CV #67: The B.C. Election Just An Illusion Of Choice, All Parties Compromised

BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry wields great power in the Province. All parties are content to abdicate their duty to govern. Despite there being a Provincial election, none of them seem to have any interest in changing this. BC is run by an unelected bureaucrat. There’s no science in limiting group size to 50 people (see 1:00 in video), but she does it anyway.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here.

2. Ethical Concerns Over Recordings? Nope

Would it have been proper to let the people know ahead of time that this was being recorded, and would be posted later? Probably, but the public is best served by knowing the truth. And the truth is that the major parties play along with the “pandemic” scare, and don’t differ on these human rights violations. It is just the illusion of choice.

3. Peter Milobar: BC Liberals (Incumbent)

MILOBAR: BC Liberals

BCPHO Bonnie Henry was actually appointed when the BC Liberals were still in power. There is no intention to replace her, or even override her orders. Milobar says that the rules allow her to make orders, but who was it who wrote the rules in the first place?

4. Sadie Hunter: BC NDP (Challenger)


Apparently, all parties agreed to let BC Public Health make all the decisions. However, this is an abdication of their duty to govern. Hunter says that the measures will remain in place until there is a vaccine.
NDP 2020 Platform

5. Thomas Martin: BC Greens (Challenger)


Again, all of the parties are on board with letting Public Health (Bonnie) run the affairs of the province. The only real difference seemed to be on some of the spending details.

6. BC Conservative Party

At the time of publication, the BC Conservatives haven’t responded to numerous attempts to talk about what their policies were regarding these “pandemic” measures. However, their platform doesn’t mention it, so it’s unlikely to be a serious concern. Also, consider what Premiers like Ford, Kenney and LeGault are currently doing. CPC Leader Erin O’Toole previously criticized Trudeau for not being authoritarian enough.

7. BC’s Dictator-In-Chief: Bonnie Henry

This is too long to address in even a single article, but Bonnie Henry lets it leak out over time that there is no real science behind anything that she does. See the link for some of the more obvious problems. This is who really runs the Province of BC.

To those saying “get out and go vote”, I would have to ask: why?

TSCE #18(B): Canada’s Bills/Treaties Undermine Hague Convention On Child Abduction

Today is the 40th anniversary of the Hague Convention on Child Abduction. This is to focus on the civil side (such as custody issues). While this seems impressive, Canada has done much domestically and internationally to undermine and weaken the principles. Even the UN has studied the connection between illegal border crossings and smuggling, trafficking and child exploitation. Quite simply, without real borders, the Hague Convention is meaningless.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

For the previous work in the TSCE series. This is the 40th anniversary of the Hague Convention of Child Abduction. However, Governments ensure that it will continue. Also, take a look at open borders movement, the abortion and organs industry, and the NGOs who are supporting it. This is information that won’t be found in the mainstream or alternative media.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for the Hague Convention treaty itself.
Hague Convention Civil Treaty
CLICK HERE, for Canada’s announcement on 40 year anniversary.

CLICK HERE, for Agenda 21, full treaty.
CLICK HERE, for Gov’t info on Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for text of Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for the many exemptions in S3CA.

CLICK HERE, for FIPA agreement Canada/China.
CLICK HERE, for previous review on FIPA.
CLICK HERE, for CD18.5, sanctuary for illegals in Toronto.
CLICK HERE, for Toronto EC5.5, human and sex trafficking resolution.
CLICK HERE, for Canadian Labour Congress on sanctuary cities.

CLICK HERE, for CANZUK International website.
CLICK HERE, for proposed expansion of CANZUK zone.
CLICK HERE, for review of new USMCA (NAFTA 2.0)
CLICK HERE, for link to official Agenda 2030 text.
CLICK HERE, for review of UNSDA Agenda 2030.
Text Of Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda
CLICK HERE, for text of New York Declaration.

CLICK HERE, for Bill C-6, citizenship for terrorists.
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-32, lowering age of consent for anal.
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-75, reduced criminal penalties.
CLICK HERE, for 2nd review of Bill C-75 (child offences).
CLICK HERE, for asking if Gov’t actually supports trafficking.

UN Global Migration Compact (Full Text)

CLICK HERE, for UN Review On Smuggling Migrants.
CLICK HERE, for UN Convention On Transnational Crime.
CLICK HERE, for UN Protocol Against Human Trafficking.
CLICK HERE, for UN Opt. Protocol On Rights Of The Child.
CLICK HERE, for UN Global Initiative To Fight Trafficking.
CLICK HERE, for UN Protocol To Prevent/Punish Trafficking.
CLICK HERE, for UN Rights Of The Child, Sale, Prostitution, Porn.
CLICK HERE, for Eliminate Worst Forms Of Child Labour.
CLICK HERE, for the Rome Statute, Int’l Criminal Court.
CLICK HERE, for Canada’s antitrafficking strategy, 2019-24.

3. Quotes From Hague Convention (Civil) Treaty

Article 3
The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where –
a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and
b) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or
would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.

Article 4
The Convention shall apply to any child who was habitually resident in a Contracting State immediately before any breach of custody or access rights. The Convention shall cease to apply when the child attains the age of 16 years.

Article 5
For the purposes of this Convention –
a) “rights of custody” shall include rights relating to the care of the person of the child and, in particular, the right to determine the child’s place of residence;
b) “rights of access” shall include the right to take a child for a limited period of time to a place other than the child’s habitual residence.

Article 8
Any person, institution or other body claiming that a child has been removed or retained in breach of custody rights may apply either to the Central Authority of the child’s habitual residence or to the Central Authority of any other Contracting State for assistance in securing the return of the child.
The application shall contain –
a) information concerning the identity of the applicant, of the child and of the person alleged to have removed or retained the child;
b) where available, the date of birth of the child;
c) the grounds on which the applicant’s claim for return of the child is based;
d) all available information relating to the whereabouts of the child and the identity of the person with whom the child is presumed to be.
The application may be accompanied or supplemented by –
e) an authenticated copy of any relevant decision or agreement;
f) a certificate or an affidavit emanating from a Central Authority, or other competent authority of the State of the child’s habitual residence, or from a qualified person, concerning the relevant law of that State;
g) any other relevant document.

Article 13
Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Article, the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that –
a) the person, institution or other body having the care of the person of the child was not actually exercising the custody rights at the time of removal or retention, or had consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal or retention; or
b) there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.
The judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the
child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate
to take account of its views.
In considering the circumstances referred to in this Article, the judicial and administrative authorities shall
take into account the information relating to the social background of the child provided by the Central
Authority or other competent authority of the child’s habitual residence.

Article 17
The sole fact that a decision relating to custody has been given in or is entitled to recognition in the requested State shall not be a ground for refusing to return a child under this Convention, but the judicial or administrative authorities of the requested State may take account of the reasons for that decision in applying this Convention.

In short, this is an international agreement to enforce child custody orders, or family disputes. Note: the children don’t have to be return if administrators determine there is some danger. Unfortunately, this seems entirely subjective.

