Bill C-7, the expanded version of the assisted suicide bill (or “euthanasia 2.0), is currently being discussed in the Canadian Parliament. It broadens the scope laid out in Bill C-14, from the previous Parliament. A Quebec Court ruled that Bill C-14’s requirement that a death be “reaso
1. Assisted Suicide (MAiD), Euthanasia
CLICK HERE, for #1: Court says referral or service must be provided. CLICK HERE, for #2: Bill C-14, Medical Assistance in Dying (euthanasia).
MEDICAL AID IN DYING
26. Only a patient who meets all of the following criteria may obtain medical aid in dying:
(1) be an insured person within the meaning of the Health Insurance Act (chapter A-29);
(2) be of full age and capable of giving consent to care;
(3) be at the end of life;
(4) suffer from a serious and incurable illness;
(5) be in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability; and;
(6) experience constant and unbearable physical or psychological suffering which cannot be relieved in a manner the patient deems tolerable.
The patient must request medical aid in dying themselves, in a free and informed manner, by means of the form prescribed by the Minister. The form must be dated and signed by the patient.
The form must be signed in the presence of and countersigned by a health or social services professional; if the professional is not the attending physician, the signed form is to be given by the professional to the attending physician.
28. A patient may, at any time and by any means, withdraw their request for
medical aid in dying.
A patient may also, at any time and by any means, request that the
administration of medical aid in dying be put off.
31. A physician practising in a centre operated by an institution who refuses are quest for medical aid in dying for a reason not based on section 29 must, as soon as possible, notify the executive director of the institution or any other person designated by the executive director and forward the request form given to the physician, if that is the case, to the executive director or designated person. The executive director of the institution or designated person must then take the necessary steps to find, as soon as possible, another physician willing to deal with the request in accordance with section 29.
If the physician who receives the request practises in a private health facility and does not provide medical aid in dying, the physician must, as soon as possible, notify the executive director of the local authority referred to in section 99.4 of the Act respecting health services and social services (chapter S-4.2) that serves the territory in which the patient making the request resides, or notify the person designated by the executive director. The physician forwards the request form received, if that is the case, to the executive director or designated person and the steps mentioned in the first paragraph must be taken.
If no local authority serves the territory in which the patient resides, the notice referred to in the second paragraph is forwarded to the executive director of the institution operating a local community service centre in the territory or the person designated by the executive director.
In this case, the Applicant, Jean Truchon, had suffered from spastic cerebral palsy with triparesis since birth. In March 2012, he was diagnosed with severe spinal stenosis (narrowing of the spinal canal) as well as myelomalacia (spinal cord necrosis). This is a degenerative condition for which no surgical or pharmacological treatment exists that caused the gradual paralysis of his only working limb. As a result, in 2012, Mr. Truchon permanently lost the use of his left arm and became fully paralyzed, with no hope of improvement. This new condition was accompanied by significant physical pain in the arms and neck, with intense burning sensations and painful spasms.
While clearly not about to die soon, he seems fully aware of his condition, which has no reasonable prospect of improving. So can he request medically assisted suicide on this basis?
The Quebec Court said there is no reason to deny it.
 First, the Court is astounded by the fact that the experts for the Attorney General of Canada had not even a basic knowledge of the practice of medical assistance in dying in Canada, which has nonetheless been legal throughout the country since 2016. None of them has participated in the request process for medical assistance in dying, either by assessing a patient or by providing such medical assistance. None of them has done any research on the subject or even tried to consult the data available in Canada.
 Therefore, when they all state that there is no difference between suicide and medical assistance in dying, they are considering and presenting only one side of the story, one part of the equation. They compare the two issues without ever having analyzed, learned, or addressed the specifics of medical assistance in dying, its parameters, its eligibility criteria, or how it is practised in Canada.
As an aside, the Government presented “experts” who had no experience of knowledge whatsoever in medical assistance in dying. Either they couldn’t find better experts, or didn’t even try.
4. Bill C-7 Re-Introduced In Parliament
A point of clarification: Bill C-7 was actually introduced in February 2020, and only got as far as first reading. It died when Parliament was prorogued. It has been re-introduced (again, as Bill C-7), in the latest session.
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) repeal the provision that requires a person’s natural death be reasonably foreseeable in order for them to be eligible for medical assistance in dying;
(b) specify that persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness are not eligible for medical assistance in dying;
(c) create two sets of safeguards that must be respected before medical assistance in dying may be provided to a person, the application of which depends on whether the person’s natural death is reasonably foreseeable;
(d) permit medical assistance in dying to be provided to a person who has been found eligible to receive it, whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable and who has lost the capacity to consent before medical assistance in dying is provided, on the basis of a prior agreement they entered into with the medical practitioner or nurse practitioner; and
(e) permit medical assistance in dying to be provided to a person who has lost the capacity to consent to it as a result of the self-administration of a substance that was provided to them under the provisions governing medical assistance in dying in order to cause their own death.
