committed to bringing transparency and accountability back to BC politics. You deserve a representative who will put the needs of the people first and work tirelessly on your behalf. Together, we can build a better future for Abbotsford and all of British Columbia.

"B.C. court rejects law society's bid for injunction to pause Legal Professions Act implementation

B.C. lawyers' efforts to halt the implementation of a provincial law creating a single regulator for lawyers, notaries public and paralegals suffered a setback Wednesday, as the B.C. Supreme Court refused to grant a temporary injunction pausing the transition.

The Law Society of B.C. and the Trial Lawyers Association of B.C. are each suing the province over its recently enacted Legal Professions Act, also known as Bill 21.

The plaintiffs argue that the act eliminates self-regulation for lawyers in B.C., which violates the unwritten constitutional principle of the independence of the bar. The Trial Lawyers Association also argues that the act violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The decision issued Wednesday

(opens in a new tab)

by Justice J. Miriam Gropper does not make any conclusions about those arguments. Rather, it addresses the plaintiffs' application for "injunctive relief" in the form of orders preventing the law from being implemented while their constitutional challenge to it remains before the courts.

Gropper declined to issue such orders, ruling that – although the case raises a serious issue for trial – allowing the implementation of the law to continue will not cause irreparable harm. Nor does the "balance of convenience" favour an injunction.

Three-part test

When deciding whether to issue a temporary injunction, courts use a three-part test, determining first whether there is a serious question to be tried, then whether irreparable harm will result without an injunction, and finally whether the balance of convenience favours such an intervention from the courts.

In this case, the province acknowledged that the plaintiffs had raised a serious question to be tried, according to Gropper's decision.

The case for an injunction fell flat when Gropper weighed the question of whether irreparable harm would result from not granting one.

The law society and the trial lawyers association argued that the act – which includes a transitional process that is currently in force and a variety of provisions that will come into force once that process is complete – must be viewed as a single, cohesive piece of legislation.

The irreparable harm that comes from allowing it to proceed, therefore, is the elimination of self-governance for lawyers complained of in the overall petition, according to the decision.

"The irreparable harm the law society says that it will suffer is its continued existence is in doubt, and its administrative programs will be irreparably interrupted," the decision reads. "It will be forced to discharge a duty to participate in the transitional planning process that does not uphold and protect the public interest in the administration of justice. It will have been forced to act against both the independence of the bar and its mandate."

Gropper was unconvinced by this argument.

"The transitional provisions do not threaten the existence of the law society," her decision reads.

"Its participation in such a process is vital in order to protect the independence of the bar, and ensure that its initiatives concerning access to justice and reconciliation are considered in the transitional planning process. Combining the regulation of legal professionals into a single regulator is supported by the law society and the trial lawyers. This transition will take place. The law society’s expertise is necessary to make such a transition. The law society says it is being conscripted into a planning process that they do not agree with. The law society can make its concerns clear from within the transitional planning process."

Regarding the substantive provisions of the law, Gropper concluded the plaintiffs' petition for an injunction was premature, noting that the province expects transition planning to take 18 to 24 months. That's likely to be enough time for courts to hear and rule on the constitutional challenge, the judge concluded.

Likewise, Gropper found that the balance of convenience did not weigh in favour of granting an injunction, again because the transitional process will benefit from the law society's participation and because it's premature to prevent the substantive provisions of the law from taking effect while the transition is still ongoing.

•  The information you need to know, sent directly to you: Download the CTV News App

Preview of trial to come?

While Gropper did not pass judgment on the parties constitutional arguments, she did summarize them in her decision.

The plaintiffs argued that the law "ends self-government and self-regulation in the legal profession," the decision reads.

"Instead of the current regime, lawyers, notaries public, paralegals as well as an Indigenous council will all be involved in regulating the legal profession," it continues, later noting that the law makes lawyers "subject to regulation by a functional majority of non-lawyers."

While acknowledging that these arguments spoke to a serious issue for trial, the province pointed out "some frailties" in the plaintiffs' arguments, according to the decision.

"These include whether unwritten constitutional principles can invalidate legislation and whether the independence of the bar means that lawyers must be 'free from influence or incursion by any source,'" the decision reads.

"The province says that lawyers are not and have never been 'free from influence or incursion by any source.' Lawyers have always been subject to some kinds of influence by non-lawyers and external regulation."

In an update on its website

(opens in a new tab)

acknowledging Gropper's decision, the law society highlighted that the judge gave it leave to reapply if it appears that the government is proceeding with implementation of the law before the constitutional challenge is resolved.

"The law society will proceed with the challenge to the constitutionality of the act and we expect the first stage of that process will take place in early 2025," the LSBC's update reads."

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-court-rejects-law-society-s-bid-for-injunction-to-pause-legal-professions-act-implementation-1.6968058