4. Announcement From Global Affairs Canada

October 25, 2020 – Ottawa, Ontario – Global Affairs Canada
The Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Honourable David Lametti, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, today issued the following statement:
“Today, we mark the 40th anniversary of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
“Every year, in Canada and abroad, thousands of children are wrongfully taken across international borders by a parent or guardian in violation of rights of custody. This has devastating effects on families, and it is the children who suffer the most. Children must be at the heart of family justice, and mechanisms like the Hague Convention on child abduction are essential in order to assist them in these terrible situations.
“Canada, along with 100 contracting states, continues to support this global effort to protect children from wrongful removal or retention and return them to their country of residence. We continue to call on the global community to join us and to ratify this important convention.
“We are committed to working with our international partners to continue to protect children and to reinforce the operation of the convention.”

While this all sounds fine, it should be noted that Canada has done a lot, both domestically, and with international treaties to weaken and undermine the spirit of this agreement.

What other treaties or bills do this?

5. Canada’s Bills/Treaties Since 1980

Here are some of the major developments in Canada in the last few decades. All of these either weaken the borders and/or reduce the criminal penalties involved.

  • UN Agenda 21 (1992)
  • Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement (2002)
  • FIPA (2012)
  • Sanctuary cities (First in 2013)
  • CANZUK: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK (2015)
  • UN Agenda 2030 (2015)
  • New York Declaration (2016)
  • Bill C-6 citizenship for terrorists (2016)
  • Bill C-32/C-75 (2018)
  • UN Global Migration Compact (2018)
  • USMCA, NAFTA 2.0 (2020)

It doesn’t matter who’s in power. They’re all globalists.

6. Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement

CONVINCED, in keeping with advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its Executive Committee, that agreements among states may enhance the international protection of refugees by promoting the orderly handling of asylum applications by the responsible party and the principle of burden-sharing;

(1) The Parties shall develop standard operating procedures to assist with the implementation of this Agreement. These procedures shall include provisions for notification, to the country of last presence, in advance of the return of any refugee status claimant pursuant to this Agreement.
(2) These procedures shall include mechanisms for resolving differences respecting the interpretation and implementation of the terms of this Agreement. Issues which cannot be resolved through these mechanisms shall be settled through diplomatic channels.
(3) The Parties agree to review this Agreement and its implementation. The first review shall take place not later than 12 months from the date of entry into force and shall be jointly conducted by representatives of each Party. The Parties shall invite the UNHCR to participate in this review. The Parties shall cooperate with UNHCR in the monitoring of this Agreement and seek input from non-governmental organizations.

Source is here. Serious question: why have Canada and the United States signed an agreement that quite clearly gives the UN a seat at the table?

The treaty was pretty ineffective anyway, given that people could still get into the country as long as they BYPASSED legal border ports. Now, thanks to the Federal Court, the agreement is effectively dead.

Of course, the tens of thousands entering Canada illegally in recent years pales in comparison to the hordes of LEGAL migrants entering under various programs.

7. FIPA Between Canada And China

FIPA largely eliminated the border between Canada and the Chinese. This means that Chinese nationals can freely enter Canada, almost without restrictions. They can also bring their own security to look after their national interests. Makes it easy to smuggle products — or people — into Canada.

8. Sanctuary Cities Forming In Canada

In 2013, Toronto became the first city in Canada to officially obtain status a sanctuary city. It was supported by “conservatives” Doug and Rob Ford. How are child custody agreements supposed to be enforced overseas when children can simply disappear in one of them?

Now list includes: Toronto, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Edmonton and others. In the 2018 Ontario election, the NDP campaigned on turning Ontario into a sanctuary province.

9. CANZUK (CDA, Australia, New Zealand, UK)

The Trans-Tasmanian Partnership is an agreement between Australia and New Zealand to let citizens work and freely travel in each other’s countries. CANZUK would essentially be an expansion of that agreement by adding both Canada and the UK. This is an actual open borders arrangement which could be further expanded.

CANZUK International was formed in 2015, and members of the CPC are some of its biggest supporters.

It’s also interesting how the justifications have changed. Previously, it was about opportunity. Now it’s about containing Chinese influence, which Conservatives allowed to grow in the first place. One obvious example is FIPA.

10. UN Agenda 2030, Sustainable Development

Agenda 2030 was signed in September 2015 by then PM Stephen Harper. It signs away more of Canada’s sovereignty to the “sustainable development agenda”, and makes mass migration across international borders even easier. So-called conservatives would be hard pressed to explain why this is okay, but why the Paris Accord and UN Global Migration Compact are so wrong. There is a lot of overlap with the content.

Worth a mention is that “Conservative” Brian Mulroney was in power in 1992 when Agenda 21 was signed in Brazil.

11. New York Declaration, UN GMC Prelude

This was signed in September 2016, just a year after Agenda 2030. The UN Global Migration Compact was largely based on this text. Both agreements are to make it easier to bring large numbers of people across borders, and to establish international standards. It’s not difficult to see how this would make child abduction and transportation easier to do.

12. Bill C-6, Citizenship For Terrorists

It cheapens Canadian citizenship when anyone can get it. This is especially true for convicted terrorists and traitors. There’s also the increased likelihood of people gaming the system to avoid being sent back, for say crimes against children.

13. Bill C-32/C-75, Reducing Criminal Penalties

If the government is concerned about the well being of children, then why would they introduce a bill to water down criminal penalties for sex crimes against children, and reduce the age of consent?

  • Section 58: Fraudulent use of citizenship
  • Section 159: Age of consent for anal sex
  • Section 172(1): Corrupting children
  • Section 173(1): Indecent acts
  • Section 180(1): Common nuisance
  • Section 182: Indecent interference or indignity to body
  • Section 210: Keeping common bawdy house
  • Section 211: Transporting to bawdy house
  • Section 242: Not getting help for childbirth
  • Section 243: Concealing the death of a child
  • Section 279.02(1): Material benefit – trafficking
  • Section 279.03(1): Withholding/destroying docs — trafficking
  • Section 279(2): Forcible confinement
  • Section 280(1): Abduction of child under age 16
  • Section 281: Abduction of child under age 14
  • Section 291(1): Bigamy
  • Section 293: Polygamy
  • Section 293.1: Forced marriage
  • Section 293.2: Child marriage
  • Section 295: Solemnizing marriage contrary to law
  • Section 435: Arson, for fraudulent purposes
  • Section 467.11(1): Participating in organized crime

Bill C-75 “hybridized” these offences. What this means is that they were initially to be tried by indictment (felony), but now prosecutors have discretion to try them summarily (misdemeanor). Of course, there were plenty of Section 83 offences (terrorism) that were also hybridized.

14. UN Global Migration Compact

What is strange about the UNGMC is that its text explicitly undermines its stated goals. While the UN supposedly opposed smuggling, the agreement says people shall not be punished. And while condemning trafficking, the UN provides advice and guidance on how to do it more successfully.

15. USMCA, More Than Just Trade

The new USMCA (U.S., Mexico & Canada Agreement) is far more than just a trade agreement. It ensures that more “workers” will be coming across the borders, and cedes areas of labour rights to the UN.