Whereas the Government of Canada has committed to responding to the Superior Court of Québec decision in Truchon v. Attorney General of Canada;
Whereas Parliament considers that it is appropriate to no longer limit eligibility for medical assistance in dying to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable and to provide additional safeguards for those persons whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable;
Whereas under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms every individual has the right to life, liberty and security of the person without being deprived of them except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination;
Whereas Canada is a State Party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and recognizes its obligations under it, including in respect of the right to life;
Whereas Parliament affirms the inherent and equal value of every person’s life and the importance of taking a human rights-based approach to disability inclusion;
Whereas Parliament recognizes the need to balance several interests and societal values, including the autonomy of persons who are eligible to receive medical assistance in dying, the protection of vulnerable persons from being induced to end their lives and the important public health issue that suicide represents;
Whereas it is desirable to have a consistent approach to medical assistance in dying across Canada, while recognizing the provinces’ jurisdiction over various matters related to medical assistance in dying, including the delivery of health care services and the regulation of health care professionals, as well as insurance contracts and coroners and medical examiners;
Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to having a federal monitoring regime that provides a reliable national dataset and that promotes accountability under the law governing medical assistance in dying and improve the transparency of its implementation;
Whereas, while recognizing the inherent risks and complexity of permitting medical assistance in dying for persons who are unable to provide consent at the time of the procedure, Parliament considers it appropriate to permit dying persons who have been found eligible to receive medical assistance in dying and are awaiting its provision to obtain medical assistance in dying even if they lose the capacity to provide final consent, except if they demonstrate signs of resistance to or refusal of the procedure;
Whereas further consultation and deliberation are required to determine whether it is appropriate and, if so, how to provide medical assistance in dying to persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness in light of the inherent risks and complexity of the provision of medical assistance in dying in those circumstances;
And whereas the law provides that a committee of Parliament will begin a review of the legislative provisions relating to medical assistance in dying and the state of palliative care in Canada in June 2020, which review may include issues of advance requests and requests where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition;
Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
One of the main takeaways in Bill C-7 is that is removes a requirement from Bill C-14 that a person receiving medical assistance in dying have a death that is “reasonably foreseeable”. Now, a person can get a doctor or nurse to help with euthanasia for a wide array of reasons.
A worthwhile note: it includes language which prevents assisted suicide if the only reason for doing so is a mental illness.
5. Clips From Bill C-7 Parliamentary Hearings
The hearings, of course, last much longer, but those are a few clips of it. An interesting claim (from Roger Foley), about the father of the Judge in the Truchon ruling gave evidence in the case. If true, a huge conflict of interest.
It’s rather strange to see Iqra Khalid, who presented M-103 (the Islamic blasphemy Motion), heading up the hearings on medically assisted suicide. Curious to know what her views are.
6. Roger Foley, Assisted Life Website
My name is Roger Foley. I am the patient who has been in Victoria Hospital for over 4-years being pressured into assisted dying by the hospital and Government while they prevent my access to care options I need to live 1, 2. I have important public interest updates.
The Hospital is currently billing me $1800 dollars per day and continuing to coerce me to Assisted Dying during the Covid-19 pandemic when they threatened me with that and offered me Assisted Dying. Instead of protecting the lives of the elderly, the disabled and the vulnerable, the Hospital and Government are taking advantage, by further exploiting and abusing persons who are vulnerable before and during Covid-19 and not protecting their lives across the Country. So many persons are dying unnecessary deaths, when robust self-directed home care would make all Canadians safer in their own homes.
The Government cannot be trusted and they admitted rather than preparing for the Covid-19 pandemic, they were selling their exploitation and abuse of vulnerable Canadians to Assisted Dying rather than calling China to learn about the threat, ordering ventilators, protecting those in Long-Term Care facilities and Group Homes, and ordering Personal Protecting Equipment for Health Care workers to make sure frontline Health Care workers were safe. They also during the Pandemic in March, when thousands of people were dying, released their bias propaganda assisted dying expansion survey to continue to abuse, exploit and end the lives of vulnerable disabled and elderly Canadians. I am continuing to be attacked through my care, being denied basic necessities of life, and being denied proper and dignified health care. I am very scared, and the Government and the Health Care systems want to end my life rather than help me to live with dignity and compassion.
Assisted Life is documenting and chronicling the problems and conflicts of interests in proceedings. This is too long to cover in a single article, but it’s worth a good read.
7. Protection Of Conscience Project
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)
I.1 The Protection of Conscience Project does not take a position on the acceptability of euthanasia or physician assisted suicide. The Project supports legislation that ensures that health care workers who object to providing or participating in homicide and suicide for reasons of conscience or religion are not compelled to do so or punished or disadvantaged for refusal.
One of the valid topics that needs to be discussed is the conscience rights of health care professionals who believe that participating in assisted suicide (or legalized murder) is wrong, and goes against their oath.
8. Physicians Alliance Against Euthanasia
To the Committee,
The danger of universal euthanasia access is similar to the passive, everpresent danger of drowning. A few people will die voluntarily by jumping in the water. But others will simply stumble. And yet others may be pushed.
Similarly, while some people will truly die by choice, others may “choose” euthanasia on a whim born of passing despair. But worse still: all people eligible for euthanasia become automatically vulnerable to pressure from others who cannot bear to see them suffer, are exhausted by their care, or will in some way benefit from their death, be they health professionals, caregivers or heirs.
Clearly, the most egregious harm of Bill C-7 lies in the extension of euthanasia to those who are not dying. The Carter decision specified that any legalization of euthanasia must include effective safeguards, of which the reasonably foreseeable death criterion was one.
In addition, Bill C-7 only requires that patients be informed of real alternatives to death in order to relieve suffering. That is clearly insufficient, given the scarcity of medical, psychological, and social resources for the many groups of people who might contemplate death as a solution to their troubles. It is essential that such alternatives be actually available to all patients considering euthanasia.
“Bill C-7 does not just expand MAiD; it fundamentally redefines it. No longer limited to hastening death, Bill C-7 embraces MAiD as a means of terminating an otherwise viable life – but only the life of someone with an illness or disability (italics added).
Bill C-7 (therefore) undermines our constitutional commitment to the equal and inherent value of all lives”
Other issues mysteriously bundled in Bill C-7
Whereas the end-of-life provision is of greatest importance, certain other elements of Bill C-7 have nothing to do with the requirements of Truchon/Gladu and their effects go far beyond compliance with that judgment. Two of these involve weakening euthanasia safeguards in cases where natural death is reasonably foreseeable: It is proposed that the existing ten-day waiting period be eliminated for all patients; and that the number of witnesses to the request be lowered from two to only one (who may also be a health care professional involved in the patient’s care).