16. How Does Any Of This Help Children?

Remember, this is the 40th anniversary on the Hague Convention on Child Abduction. Member states, (of which Canada is one), should take seriously the obligation to ensure that children are not taken across borders illegally, even if it’s by a parent, or some other guardian.

Instead, Canada signs treaties and passes bills that ensure that this will continue. Erasing borders, and reducing penalties does nothing to deter child smuggling. In fact, it only encourages it.

Sure, these changes don’t explicitly state moving children around illegally is a major goal (or even a goal at all). But as borders become less meaningful, this will certainly increase.

CV #67(B): Trolling Sadie Hunter’s Stream, Rigged BC Provincial Election, Puppets

This might be considered a teachable moment. If you are running as a candidate, and there is an all-party agreement to abdicate governing to BC Public Health, it shouldn’t be advertised. Therefore, sending unsolicited invitations to investigative journalists may not be the best option.

Another learning moment: There’s not much point in voting for your party if NOT governing is part of the agenda.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here.

2. BC Provincial Election Rigged In Advance

MILOBAR: BC Liberals (Monday, October 5th)

HUNTER: BC NDP (Wednesday, October 7th)

MARTIN: BC GREENS (Thursday, October 15th)

As was previously covered in this piece, the BC Liberals, BC NDP, and BC Greens all have an agreement to hand over control of the “pandemic measures” to Bonnie Henry. The BC Conservatives, whether by design, or just being disorganized, never returned multiple messages for information.

3. Sadie Hunter Won’t Answer Hard Questions

Asking difficult questions (even if done in a respectful way), is apparently grounds to boot people out of a Zoom call. Just a tip, if you want to run for public office, difficult questions are going to come up.

4. Opening BC Better Option Than Welfare

Just an opinion, but perhaps reopening BC is a good option. Certainly it’s a better long term one than simply pumping up the welfare, which is what this person suggested.

5. BCPHO Bonnie No-Science-Behind-It Henry

This was covered in Part 56. BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry admits there’s no science behind a lot of what she does. Remember, all parties support leaving the “pandemic measures” to her. BC MLA Peter Milobar refers to her as “an expert”.

6. BCPHO Bonnie Henry Lowballs True Error Rate

Bonnie Henry Previously said that there can be a 30% error rate when it comes to testing, but the truth is actually much worse than that.

Queue a partial response on an access to information request, and we are told the following information. This confirms what had previously been published on the site.

Good afternoon,
Please see the Ministry’s response below-
The sensitivity/specificity (false positive/false negative) of:
Nucleic acid amplification testing (NAT):
“A statistic commonly quoted is that there is a 30% chance of a false negative result for a NAT test in a patient with COVID-19 infection (i.e., a 70% sensitivity)… Ultimately, for COVID-19 testing, there is currently no gold standard, and the overall clinical sensitivity and specificity of NAT in patients with COVID-19 infection is unknown (i.e., how well NAT results correlate with clinical infection, “true positivity” or “true negativity” rate).”
Antibody testing:
Based on the published literature, commercial laboratory-based assays are about 95% sensitive at ~30 days post symptom onset and the specificity is approximately 99.5%.”
Please advise if these publicly available links suffice the specific portion of request discussed in the below email.
Thank you!

Despite there being quotes thrown around that there is a 30% false negative rate, the fact is that BC Health really has no idea what the error rate is.

This is a little confusing. Although the error rate for the virus tests themselves is completely unknown, the success rate for anti-body testing is supposed to be 95%? Really? Are we sure that this number isn’t just completely made up as well?

7. Bonnie’s 2015 Testimony On Vaxx/Masks

Sault Area Hospital and Ontario Nurses’ Association, 2015 CanLII 55643 (ON LA)

This came from a labour arbitration hearing in 2015. Bonnie Henry (yes, that Bonnie Henry), testified as an expert. She said there was little evidence to support either the vaccination or mask mandate that the Sault Area Hospital demanded. Her testimony also helped influence proceedings in 2016, and 2018. Now, 5 years later, she says something completely different. It seems incomprehensible that BC health care workers “wouldn’t” know about this. Unless of course, they do know, and are remaining silent for some reason.

8. WHO’s International Health Regulations

This has been addressed before. As part of its membership with the World Health Organization, Canada is forced to comply with the legally binding “International Health Regulations”.

For some perspective, IHR (and the 2005 Quarantine Act), came from the WHO. Unelected bureaucrats (Bonnie Henry, Deena Hinshaw, Barbara Yaffe, Theresa Tam, etc….), are then put in charge of implementing those supra-national dictates.

Why aren’t candidates being forthcoming about this? Why isn’t this obligation to the WHO being openly and honestly discussed by the mainstream media in Canada? Here is one theory:

9. BC NDP, HC Workers, A Bit Cozy?

Barb Nederpel, Vice President of Kamloops North NDP, President of Hospital Employees Union

This may be nothing, but it did seem rather strange that at least 3 people in the very small stream (15 people) all had ties to the health care field. Health care workers should be outraged at the lies and deception that NDP Premier John Horgan has perpetuated in the Province.

Then again, considering the NDP, Greens and Liberals have a pact to hand off everything to Bonnie Henry, there really isn’t much of a choice in voting. Sadie herself has said that she supports keeping these restrictions in place in BC until people are vaccinated. Never mind all the shoddy “science” behind it.

As for all of the “models” which predict death waves to come: predictions aren’t evidence of anything. They are guesses. And we need to address Neil Ferguson and Imperial College London.

It’s upsetting just how little people are speaking out about what is happening in BC (among other Provinces). It’s not like any of this is difficult to find.

Controlled Opposition “Conservatives” Prop Up Climate, Banking Cartels

So-called “fiscal conservatives” will talk about the problem of debt, but never the predatory banking system that causes it. Similarly, they will pretend to oppose Carbon taxes, but not address where this money ends up. They don’t want supporters grasping what really happens.

Politicians want people focused on the symptoms (debt, carbon taxes), and not on the diseases (banking and climate cartels). See the bigger picture.

1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam

The entire climate change industry, (and yes, it is an industry) is a hoax perpetrated by the people in power. See the other articles on the scam, the propaganda machine in action, and some of the court documents in Canada. It’s a much bigger picture than what is presented by the mainstream media, or even the alternative media.

But as we will see, so called “conservatives” do nothing to halt this scheme, and act as gatekeepers.

2. Alliance Between Climate, Banking Cartels

This may seem odd, but the banking cartel works with the climate cartel. They share a goal, which is to bleed wealth out of nations, and to the detriment of the citizens. Whether it is cloaked as “fiscal policy”, or as “stopping climate change”, the result is much the same. In fact, pushing climate bonds, the green agenda, green bonds, or heritage sites, seem to be a way to advance their agendas.

3. Climate Bonds A Growth Industry

Climate bonds are a growth industry, expected to top $100 trillion in value over the next several years. Granted, this does nothing to elimiate climate change, or make the air cleaner, but why should that be an excuse not to pay your taxes.

Incidently, the climate bonds are pushed by: Rockefeller Foundation, European Climate Foundation, and Climate Works Foundation (among others).