The Physicians Alliance Against Euthanasia raises a number of valid points about Bill C-14, including:
(a) people may choose death in a moment of despair
(b) death may be promoted be interested parties
(c) Bill C-7 redefines MAiD, not just expands it
(d) eliminating the 10 day waiting period
(e) reducing the 2 witness threshold to 1
9. Was Bill C-14 Just A Gateway?
This is a fair question to ask: was Bill C-14 just a stepping stone to more widespread euthanasia. By allowing medically assisted suicide for terminally ill people, Parliament unwittingly, (or perhaps wittingly), set a precedent to broader implementation. How do we determine that the right person — the one whose life would end — is actually making the decision, and in a fully informed way?
While the prospect of relatives hastening death in anticipation of an inheritance seems like a movie script, it is a realistic possibility. Greed makes some people do horrible things.
Standards also have to be set to ensure the person has fully thought out the consequences, and is not just suffering from a bad day (or series or days).
It’s also been mentioned by Roger Foley, and AssistedLife.ca, that these court decisions have been influenced by conflicts of interest. The research done is quite impressive. That will be addressed separately.
Of course, there are a lot of legitimate concerns and questions (such as being used to outright murder) that will likely never be fully addressed.
What a goldmine this short video clip is. Theresa “the Apple” Tam openly admits that there is collusion on social media, (see 3:55), such as: (a) automatically forwarding searches to specific sites; (b) demonetizing certain accounts; and (c) algorithm manipulation to prevent certain information from being seen.
Tam also parrots the UNESCO narrative regarding misinformation. At 6:00, Tam asks people to create videos and testimonials promote the Covid narrative. At 7:00, Tam uses “Vaccine Confidence“, which is actually a global psychological effort to get people vaccinated.
The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, 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. The media is paid off, and our democracy is thoroughly compromised, as shown: here, here, here, and here.
3. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for Trudeau/Tam casually admitting to censorship. CLICK HERE, for Tam looking for ways to vaccinate more people. CLICK HERE, for great censorship piece by INFORRM.ORG. CLICK HERE, for social media firms “catching misinformation”. CLICK HERE, for Dominic LeBlanc considering “misinformation” law. CLICK HERE, for Bill C-10 introduced in Parliament. CLICK HERE, for openparliament.ca, Bill C-10 entry.
Tam and Deputy Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Howard Njoo warned against misinformation about vaccine safety online and explained why social media giants have a role to play in sharing trusted material.
“This is the first pandemic in the age of the Internet and social media. This is an area of significant work because we have an overload of information through which many Canadians can’t sort out what is credible and what is not,” she said.
“I look towards different partners, government departments coming together to look at how we better address some of the myths and misinformation that is in that space. I think fundamentally it’s a massive challenge.”
The Statistics Canada report also shows that nearly 58 per cent of respondents said that they were very likely to get the COVID-19 vaccine, a majority being 65 and older.
Theresa Tam openly says that social media has a role to play in advancing the vaccination agenda, and in countering information that contradicts the official narrative. Also, take a look into the issue of “vaccine hesitancy“, or vaccine confidence.
5. YouTube/Google Openly Censor Critics Online
Canuck Law was given a strike and had a video removed for contradicting the official narrative on YouTube. The video was based on Part 29 in the series: lies of public health officials. As such, it has become clear that real discussion on the platform will never be permitted.
If you’re posting content
Don’t post content on YouTube if it includes any of the following:
Treatment Misinformation: Discourages someone from seeking medical treatment by encouraging the use of cures or remedies to treat COVID-19.
-Claims that COVID-19 doesn’t exist or that people do not die from it
-Content that encourages the use of home remedies in place of medical treatment such as consulting a doctor or going to the hospital
-Content that encourages the use of prayer or rituals in place of medical treatment
-Content that claims that a vaccine for coronavirus is available or that there’s a guaranteed cure
-Claims about COVID-19 vaccinations that contradict expert consensus from local health authorities or WHO
-Content that claims that any currently-available medicine prevents you from getting the coronavirus
-Other content that discourages people from consulting a medical professional or seeking medical advice
-Prevention Misinformation: Content that promotes prevention methods that contradict local health authorities or WHO.
Diagnostic Misinformation: Content that promotes diagnostic methods that contradict local health authorities or WHO.
Transmission Misinformation: Content that promotes transmission information that contradicts local health authorities or WHO.
-Content that claims that COVID-19 is not caused by a viral infection
-Content that claims COVID-19 is not contagious
-Content that claims that COVID-19 cannot spread in certain climates or geographies
-Content that claims that any group or individual has immunity to the virus or cannot transmit the virus
-Content that disputes the efficacy of local health authorities’ or WHO’s guidance on physical distancing or self-isolation measures to reduce transmission of COVID-19
Educational, documentary, scientific or artistic content
We may allow content that violates the misinformation policies noted on this page if that content includes context that gives equal or greater weight to countervailing views from local health authorities or to medical or scientific consensus. We may also make exceptions if the purpose of the content is to condemn or dispute misinformation that violates our policies. This context must appear in the images or audio of the video itself. Providing it in the title or description is insufficient.
Here are some examples of content that’s not allowed on YouTube:
–Denial that COVID-19 exists
-Claims that people have not died from COVID-19
-Claims that there’s a guaranteed vaccine for COVID-19
-Claims that a specific treatment or medicine is a guaranteed cure for COVID-19
-Claims that certain people have immunity to COVID-19 due to their race or nationality
-Encouraging taking home remedies instead of getting medical treatment when sick
-Discouraging people from consulting a medical professional if they’re sick
-Content that claims that holding your breath can be used as a diagnostic test for COVID-19
-Videos alleging that if you avoid Asian food, you won’t get the coronavirus
-Videos alleging that setting off fireworks can clean the air of the virus
-Claims that COVID-19 is caused by radiation from 5G networks
-Videos alleging that the COVID-19 test is the cause of the virus
-Claims that countries with hot climates will not experience the spread of the virus
-Videos alleging that social distancing and self-isolation are not effective in reducing the spread of the virus
-Claims that the COVID-19 vaccine will kill people who receive it
These are the rules that YouTube (which is actually owned by Google), now have in place. The actual truth or research of the videos are irrelevant. The deciding factor is whether or not it contradicts the official narrative.