4. Central Banks Support Climate Hoax

The Bank for International Settlements fully supports the climate change industry. See here and here. They claim stopping climate change is essential to financial stability, but offer no specifics on how this is, or on how these bonds help. Check out the BIS site for more.

5. Carbon Taxes Finance Int’l Debt Swaps

The UN laid out years ago where a lot of the money would be going. One of the big areas (besides climate bonds), is using various taxation methods making predatory loans to the 3rd World, then forcing them into debt-for-land swaps when they can’t afford to pay it back.

The kicker is that this money Canada (and other countries) give, is that it is borrowed to begin with. Canada borrows money (from private sources), to hand over to the UN, who then lends it out to other nations who can never pay it back.

But all conservatives will complain about is that a Carbon tax is ineffective. They miss the bigger picture.

6. Mark Carney (Ex-BoC), UN Climate Mobster

In the old days, the mafia would burn down your business if you didn’t pay your taxes. Now, people like Mark Carney (former head of Bank of Canada and Bank of England), are threatening to legally wipe out your business if you don’t play along with the climate mob. Interesting that a banker now leads the climate cartel enforcement.

Carney was actually touted as a possible successor to Paul Martin years ago. Now, do conservatives have anything to say about this threat to free enterprise? Nope.

7. Harper, Conservatives Defend Banking Cartel

Although a few parties are willing to talk openly about the International Banking Cartel, most are not. This happens even when politicians know about the scam, but choose to remain quiet. From 2011 to 2017, both Liberals and Conservatives fought in Federal Court to keep the usurious system intact.

8. Carbon Tax Court Challenges Are Rigged

This was addressed here and here. Provincial Premiers (and the Federal Conservatives) all claim to be against the Federal Carbon tax. However, a look through their court submissions shows that they don’t have any issue with the climate industry itself. Nor do they rule out their own Provincial taxes. This is all just a dog and pony show. Court documents are here.

9. Garnett Genuis Defends Paris Accord

This is a clip from Rebel News, in 2017. Here, CPC MP Garnett Genuis went on the air and publicly defended voting in a motion to support the Paris Accord. Although Genuis insisted this was the right decision, he couldn’t offer anything but the flimsiest of justifications. He also refused to admit that the vote was whipped.

As for abiding by the Paris Accord without taxes: read the agreement, starting with Article #9.

10. British Columbia Conservative Party

The BC Conservatives claim that greenhouses gases are an issue to be dealt with. They fully support the hoax, although claim to oppose a Carbon tax. There is no mention whatsoever of central banking.

11. United Conservative Party (Alberta)

Jason Kenney, prior to his 2019 election win, claimed to oppose the Federal (yes, the Federal) Carbon tax, but still plays along with the climate change hoax.

[1] Calls to action to save the planet we all share evoke strong emotions. And properly so. The dangers of climate change are undoubted as are the risks flowing from failure to meet the essential challenge. Equally, it is undisputed that greenhouse gas emissions caused by people (GHG emissions) are a cause of climate change. None of these forces have passed judges by. The question the Lieutenant Governor in Council referred to this Court though – is the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, SC 2018, c 12 (Act) unconstitutional in whole or in part – is not a referendum on the phenomenon of climate change. Nor is it about the undisputed need for governments throughout the world to move quickly to reduce GHG emissions, including through changes in societal behaviour. The federal government is not the only government in this country committed to immediate action to meet this compelling need. Without exception, every provincial government is too.

[2] Nor is this Reference about which level of government might be better suited to address climate change or GHG emissions. Or whether a uniform approach is desirable. Or who has the best policies. Or what are the best policies. Or who could do more to reduce GHG emissions in the world. This Court cannot compare causes with causes, means with means, provinces with provinces or nations with nations in the global struggle against climate change. But what it can do is offer our opinion on the constitutionality of the Act under Canada’s federal state.

[3] Greenhouse gases (GHGs) in quantity have been part of our atmosphere since the dawn of mankind. Every human and animal activity is a source of GHGs. GHG emissions have picked up pace since the industrial revolution and the rapid increases in the world’s population. GHG emissions result from virtually every aspect of individuals’ daily lives, work, social and personal, from how many children they have to what they eat and how much they consume; what car they drive and how far they travel for work and pleasure; how large their home is and what temperature they choose to live at; what kind of furnace, appliances and lighting they have; and on and on.

Jason Kenney never told the Alberta public that his government openly took the position that climate change was a threat to humanity. The challenge surprisingly succeeded, although there’s no legal impact to the ruling.

Fighting” the carbon tax apparently also includes introducing one of your own, as Alberta did in late 2019.

12. Conservatives In Saskatchewan

Scott Moe criticizes the Carbon tax. But like most conservatives, he speaks out both sides of his mouth. He fully supports the climate change scam, but only argues on one small point.

[4] The factual record presented to the Court confirms that climate change caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions is one of the great existential issues of our time. The pressing importance of limiting such emissions is accepted by all of the participants in these proceedings.

[5] The Act seeks to ensure there is a minimum national price on GHG emissions in order to encourage their mitigation. Part 1 of the Act imposes a charge on GHG-producing fuels and combustible waste. Part 2 puts in place an output-based performance system for large industrial facilities. Such facilities are obliged to pay compensation if their GHG emissions exceed applicable limits. Significantly, the Act operates as no more than a backstop. It applies only those provinces or areas where the Governor in Council concludes GHG emissions are not priced at an appropriate level.

[6] The sole issue before the Court is whether Parliament has the constitutional authority to enact the Act. The issue is not whether GHG pricing should or should not be adopted or whether the Act is effective or fair. Those are questions to be answered by Parliament and by provincial legislatures, not by courts.

The Saskatchewan Government argued at the Court of Appeals, and still argues at the Supreme Court of Canada, that climate change must be dealt with. Any wonder why they lost?

Oh, and not a single mention of central banking and the endless debt it creates.

13. Conservatives In Manitoba

The Manitoba government will go to court over Ottawa’s imposition of a carbon tax.

Premier Brian Pallister revealed Wednesday his government will launch a legal challenge against the federal government, which imposed its new levy as promised on Manitoba, along with three other provinces, Monday.

“We’re going to court, sadly, to challenge the Ottawa carbon tax because Ottawa cannot impose a carbon tax on a province that has a credible greenhouse gas-reduction plan of its own, and we do,” he told reporters.

Manitoba’s Premier Brian Pallister, who also self-identifies as a “Conservative”, doesn’t challenge the history of valid predictions or climate models. Instead, his position (like the others), is solely that Ottawa doesn’t have the authority to impose a Carbon tax on the Provinces. Hear Pallister’s own words on this. He opposes OTTAWA imposing a Carbon tax, not the principle of a Carbon tax.

14. Conservatives In Ontario

6. Ontario agrees with Canada that climate change is real and that human activities are a major cause. Ontario also acknowledges that climate change is already having a disruptive effect across Canada, and that, left unchecked, its potential impact will be even more severe. Ontario agrees that proactive action to address climate change is required. That is why Ontario has put forward for consultation a made-in-Ontario plan to protect the environment, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and fight climate change.

11. Ontario released its climate change plan, as part of its overall environment plan, for a 60-day period of public consultation on November 29, 2018. The plan will be finalized following consideration of input from that consultation. Ontario’s plan will tackle climate change in a balanced and responsible way, without placing additional burdens on Ontario families and businesses

12. “[Greenhouse gas] emissions come from virtually all aspects of Ontario’s society and economy.” There are seven primary sectors in Ontario that produce greenhouse gas emissions: transportation; industry; buildings; land use, land use change and forestry; electricity; waste; and agriculture. All but the last (which is an area of concurrent federal/provincial jurisdiction) will be discussed in turn.

13. Canada itself has publicly acknowledged the wide range of activities that can generate greenhouse gas emissions – activities as varied as homes and buildings, transport, industry, forestry, agriculture, waste, and electricity.

In its “challenge“, before the Ontario Court of Appeals, the Ford Government argued that climate change was a danger, in full agreement with Trudeau. They repeat the same thing to the Supreme Court of Canada. These “conservatives” don’t oppose the climate change hoax, nor do they talk about the banking cartel which contributes to their Provincial debt.

What’s the point of these challenges if you don’t oppose the climate change scam? Is it just for show?

15. Conservatives In Quebec

The Quebec government is intervening before the Supreme Court in Saskatchewan’s challenge to the federal carbon tax.

Quebec Premier François Legault said his government is in favour of carbon pricing, but it must be exclusively a provincial responsibility.

“For us, it is important to protect provincial jurisdiction,” he said.

“I have been clear with the premiers of other provinces who are opposed for other reasons to this [federal] encroachment. We want to protect provincial jurisdiction to fight climate change.”

Currently, the federal carbon tax applies only to New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. In Alberta the tax would come into effect as of Jan. 1.

Quebec is not affected by the federal government’s decision since it joined a carbon exchange with California several years ago.

The “conservative” Quebec Premier says he will challenge the Federal carbon tax, but only on grounds that it should be the Provinces getting the money instead.

16. Conservatives In New Brunswick

1. The Intervenor, Attorney General of New Brunswick (“New Brunswick”) agrees with the factum of the Attorney General of Ontario (“Ontario”) regarding the nature of this reference and agrees with Ontario’s conclusions in every respect. New Brunswick also agrees with the climate data submitted by the Attorney General of Canada (“Canada”). This reference should not be a forum for those who deny climate change; nor should it be a showcase about the risks posed by greenhouse gas emissions (“GHG emissions”). The supporting data is relevant only to the extent that it is meaningfully connected to the constitutional question at issue.

2. The foundational climate change data provided by Canada, generally intended to portray the anticipated impacts of climate change in Canada, as well as the many references to international accord and commitments, leave an unquestionable impression of Canada’s a deep resolve to see the nation’s environmental footprint diminished. New Brunswick does not take issue with Canada’s commitment or with the importance of the overall subject matter.

3. What New Brunswick disputes is the way in which the federal Parliament has apportioned its resolve to diminish GHG emissions by imposing “backstop legislation”.

New Brunswick acted as an intervenor in the Ontario Court of Appeals case and submitted their own Factum. Above are some of the quotes. Higgs makes it clear he doesn’t actually oppose the agenda itself.

New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs is yet another “conservative” who is fighting the Carbon tax by introducing one of his own.

17. Elsewhere In The Maritimes

There doesn’t seem to be any real opposition (or mention) of the carbon tax by conservatives in Nova Scotia, PEI, and Newfoundland & Labrador. They don’t talk about the 1974 changes that Trudeau Sr. made to the banking system, either.

18. Fake Populist (Fake Party) Maxime Bernier

Even when running for the CPC leadership, Bernier played along with the climate change scam. His only opposition was to a tax itself. However, since losing in 2017, he finally admitted (somewhat), that it’s all a hoax.

Bernier talks a lot about the milk mafia, but doesn’t have much to say about the banking or climate mafias. Bernier was also in cabinet from 2011 to 2015 during the COMER case in Federal Court. Bernier claims to support balanced budgets, but never talks about the biggest obstacle.

19. Conservative Party Of Canada

While claiming to oppose a Carbon tax, the CPC still plays along with the climate change agenda. It does this to offer the illusion of choice in voting options. Harper signed Agenda 2030 in September 2015. Erin O’Toole supports the Paris Accord, as does Andrew Scheer.

Also worth pointing out, while Conservatives “pretend” to care about debt in opposition, they do little when in power. They also had a majority government in 2011 to 2015 when COMER attempted to dismantle Canada’s participation in the International Banking Cartel. The CPC fought the court challenge for years.

20. Leslyn Lewis’ Pro-UN/PA Dissertation

Leslyn Lewis PhD Dissertation, Paris Accord

As many readers will be aware, Leslyn Lewis recently ran for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, and came 3rd overall. But what many supporters don’t know is her thesis, published in 2019, was very pro-UN, and pro-Paris Accord. This isn’t some ancient paper she wrote at age 19 or 20. It was her PhD dissertation, published at the age of 48.

This “social conservative” was also a Director at Women’s LEAF, a pro-death lobbyist and legal group. But that’s another story.

21. The Controlled Opposition Conservatives

(Originally featured as “the Resistance” in Maclean’s), these so-called leaders pretend to oppose the Carbon tax levied by Trudeau. But the devil is in the details. They actually ENDORSE the climate change industry overall, and don’t rule out Carbon taxes Provincially. Nor do they discuss where the money even goes. They only criticize Trudeau imposing a FEDERAL tax.

Nor do the “Resistance” seem to have any problem with the international banking cartel bleeding Canada dry through usury and private loans. They focus on a symptom (the debt), but never the disease (the banking system). The goal is to ensure the public never sees the big picture.

While climate change and central banking seem unrelated, there is a connection: so-called “opposition” politicians never come clean as to what is going on. Both are scams meant to bankrupt and enslave the people.

22. Documents On The Climate Change Scam

(A.1) SK COA Ruling On Carbon Tax
(B.1) ONCA Ruling On Carbon Tax
(B.2) ONCA Reference Documents
(B.3) ONCA, Ontario Factum, GGPPA
(B.4) ONCA, BC Factum, GGPPA
(B.5) ONCA, NB Factum, GGPPA
(B.6) ONCA, United Conservative Assoc
(B.7) ONCA, CDN Taxpayers Federation
(C.1) ABCA Ruling On Carbon Tax
(C.2) Jason Kenney Repeals Carbon Tax
(C.3) Kenney Supports New Carbon Tax
(C.4) Kenney To Hike New Carbon Tax
(D.1) SCC, Ontario Factum
(D.2) SCC, Sask Factum, GGPPA

Leslyn Lewis’s 2019 PhD Dissertation On Climate Change

CV #62(C): The 2005 Quarantine Act (Bill C-12), Was Actually Written By WHO

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances many things, including, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Worth mentioning: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, and here.

2. Parliamentary Hearing Transcripts

CLICK HERE, for HESA, Bill C-12, 38th Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for HESA’s report back to Parliament.