Google, the parent company of YouTube, has been meeting with Federal officials for a variety of issues, including media manipulation regarding the “pandemic”.
6. Twitter Censorship, Meeting With Gov’t
In serving the public conversation, our goal is to make it easy to find credible information on Twitter and to limit the spread of potentially harmful and misleading content. Starting today, we’re introducing new labels and warning messages that will provide additional context and information on some Tweets containing disputed or misleading information related to COVID-19.
In March, we broadened our policy guidance to address content that goes directly against guidance on COVID-19 from authoritative sources of global and local public health information. Moving forward, we may use these labels and warning messages to provide additional explanations or clarifications in situations where the risks of harm associated with a Tweet are less severe but where people may still be confused or misled by the content. This will make it easier to find facts and make informed decisions about what people see on Twitter.
New labels and warnings
During active conversations about disputed issues, it can be helpful to see additional context from trusted sources. Earlier this year, we introduced a new label for Tweets containing synthetic and manipulated media. Similar labels will now appear on Tweets containing potentially harmful, misleading information related to COVID-19. This will also apply to Tweets sent before today.
Twitter has updated their policies a few times this year, but it falls along the same idea as YouTube: information that openly contradicts the official position and recommendation of the World Health Organization and its proxies is at risk of being censored.
People like Theresa Tam and Justin Trudeau aren’t alarmed at the blatant censorship going on in the online sphere. On the contrary, they fully support it, as it undermines attempts to disprove their claims.
Subject Matter Details
Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution
–Bill C-10, An Act to Amend the Broadcasting Act and make related and consequential amendments to other acts
-Broadcasting and Telecommunications Review with regard to proposals to regulate online content.
-Income Tax Act, with regard to digital tax proposals.
-Intellectual property proposals and legislation with regard to copyright and online content.
-National Data Strategy consultations with regard to innovation, trust and privacy.
-Privacy legislation or proposals such the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) with regard to data collection, safety, and use.
Policies or Program
-Internet advertising policy, specifically the adoption of digital media and advertising by government.
-Working with government agencies to help them understand how social media companies create their own rules and policies.
-Working with government agencies to help them understand how to use social media during elections.
Twitter has also been meeting with the Federal Government on issues such as Bill C-10, and regulating online content. This screams of efforts to crack down on free speech and censor unpleasant truth.
7. Facebook Censorship/Collusion Over Covid
Ever since COVID-19 was declared a global public health emergency in January, we’ve been working to connect people to accurate information from health experts and keep harmful misinformation about COVID-19 from spreading on our apps.
We’ve now directed over 2 billion people to resources from the WHO and other health authorities through our COVID-19 Information Center and pop-ups on Facebook and Instagram with over 350 million people clicking through to learn more.
But connecting people to credible information is only half the challenge. Stopping the spread of misinformation and harmful content about COVID-19 on our apps is also critically important. That’s why we work with over 60 fact-checking organizations that review and rate content in more than 50 languages around the world. In the past month, we’ve continued to grow our program to add more partners and languages. Since the beginning of March, we’ve added eight new partners and expanded our coverage to more than a dozen new countries. For example, we added MyGoPen in Taiwan, the AFP and dpa in the Netherlands, Reuters in the UK, and others.
Facebook is quite open about the fact that they are trying to alter the narrative and prop up official versions of events. They also have no qualms about censoring so-called “misinformation”.
Facebook has also been meeting with the Federal Government, on a variety of issues. It would be nice to actually have the minutes of these meetings, not just a vague description.
8. CBC Promotes Limiting Free Speech
Social media platforms have taken unprecedented steps to fight misinformation online because of the COVID-19 pandemic, but some critics say they could still do more.
Facebook, Twitter and Google/YouTube have ramped up their efforts to police content that contains incorrect or harmful information, taking down the worst offenders, attaching warnings to content that has been fact-checked and linking to official sources, such as the Public Health Agency of Canada.
That includes posts such as a viral video by an American doctor on disciplinary probation in which he claims 5G technology causes coronavirus (it does not) or a false post implying the Canadian Armed Forces were in Toronto, but which turned out to be a photo of a tank taken during a festival in 2016.
On Thursday, Facebook said it has attached warnings to 40 million posts about COVID-19, and that 95 per cent of the time, users did not click through to see the content. Twitter says it has taken down over 2,000 tweets related to COVID-19 and “challenged” 2.8 million accounts, which can mean limiting who sees certain tweets, requiring a tweet to be removed or placing a warning on tweets that violate rules but are in the public interest to leave up.
This should alarm people. Twitter, Google and Facebook have all decided what shall constitute the truth, and are intentionally limiting access to information that doesn’t fit the narrative. Let’s not forget that the Liberals are considering laws to ban what they call “misinformation”.
9. Trudeau/Erin O’Toole Both Compromised
Trudeau: His Chief-Of-Staff, Katie Telford, is married to Rob Silver, co-founder of Crestview Strategy. Crestview has long lobbied for GAVI (which is Gates funded). Andrew Scheer was also lobbied by GAVI.
O’Toole: His Chief-Of-Staff, Walied, Soliman, is a director for Sick Kids Hospital in Toronto (which is also Gates funded).
Also: Erin O’Toole, who is currently the head of the Conservative Party of Canada, was previously a lobbyist for Facebook, when he worked for Heenan Blakie. Blakie is the now defunct law firm which Jean Chretien and Pierre Trudeau both worked at.
10. Bill C-10: Online Censorship, Licensing
In early February, Steven Guilbeault, the Heritage Minister announced that the Government wanted mandate that all media outlets to have a license. He (sort of) backtracked after a public backlash. While this may have just been viewed as a tax grab at the time, it takes on a whole new look in light of the censorship attitude in this “pandemic”.