Canada Quarantine Act Oct 28 Hearing
Canada Quarantine Act Nov 4 Hearing
Canada Quarantine Act Nov 18 Hearing
Canada Quarantine Act Nov 23 Hearing
Canada Quarantine Act Nov 25 Hearing
Canada Quarantine Act Dec 7 First Hearing
Canada Quarantine Act Dec 7 Second Hearing
Canada Quarantine Act Dec 8 Hearing

WHO Constitution Full Document

3. Quotes From November 4, 2004 Hearing

Dr. Paul Gully: During an outbreak we certainly would communicate with the countries involved. During SARS we had close collaboration with the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, for example, as required, to share intelligence.
In terms of utilization of their legislation, such as quarantine acts, we feel that our relationship with WHO, which is closer, and also clarification of WHO’s powers under the international health regulations will, I think, further ensure there is consistency in terms of response from individual member states as a result of that.
Does that answer your question?
Mr. Colin Carrie: Yes.
Are you aware of international standards for quarantine?
Dr. Paul Gully: The international health regulations would be the regulations that individual states would then use to design their quarantine acts. I don’t know of any other standards out there or best practices to look at quarantine acts, but the IHRs really have been used over the years as the starting point.
Now, with the improvement of the international health regulations, maybe, as is the case in Canada, changes will occur to quarantine acts in other countries in order to better comply with the international health regulations.

Mrs. Carol Skelton: When did these consultations begin, and how long do you expect they will go on?
Dr. Paul Gully: We had a meeting in September with the provinces and territories in Edmonton about the Quarantine Act as it stood at that time. We got input. We’re having another teleconference with the Council of Chief Medical Officers next week to talk about a number of issues that were raised and to further clarify what they would like to see as changes to the bill as it stands at the present time.
Mrs. Carol Skelton: Why did Health Canada proceed with a separate Quarantine Act at this time?
Dr. Paul Gully: Those of us who administered the Quarantine Act over the years always knew there were deficiencies in the old act, and because it was rarely used there wasn’t the inclination to update it. As a result of SARS and utilization of the act, which certainly put it under close scrutiny, and the requirement for the Government of Canada to respond to the various reports on SARS, it was felt that updating the act sooner rather than later was appropriate.
In addition, during discussions about the international health regulations of the World Health Organization, it was felt that it was appropriate to do it and to spend time and energy, which it obviously does require, to do it now, before other parts of legislative renewal, of which Mr. Simard is well aware, were further implemented or further discussion was carried out.

Ms. Ruby Dhalla: I have one question. In terms of the Quarantine Act for our country, where are we at in terms of best practices models when we look at the international spectrum?
Dr. Paul Gully: I don’t know the acts in other countries, but because we are updating our act right now and we’re taking into account the probable revisions to the international health regulations, I believe we would be well in the forefront in terms of having modern legislation.

Canada Quarantine Act Nov 4 Hearing

Of course, the other transcripts are worth a read, but this one explicitly states that the 2005 Quarantine Act was drafted in order to comply with International Health Regulations.

Bill C-12, the 2005 Quarantine Act, was written in anticipation of changes to the International Health Regulations that the World Health Organization would make. Let’s take a look.

4. Quarantine Facilities Discussed Dec 7

Mr. Réal Ménard: However, Mr. Thibault, you cannot behave as though this were a war measures act. You cannot take over a facility without the province giving it consent in some fashion.
You acknowledge that the bill says that the minister can establish quarantine stations throughout Canada. So that could be done in areas that come under provincial jurisdiction.
Hon. Robert Thibault: The bill will apply to people coming into the country and people leaving the country.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Or who are in the country.
Hon. Robert Thibault: When they are in the country, they will be covered by provincial legislation. If people attending a conference in Montreal become ill, this is the responsibility of the Quebec government. The Quebec Quarantine Act would apply. The bill before us will apply only when these individuals seek to leave Canada. The expert could give us more details on this matter.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, I would appreciate that.
Dr. Jean-Pierre Legault: There seems to be some confusion between a quarantine station and a quarantine facility.
A quarantine station is a permanent infrastructure. It is somewhat like the customs stations in airports and ports, at entry and exit points. In order to manage the program, we must locate our permanent infrastructures in the highest risk areas and manage a national program. Normally, that is done on a federal lands or at federal entry points.
Quarantine facilities are established when the permanent infrastructure is inadequate to meet the demand. This could be done in isolated cases. Let us say, for example, that a traveller is very ill. We must remember that the role of quarantine is to identify, intercept and take the person to the hospital according to isolation procedures. This is one of the roles of the front line authority. The federal government does not have the infrastructure required to hospitalize people.
Quarantining people means putting them into medical isolation in order to protect the public. Clearly, we will be working in cooperation with the provincial authorities and with the hospitals. When we bring them a sick person, the room this person goes to will become a temporary facility, while the person is there. We have to be able to act quickly. We can talk about cost recovery and all those other things later, but we have to put these people somewhere.
In the case of much larger groups, we have to be able to mobilize quite quickly in order to respond. If we are talking about managing a crisis involving 1,000 people, for example, we have to be able to act very quickly. Negotiations are a problem at such a time.
Mr. Réal Ménard: However, your officials did make a distinction. First of all, we heard from witnesses. Representatives from national carriers came in and told us that there should be permanent quarantine stations in the eight largest airports.
Our concern has to do with the fact that temporary quarantine stations maybe established anywhere in the country. Obviously, we understand that we are talking about people in transit, who are entering or leaving Canada. We intercept them when they are on Canadian soil. As clause 8 states, the quarantine facility can be located anywhere in the country. As a result, it is not out of the question that there may be cases where the cooperation of provincial health authorities is required. However, according to the bill in its present form, the minister could establish a temporary quarantine facility in a place that comes under provincial jurisdiction without obtaining the province’s approval.

Mass quarantine stations were discussed even back in 2004. Remember, WHO’s International Health Regulations are legally binding, and were the basis for Bill C-12.

5. WHO’s Constitution Gives Binding Authority

Article 21
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt regulations concerning:
(a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease;
(b) nomenclatures with respect to diseases, causes of death and public health practices;
(c) standards with respect to diagnostic procedures for international use;
(d) standards with respect to the safety, purity and potency of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce;
(e) advertising and labelling of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce.

Article 22
Regulations adopted pursuant to Article 21 shall come into force for all Members after due notice has been given of their adoption by the Health Assembly except for such Members as may notify the Director-General of rejection or reservations within the period stated in the notice.

Articles 21 and 22 of the World Health Organization Constitution make it pretty clear that they will have power to adopt measures over member states. And those areas specify quarantines.

6. Int’l Health Regulations Legally Binding

Article 3(2). The implementation of these Regulations shall be guided by the Charter of the United Nations and the Constitution of the World Health Organization.

Article 3(3). The implementation of these Regulations shall be guided by the goal of their universal application for the protection of all people of the world from the international spread of disease.

Article 3(4). States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to legislate and to implement legislation in pursuance of their health policies. In doing so they should uphold the purpose of these Regulations.

Article 4(1). Each State Party shall designate or establish a National IHR Focal Point and the authorities responsible within its respective jurisdiction for the implementation of health measures under these Regulations

Article 4(3). WHO shall designate IHR Contact Points, which shall be accessible at all times for communications with National IHR Focal Points. WHO IHR Contact Points shall send urgent communications concerning the implementation of these Regulations, in particular under Articles 6 to 12, to the National IHR Focal Point of the States Parties concerned. WHO IHR Contact Points may be designated by WHO at the headquarters or at the regional level of the Organization.