It’s official: Bill C-10 has now been introduced in the House of Commons. It’s been marketed as an effort to force media giants to spend money on Canadian content. Let’s take a look.
This enactment amends the Broadcasting Act to, among other things,
(a) add online undertakings — undertakings for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet — as a distinct class of broadcasting undertakings;
(b) update the broadcasting policy for Canada set out in section 3 of that Act by, among other things, providing that the Canadian broadcasting system should serve the needs and interests of all Canadians — including Canadians from racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds — and should provide opportunities for Indigenous persons, programming that reflects Indigenous cultures and that is in Indigenous languages, and programming that is accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities;
(c) specify that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (the “Commission”) must regulate and supervise the Canadian broadcasting system in a manner that
(i) takes into account the different characteristics of Indigenous language broadcasting and the different conditions under which broadcasting undertakings that provide Indigenous language programming operate,
(ii) is fair and equitable as between broadcasting undertakings providing similar services,
(iii) facilitates the provision of programs that are accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities, and
(iv) takes into account the variety of broadcasting undertakings to which that Act applies and avoids imposing obligations on a class of broadcasting undertakings if doing so will not contribute in a material manner to the implementation of the broadcasting policy;
(d) amend the procedure relating to the issuance by the Governor in Council of policy directions to the Commission;
(e) replace the Commission’s power to impose conditions on a licence with a power to make orders imposing conditions on the carrying on of broadcasting undertakings;
(f) provide the Commission with the power to require that persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings make expenditures to support the Canadian broadcasting system;
(g) authorize the Commission to provide information to the Minister responsible for that Act, the Chief Statistician of Canada and the Commissioner of Competition, and set out in that Act a process by which a person who submits certain types of information to the Commission may designate the information as confidential;
(h) amend the procedure by which the Governor in Council may, under section 28 of that Act, set aside a decision of the Commission to issue, amend or renew a licence or refer such a decision back to the Commission for reconsideration and hearing;
(i) specify that a person shall not carry on a broadcasting undertaking, other than an online undertaking, unless they do so in accordance with a licence or they are exempt from the requirement to hold a licence;
(j) harmonize the punishments for offences under Part II of that Act and clarify that a due diligence defence applies to the existing offences set out in that Act; and
(k) allow for the imposition of administrative monetary penalties for violations of certain provisions of that Act or of the Accessible Canada Act.
The enactment also makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part (b) would require providers to pander to all groups under the sun, although not aiming content at Europeans would probably be considered okay.
Does (i) specify that online content (such as videos and websites) would be excluded from any media licensing requirement?
Although the Government (now) says specifically that news outlets would be exempt from being required to get a license, one has to wonder if this will actually be the case. It’s also unclear if access to social media will be limited to only the approved parties. After all, they seem pretty pro censorship. As with many things, the devil is in the details.
Bill C-10 deserves a stand-alone piece, which will be coming soon. This hardly does it justice.
A few of the sites popping up to stop people from asking the questions that need to be asked.
12. Will IHR Make Censorship Mandatory?
Risk communication and community engagement
-Continue risk communications and community engagement activities through the WHO Information Network for Epidemics (EPI-WIN) and other platforms to counter rumours and misinformation.
-Continue to regularly communicate clear messages, guidance, and advice about the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic, how to reduce transmission, and save lives.
-Work with partners and countries to articulate potential long-term consequences of COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing the need for strengthened cross-sectoral preparedness, transparency and global coordination.
The International Health Regulations that the WHO puts out are legally binding. Considering that WHO supports efforts to “combat misinformation”, one has to wonder if laws to censor certain views will be imposed.
This is a screenshot from November 3rd from Health Canada. It states that 200,000 people in Canada have already recovered from this virus. Yet, this is will never be mentioned by Conservatives, nor will they ever question the bogus science behind the pandemic narrative.
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. Opposition Motion Entirely Just For Show
That the Standing Committee on Health be instructed to undertake a study on the emergency situation facing Canadians in light of the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that this study evaluate, review and examine any issues relevant to this situation, such as, but not limited to:
(a) rapid and at-home testing approvals and procurement process and schedule, and protocol for distribution;
(b) vaccine development and approvals process, procurement schedules, and protocol for distribution;
(c) federal public health guidelines and the data being used to inform them for greater clarity on efficacy;
(d) current long-term care facility COVID-19 protocols as they pertain solely to federal jurisdiction;
(e) the availability of therapeutics and treatment devices for Canadians diagnosed with COVID-19;
(f) the early warning system, Global Public Health Intelligence Network (GPHIN);
(g) the government’s progress in evaluating pre- and post-arrival rapid testing for travellers;
(h) the availability of paid sick leave for those in need, including quarantine and voluntary isolation;
(i) the adequacy of health transfer payments to the provinces, in light of the COVID-19 crisis;
(j) the impact of the government’s use of World Heath Organization (WHO) advice in early 2020 to delay the closure of borders and delay in the recommendation of wearing of masks on the spread of COVID-19 in Canada;
(k) the Public Health Agency of Canada’s communication strategy regarding COVID-19;
(l) the development, efficacy and use of data related to the government’s COVID Alert application;
(m) Canada’s level of preparedness to respond to another pandemic;
(n) the availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) in Canada and a review of Canada’s emergency stockpile of PPE between 2015 and present;
(o) the government’s contact tracing protocol, including options considered, technology, timelines and resources;
(p) the government’s consideration of and decision not to invoke the federal Emergencies Act;
(q) this study begin no later than seven days following the adoption of this motion;
(r) the committee present its findings to the House upon completion and, notwithstanding Standing Order 109, that the government provide a comprehensive response to these findings within 30 days;
(s) evidence and documentation received by the committee during its study of the Canadian response to the outbreak of the coronavirus, commenced during the first session of the 43rd Parliament, be taken into consideration by the committee in the current study;
(t) that each party represented on the committee be entitled to select one witness per one-hour witness panel, and two witnesses per two-hour witness panel;
(u) an order of the House do issue for all memoranda, emails, documents, notes or other records from the Office of the Prime Minister, the Privy Council Office, the office of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the office of the Minister of Health, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada, concerning options, plans and preparations for the GPHIN since January 1, 2018;
(v) an order of the House do issue for a record of all communications between the government and the WHO in respect of options, plans or preparations for any future operation, or absence thereof, of the GPHIN, since January 1, 2018;
(w) an order of the House do issue for all memoranda, emails, documents, notes and other records from the Office of the Prime Minister, the Privy Council Office, the office of the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, the office of the Minister of Health, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada, concerning plans, preparations, approvals and purchasing of COVID-19 testing products including tests, reagents, swabs, laboratory equipment and other material related to tests and testing applications used in the diagnosis of COVID-19, since March 19, 2020;
(x) an order of the House do issue for all memoranda, emails, documents, notes and other records from the Prime Minister’s Office, the Privy Council Office, the office of the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, the office of the Minister of Health, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada concerning plans, preparations and purchasing of PPE, including gowns, gloves, masks, respirators, ventilators, visors and face shields, since March 19, 2020;
(y) an order of the House do issue for all memoranda, e-mails, documents, notes and other records relating to the COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force and its subcommittees;
(z) an order of the House do issue for all memoranda, e-mails, documents, notes and other records relating to the Government of Canada’s COVID-19 vaccine distribution and monitoring strategy, including, but not limited to anticipated timelines for the distribution of an approved COVID-19 vaccine across Canada and the prioritization of population groups for vaccination;
(aa) minutes of meetings of the cabinet and its committees be excluded from this order and all documents issued pursuant to this order (i) be organized by department and be provided to the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel as soon as is practicable in light of the pandemic, but, in any event, not later than November 30, 2020, and, if this is not possible, the Clerk of the Privy Council may request an extension of no more than seven days, by writing a letter to the committee, (ii) be vetted for matters of personal privacy information and national security, and, with respect to paragraph (y) only, be additionally vetted for information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to interfere with contractual or other negotiations between the Government of Canada and a third party, by the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel within seven days of the receipt of the documents, (iii) be laid upon the table by the Speaker, at the next earliest opportunity, once vetted, and permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Health; and
(bb) within seven days after all documents have been tabled pursuant to paragraph (aa), the Minister of Health, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry be ordered to appear separately as witnesses before the Standing Committee on Health, for at least three hours each.
Seems lovely on the surface, until you stop to think about it. There are many meaningful questions that simply don’t make it into the motion. The Conservatives only complain about the handling and implementation of this so-called pandemic. They have no criticism or questions for the declaration, or premeditation. This Motion is done to divert attention from the real issues.
3. Questions Conservatives Should Be Asking
 Why was modelling from Imperial College London even used in the first place? Why wasn’t his connections to Gates discussed openly, and his record for failures?
 Why are we still relying on doomsday modelling that is at best unreliable?
 Has this virus even been properly isolated and purified? If not, then how can any progress be made at all?
 Why isn’t the error rate of these PCR tests being discussed? Or the admitted lies and fabrications? It’s not much of a secret that they are unreliable at best. So why use them at all? Why is the focus simply on getting them faster?
 Why no mention of the fact that there is no real evidence that masks work? Even the World Health Organization has come forward and admitted that?
 What science is there is telling people to remain 2 meters apart, when even the WHO only ever lists 1 meter on their website?
 How are the “group sizes” determined? BCPHO Bonnie Henry openly admits there’s no science behind it, so how are these decisions made?
 Does the Government really find it legal and justified to order entire industries to close down? How are so-called non-essential businesses determined anyway?
 Why is Theresa Tam’s involvement with WHO being swept under the rug? Why is there no mention that Chrystia Freeland is a Trustee at the World Economic Forum? Does the talk about the “GREAT RESET” not set off any alarm bells with anyone?
 Instead of pushing for a vaccine, why is there no mention about the side effects going on in various trials? Or that this virus has a 99.9% survival rate anyway?
 Why is there no concern over the monetization of the vaccine trials, or of the extensive lobbying that has gone on behind the scenes?
 Why did Dominic LeBlanc openly suggest in April that laws should be passed to combat misinformation?
 Why is Canada subjected to the legally binding International Health Regulations of the WHO, and why did WHO write the 2005 Quarantine Act for Canada?
 Why are all other causes of death, and preventative care being ignored in favour of an overblown pandemic?
 Why is there no discussion (or even mention) about the various legal challenges filed against these arbitrary pandemic measures?
 Why no inquiry into the media’s complicity and willingness to be used as propaganda outlets, promoting an obviously false narrative? They obviously have a price.
 Why no mention of the social media collusion?
 Why have politicians (Provincially and Federally), abdicated their duties to govern and just handed everything over to unelected bureaucrats?
 Why is CANZUK still being pushed?
 Why is increased immigration still being pushed?
 Why are fake refugees from the U.S. still coming into Canada, and why has Roxham Road almost disappeared from media coverage? Is this coordinated?
 Are coronavirus internment camps coming, and if not, why put out requests for proposals?
 Are forced curfews/lockdowns coming?
There are more of course. But by refusing to ask these kinds of questions, it becomes clear that the Conservative motion claiming to hold the Government accountable is entirely for show.
On some level these “gotchya” moments are entertaining to see. Hypocrisy by a public official is always noteworthy. However, in light of the hard questions that AREN’T being asked (see above items), it seems a cheap way to score points.
Notice that’s there’s no pointed questions about why masks are being pushed on the public in the first place. No real inquiry into how necessary these restrictions are in the first place. These tweets don’t mean much when the difficult issues are not being advanced.