Article 4(4). States Parties shall provide WHO with contact details of their National IHR Focal Point and WHO shall provide States Parties with contact details of WHO IHR Contact Points. These contact details shall be continuously updated and annually confirmed. WHO shall make available to all States Parties the contact details of National IHR Focal Points it receives pursuant to this Article.

Article 12(1). The Director-General shall determine, on the basis of the information received, in particular from the State Party within whose territory an event is occurring, whether an event constitutes a public health emergency of international concern in accordance with the criteria and the procedure set out in these Regulations.

Article 18(1). Recommendations issued by WHO to States Parties with respect to persons may include the following advice:
– no specific health measures are advised;
– review travel history in affected areas;
– review proof of medical examination and any laboratory analysis;
require medical examinations;
review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis;
require vaccination or other prophylaxis;
– place suspect persons under public health observation;
implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons;
implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons;
– implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons;
– refuse entry of suspect and affected persons;
refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas; and
– implement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas.

Article 57(1). States Parties recognize that the IHR and other relevant international agreements should be interpreted so as to be compatible. The provisions of the IHR shall not affect the rights and obligations of any State Party deriving from other international agreements

Except as otherwise indicated, the International Health Regulations (2005) entered into force on 15 June 2007 for the following States:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Holy See, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India (8 August 2007), Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein (28 March 2012), Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro (5 February 2008), Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Niue, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan (16 April 2013), Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America (18 July 2007), Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Canada is on the list of countries who joined. And the above articles are just a small sample of what has been agreed to.

7. Again, IHR Are Legally Binding On Us All

he IHR are an instrument of international law that is legally-binding on 196 countries, including the 194 WHO Member States. The IHR grew out of the response to deadly epidemics that once overran Europe. They create rights and obligations for countries, including the requirement to report public health events. The Regulations also outline the criteria to determine whether or not a particular event constitutes a “public health emergency of international concern”.

Once more, the IHR are binding on all member states.

Sure, it was Ottawa that passed Bill C-12, the Quarantine Act in Canada. But the real authors were at the World Health Organization, who were drafting the latest version of the International Health Regulations.

Rocco Galati’s Real Record As A Constitutional Lawyer

(From Canuck Politics. Although a political ad, this one is entirely truthful, and worth a mention.) Ideologically, Justin Trudeau and Rocco Galati seem to be aligned on this issue.

Galati wasn’t even born in Canada. This makes him a foreigner trying to change the laws for the benefit of other foreigners. He’ll never be a Canadian, except in a civic sense, and even that is questionable.

Note: at 3:30, Galati claims this is about stripping rights of CANADIAN born people. But in court, he tries to claim his immigrant status for private interest standing. Nice bait-and-switch.

1. Islam, Terrorism, Religious Violence

Check this series for more information on the religion of peace. Tolerance of intolerance is being forced on the unwilling public. Included are efforts to crack down on free speech, under the guise of “religious tolerance”. What isn’t discussed as much are the enablers, whether they are lawyers, politicians, lobbyists, of members of the media.

2. Galati A Professional Agitator/Disruptor?

Rocco Galati started his career as a tax litigator for the Department of Justice, but soon decided to switch sides: He devoted himself, he says, to “cases against the government.

“You need a lawyer when the government’s after you. Private disputes you should be able to settle. But the government’s a machine,” he said. “Often there’s little room for negotiation. It’s all or nothing.”

The Toronto lawyer, known for his florid, over-the-top language, has carved a reputation for being a thorn in the side of the federal government. He stuck it to the government when he successfully challenged the appointment of Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court of Canada. Now, he’s at it again with a court challenge against changes to the Citizenship Act that allow the government to revoke the Canadian citizenship of dual citizens convicted of terrorism or treason.

Last month, Immigration Minister Chris Alexander called Mr. Galati a “disgraced, ideological former lawyer of the Khadr family.” Mr. Galati once represented Abdurahman Khadr, the older brother of convicted war criminal Omar Khadr.

Mr. Galati insists he is not driven by ideology or politics (“I sued the Liberal government more than I can count,” he said), and denounced Mr. Alexander for resorting to mudslinging. “Instead of trying to deal with the message, he tries to denigrate the messenger.”

Over the course of a 45-minute chat this week, Mr. Galati called the war on terror “phoney,” said judicial appointments aren’t based on merit but who you know, and suggested that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service is likely listening in on his calls.

The government, he said, is a “machine” that doesn’t care for the little guy.

The son of a construction worker, the Italian-born Mr. Galati, 55, has spent more than two decades of defending terror suspects and other individuals pegged for deportation.

That was a 2015 article from the National Post, which spells out pretty well the situation with Rocco Galati. He considers himself an opponent of the government.

3. Galati Fighting For Terrorists’ Rights

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Mahjoub, 2001 CanLII 22177 (FCA)
This was an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals as to whether suspected terrorists can be detained on “security certificates”, and what were the terms.

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Mahjoub, 2003 FC 928 (CanLII), [2004] 1 FCR 493
A very interesting technique: Stall for as long as possible using various tactics, then claim your rights are violated when everything is delayed unreasonably. Seems designed to weaponize the rules.

Harkat (Re), 2003 FCT 759 (CanLII), [2003] 4 FC 1020
This challenge was to prevent a suspected terrorist from being removed from Canada. He was found to be ineligible to stay as a refugee.

In December 2003, Galati claimed he would no longer be taking terrorism cases because he was threatened. Spoiler: he still takes them. There seemed to be no moral issue with doing this line of work, however.

In 2004, Galati and Abdurahman Khadr (Omar Khadr’s older brother), held a press conference. Galati had secured Khadr’s release form Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Khadr admits that stories he previously told were completely made up.

R. v. Ghany, 2006 CanLII 24454 (ON SC)
In 2006, Galati launched a constitutional challenge to make it mandatory that all (Ontario) terrorism cases be heard in Ontario Superior Court, as opposed to the Lower Court. Galati reasoned that this would make it easier for accused terrorists to be bail.

Horrace v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 114 (CanLII)
Galati represented a Liberian man who tried to claim asylum, and failed twice. He was under investigation for terrorism/subversion back home, and there were serious safety concerns. Galati attempted to secure permanent resident status but failed.

Galati v. Canada (Gov General), 2015 FC 91 (CanLII), [2015] 4 FCR 3
This challenge was against Harper’s Bill C-24. That bill would have seen foreigners who obtain Canadian citizeship have it stripped away if they were convicted of terrorism or treason. Galati claimed as an Italian born he would be theoretically vulnerable (as a way to gain private interest standing).

Galati v. Canada (Governor General), (A-52-15)
Galati lost his challenge to let dual national terrorists keep their Canadian citizenship. He appealed that ruling, however, the election of Justin Trudeau made this a non issue.

One thing that needs to be pointed out: it’s not like Galati was hard up for money, or that it was a single mistake. He has been doing this for many years.