5. Conservatives Are Token Opposition
Cathy’s Secretary (October 23, 2020)
Cathy’s Response (October 30, 2020)
From 2 recent conversations with my MP’s secretary. Note: the Member of Parliament calls herself a “conservative” and claims to oppose the Trudeau Liberals. A few takeaways here.
[A] Canada is in fact subject to the dictates of the World Health Organization. Article 21(A) of the WHO Constitution specifies quarantine measures, and Article 22 says it’s binding unless a country opts out early enough. Also, the International Health Regulations, (IHR), are legally binding. Either the CPC is being deceitful, or are absolutely clueless.
[B] Apparently Erin O’Toole has backed off on his stance supporting the use of the Emergencies Act. The claim is that he only supported it because so little was known. Assuming that’s true, then why the demand to know why the Government didn’t use it? And why the instinct to be an authoritarian?
[C] The CPC still supports flooding Canada with large numbers of people in the middle of a “pandemic”. How exactly can we ensure safety, when there is a 2 week gap before infection shows? And why have immigration at all when Canada has its highest unemployment ever?
It’s also sickening that O’Toole and the Conservatives continue pushing for CANZUK, which is a literally erasure of borders. O’Toole recently tried to justify is as a way to stand up to Communist China. That falls flat, however, when it’s pointed out that the CPC enthusiastically supports FIPA. This party is not, and will never be, anything more than the illusion of opposition, to ward off and co-opt real populist alternatives.
O’Toole also complains that Trudeau was 2 months late closing the border, but the border was never actually closed. Moreover, he seems fine with even higher levels of immigration.
And while complaining that the borders should have been closed (in regards to the pandemic), O’Toole is on record saying that he wants to expand CANZUK, to “let more and more countries in”. There’s no indication that he has changed his mind at all on this. Then we get to this little gem:
By the way, it’s not just 300,000 or 400,000 people coming into Canada each year. That’s not even close.
This issue has been addressed countless times here, but the amount of people entering Canada is much, much higher than what the public is lead to believe.
Open borders, while in the middle of a pandemic.
And all while irrelevant things are argued in Parliament
Originally featured as the resistance, this group is going through the motions of pretending to oppose a Carbon tax, and the globalist agenda as a whole. Now the Supreme Court of Canada is about to weigh in.
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. Carbon taxes are just a small part of the picture, and conservatives are intentionally sabotaging their court cases.
2. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruling. CLICK HERE, for Saskatchewan Courts, info for users. CLICK HERE, for Ontario Court of Appeal ruling. CLICK HERE, for ONCA challenge documents, pleadings. CLICK HERE, for Alberta Court of Appeal ruling. CLICK HERE, for ABCA challenge documents, pleadings. CLICK HERE, for Supreme Court of Canada constitutional challenge.
 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.
 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 in those provinces or areas where the Governor in Council concludes GHG emissions are not priced at an appropriate level.
 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.
From the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruling. All parties, including those of Scott Moe, and his “conservative” allies, all admitted that climate change was a dire threat. The case was only over very narrow technical arguments. The junk science behind the Carbon tax was never questioned.
4. Ontario Court Of Appeal (June, 2019)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
 Climate change was described in the Paris Agreement of 2015 as “an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet”. It added that this “requires the widest possible cooperation by all countries, and their participation in an effective and appropriate international response”.
 There is no dispute that global climate change is taking place and that human activities are the primary cause. The combustion of fossil fuels, like coal, natural gas and oil and its derivatives, releases GHGs into the atmosphere. When incoming radiation from the Sun reaches Earth’s surface, it is absorbed and converted into heat. GHGs act like the glass roof of a greenhouse, trapping some of this heat as it radiates back into the atmosphere, causing surface temperatures to increase. Carbon dioxide (“CO2”) is the most prevalent GHG emitted by human activities. This is why pricing for GHG emissions is referred to as carbon pricing, and why GHG emissions are typically referred to on a CO2 equivalent basis. Other common GHGs include methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride.
 At appropriate levels, GHGs are beneficial. They surround the planet like a blanket, keeping temperatures within limits at which humans, animals, plants and marine life can live in balance. The level of GHGs in the atmosphere was relatively stable for several million years. However, since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the 18th century, and more particularly since the 1950s, the level of GHGs in the atmosphere has been increasing at an alarming rate. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are now more than 400 parts per million, a level not reached since the mid-Pliocene epoch, approximately 3-5 million years ago. Concentrations of other GHGs have also increased dramatically.
 On December 9, 2016, eight provinces, including Ontario, and the three territories adopted the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change (the “Pan-Canadian Framework”), which explicitly incorporated the Benchmark. At that time, British Columbia, Alberta and Québec already had carbon pricing mechanisms, and Ontario had announced its intention to join the Québec/California cap-and-trade system. Manitoba subsequently adopted the Pan-Canadian Framework on February 23, 2018. Saskatchewan did not adopt it. The Pan-Canadian Framework emphasized the significant risks posed by climate change to human health, security and economic growth and recognized carbon pricing as “one of the most effective, transparent, and efficient policy approaches to reduce GHG emissions”, promote innovation and encourage individuals and industries to pollute less.
 Ontario agrees that climate change is real, is caused by human activities producing GHG emissions, is having serious effects, particularly in the north, and requires proactive measures to address it. Ontario does not agree, however, that what it labels a “carbon tax” is the right way to do so. It says that Ontario will continue to take its own approach to meet the challenge of reducing GHG emissions.
 Ontario points to the success of its own efforts to reduce GHG emissions, the most significant of which has been the closure of all five of Ontario’s coal-fired electricity generation plants, which has reduced Ontario’s annual GHG emissions by approximately 22 percent below 2005 levels as of 2016.