4. Galati Billed $800/Hour For Nadon Case

Galati v. Harper, 2014 FC 1088 (CanLII)

Galati v. Harper, 2016 FCA 39 (CanLII)

Rocco Galati, et al. v. Right Honourable Stephen Harper, et al., 2016 CanLII 47514 (SCC)

Think that it was ideological that Galati challenged a judicial appointment? Not really. He tried to claim a fee of $800 per hour for his work. This is excessive, as ruled the Federal Court, and the Federal Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the appeal. So much for principles.

5. Mainville Reference: Quebec Court Of Appeal

Galati apparently wasn’t content with meddling in selection for the Supreme Court of Canada. He also tried to interfere with the selection of a Justice to the Quebec Court of Appeal. This time though, he failed.

6. Constitutional Rights Centre Inc.

The Constitutional Rights Centre Inc. (“CRC”) was incorporated, in Ontario, in November, 2004. From 2004 to 2013, it non-publicly, except to lawyers, operated in its development, in assisting and procuring legal counsel, with respect to constitutional cases, where counsel and/or their client, lacked the funds and/or expertise to mount, argue, or appeal a constitutional issue or case. Since 2013 it has, as co-Applicant, also initiated litigation in such cases as the “Nadon Reference” case, the “Mainville Reference” case, the challenge to the new Citizenship Act (Bill C-24).

Pretty strange that THESE are the cases that are first promoted on the main page of the website. Aren’t there better causes than convicted terrorists?

The CRC is structurally organized as follows:
It consists of one (1) Corporate Director.
It further consists of the following Operational Directors:
Rocco Galati, B.A.(McGill), LL.B., LL.M. (Osgoode)
Executive Director (Founder) and Director of Tax and other Civil Litigation
Paul Slansky, B.A., LL.B (Michigan)., J.D. (Detroit)
Operational Director, (Quasi) Criminal Litigation
Amina Sherazee, B.A., LL.B (Windsor)., LL.M. (Candidate)
Operational Director, Immigration, Human Rights, and Women’s Litigation
Manuel Azevedo, L.L.B. (Osgoode), LL.M. (LSE)
Operational Director, Administrative Law Litigation

From 2004 until 2013, it apparently operated as some secret organization to get counsel and funds for constitutional cases. Considering the cases they view as “worthwhile” it’s not surprising that it would be operated secretly.

7. Terrorist Lawyer Manuel Azevedo, Bill C-24

When Galati challenged Bill C-24 (stripping citizenship rights from dual national terrorists), Manuel Azevedo was an Applicant along side him. Azevdo was born in Portugal, not Canada, making him another foreigner trying to rewrite Canadian laws. Azevedo is also a Director at the Constitutional Rights Centre.

8. Terrorist Lawyer Paul Slansky: CRC Director

Who does Galati have as Directors in his organization? One is Paul Slansky, who also takes terrorism cases.

R. v. Ahmad, 2009 CanLII 84772 (ON SC)

R. v. Ahmad, 2009 CanLII 84774 (ON SC)

R. v. Ahmad, 2009 CanLII 84776 (ON SC)

R. v. Hersi, 2014 ONSC 1211 (CanLII)

R. v. Hersi, 2014 ONSC 1217 (CanLII)

R. v. Hersi, 2014 ONSC 1258 (CanLII)

R. v. Hersi, 2014 ONSC 1273 (CanLII)

R. v. Hersi, 2014 ONSC 1303 (CanLII)

R. v. Hersi, 2014 ONSC 1368 (CanLII)

R. v. Hersi, 2014 ONSC 1373 (CanLII)

R. v. Hersi, 2014 ONSC 4143 (CanLII)

About that order to pay expenses personally:
Best v Ranking, 2015 ONSC 5075 (CanLII)

Best v Ranking, 2015 ONSC 6269 (CanLII)

Best v Ranking, 2015 ONSC 6279 (CanLII)

Best v. Ranking, 2016 ONCA 492 (CanLII)

(From the Ontario Court of Appeals):

[1] Paul Slansky, counsel for the plaintiff Donald Best, appeals from a decision requiring Mr. Slansky to pay costs personally, in the sum of $84,000, on a joint and several basis with his client. He submits that the motion judge erred in two respects:
• The hearing was unfair, because he did not have adequate notice of the grounds upon which the motion judge grounded her decision to order him to pay costs personally.
• The motion judge awarded costs against him because he took on a weak case, not on the basis pleaded by the respondents, which was that he had taken procedural steps which wasted costs.
[2] More generally, Mr. Slansky submits that the motion judge should not have ordered him to pay costs personally, and would not have done so had she exercised the extreme caution required.
[3] For the following reasons, I would dismiss the appeal.

[55] On appeal, Mr. Slansky argues that Action 2 was not abusive. It was against many different parties and for different causes of action. That issue has now been conclusively determined by the dismissal of Mr. Best’s appeal from the decision striking Action 2 as an abuse of process. Action 2 made similar allegations of impropriety as had been voiced in the course of Action 1. The motion judge did not err in considering that Mr. Slansky incorporated into the pleading in Action 2 accusations of criminal misconduct against opposing counsel that had repeatedly been judicially rejected as baseless.
[56] Finally, as this court indicated in Galganov, at paras. 23-25, deference is owed to a motion judge’s decision as to whether a lawyer should pay costs personally:

[59] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed with costs payable by Mr. Slansky in favour of the respondents in the agreed sum of $30,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Judges don’t usually order lawyers to personally pay the costs of their own clients. This would have to be pretty bad to make such an exception.

9. Galati/COMER V. Bank Of Canada

The COMER case was previously covered on the site, and is actually a worthwhile cause. It ran from 2011 until 2017, when the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear an appeal. The International Banking Cartel bleeds us dry. In retrospect, however, a cynic might wonder if it was rigged from the start, given there is no justification whatsoever for our participation in such a system.

Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform (“COMER”) v. Canada, 2013 FC 855 (CanLII)
Text Of Ruling

Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform v. Canada, 2014 FC 380 (CanLII)
Text Of Ruling

Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform v. The Queen, 2015 FCA 20 (CanLII)
Text Of Ruling

Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform (“COMER”) v. Canada, 2016 FC 147 (CanLII)
Text Of Ruling

Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform v. Canada, 2016 FCA 312 (CanLII)
Text Of Ruling

The Supreme Court of Canada Declined to hear the case.

10. Not Who You Think They Are

Considering the history that the Constitutional Rights Centre Directors have defending terrorist rights. Why would sensible, intelligent people choose that as a cause to take on? Why would they try to intervene in judicial appointments?

Do they internally agree with the cases they’ve taken on, or is there some other agenda? It can’t (entirely) be about the money, as there are easier ways to get paid.

And the current case with Vaccine Choice Canada?
VCC Statement Of Claim

With the filing of the challenge in Ontario Superior Court, Rocco Galati has obtained somewhat of a cult following. The Statement of Claim is 191 pages, very repetitive, and contains a lot of argument and evidence, which it shouldn’t. 3 months later (and counting), no defense filed. However, people should know what he really stands for. This is not to question his ability or skill as a lawyer, but rather his priorities.