 Ontario’s environmental plan (“Preserving and Protecting our Environment for Future Generations: A Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan”), released in November 2018, proposes to find ways to “slow down climate change and build more resilient communities to prepare for its effects”, but it will do this in a “balanced and responsible” way, without placing additional burdens on Ontario families and businesses.
 Ontario has committed to reducing its emissions by 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, which aligns with Canada’s target under the Paris Agreement. It will do so, for example, by updating its Building Code, O. Reg. 332/12, increasing the renewable content of gasoline, establishing emissions standards for large emitters, and reducing food waste and organic waste.
From the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling. The Ford Government does not question the climate change agenda in any way, shape or form. Nor do his partners. In fact, there is a lot of bragging that Ontario is already doing a great job combatting climate change.
5. Alberta Court Of Appeal (February, 2020)
 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.
 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.
 Alberta, according to Robert Savage, who has worked primarily in the climate change field for Alberta since 2004 and is now Alberta’s assistant deputy minister of the Climate Change Division of Alberta Environmental and Parks, “has long accepted the scientific consensus that human activity, in particular the production of … [greenhouse gases is] … a significant contributory factor to climate change, and that if action is not taken to reduce global … [greenhouse gas] emissions, the potential impacts of climate change will be more severe”.
 Mr. Savage, with justification, asserts that “Alberta has been a pioneer in Canada and North America with respect to climate change initiatives, with a long history of innovative policies, regulatory schemes, and investments in technology targeted at reducing GHGs”.
 He also claims that Alberta was one of the first Canadian jurisdictions to adopt “a comprehensive action plan to reduce GHG emissions”.
 The 2002 Albertans & Climate Change: Taking Action plan dealt with better emissions management, enhanced technology to control industrial emissions, enhanced energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy sources.
 The 2002 climate change plan contained ambitious components. It targeted a fifty percent reduction of 2002 emissions by 2020 per unit of gross domestic product. It directed large emitters to measure and report to government emissions data. It emphasized the need to manage carbon dioxide emissions and develop biological sinks. It encouraged Albertans to consume less energy.
From the Alberta Court of Appeal ruling. Once again, none of these “conservative” parties oppose the climate change agenda in any way. Instead, they argue for the right to implement their own programs. Now it may be poor wording, but this doesn’t exclude PROVINCIAL Carbon taxes at some point.
6. Federal Conservatives Support Climate Hoax
This interview clip with Alberta MP Garnett Genuis is from 2017. Then Leader Andrew Scheer whipped his caucus into voting for a motion to support the Paris Accord. Now Genuis tries to defend it, and fails.
However, the CPC would likely have still supported it if they were in power. Stephen Harper signed Agenda 2030 in September 2015, and there’s no reason to indicate he wouldn’t have signed the Paris Accord as well. Either Conservatives are unaware of the deeper globalist agenda, or they don’t care.
7. Supreme Court Of Canada: Ontario (Appellant)
PART I – OVERVIEW AND FACTS
1. This case is not about whether action needs to be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or the relative effectiveness of particular policy alternatives. It is about (1) whether the federal Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (the “Act”) can be supported under the national concern branch of the POGG power; and (2) whether the “charges” imposed by the Act are valid as regulatory charges or as taxes. The answer to both questions should be no.
2. The provinces are fully capable of regulating greenhouse gas emissions themselves, have already done so, and continue to do so. Ontario has already decreased its greenhouse gas emissions by 22% below 2005 levels and has committed to a 30% reduction below 2005 levels by 2030 – the same target to which Canada has committed itself in the Paris Agreement.
14. Internationally, while there is broad consensus about the importance of urgently addressing climate change, parties to the Paris Agreement are not required to implement carbon pricing as part of their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Article 6.8 of the Paris Agreement specifies that the Parties “recognize the importance of integrated, holistic and balanced non-market approaches being available to the Parties.” The Act therefore imposes standards that are more stringent than the requirements of the Paris Agreement.
C. Ontario Has Taken and Will Continue to Take Strong Actions Across Its Economy and Society to Address Greenhouse Gas Emissions
15. Ontario agrees with Canada that climate change is real and needs to be addressed. That is why Ontario has taken steps to implement a made-in-Ontario plan to protect the environment, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and fight climate change. Ontario has set itself the goal of reducing Ontario’s emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.
Ontario’s Factum (as the Appellant). Although other parties are joining in as Intervenors, Ontario is officially the party that is appealing.
8. Supreme Court: Manitoba (Intervenor)
PART I – OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. This appeal strikes at the heart of federalism. It provides this Court with an opportunity to further delineate the parameters of the test for the national concern branch of peace, order and good government (POGG), as set out in Crown Zellerbach over 30 years ago.
2. No one disputes that climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are of paramount importance. The issue is whether Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to impose its preferred policy choice on the provinces. Manitoba agrees with the Appellants’ submissions that reducing GHG emissions lacks the singleness, distinctiveness and indivisibility necessary to support an exercise of the POGG power. If Parliament were to have jurisdiction under POGG to impose national standards to reduce GHG emissions as a matter of national concern, there would be virtually no limit to Parliament’s ability to legislate in areas of provincial jurisdiction, given the breadth of activities that create GHG emissions. This would substantially disrupt the balance of federalism.
6. Manitoba is fully committed to reduce GHG emissions and agrees that all governments must play a role and work cooperatively to implement effective solutions to combat and mitigate climate change. Climate change is one of the main pillars of Manitoba’s Climate and Green Plan, 2017 (Climate Plan), which aims to reduce GHG emissions, invest in clean energy and adapt to the impacts of climate change.
7. When first introduced, Manitoba’s Climate Plan included carbon pricing as one among many tools to help reduce GHG emissions. It recognized that free-market forces could be used together with smart regulation to tackle climate change and make meaningful emission reductions. In addition to other measures, Manitoba proposed to introduce a flat $25 per tonne carbon tax. The proposed carbon tax would start at more than double the initial federal price of $10 per tonne, and would remain constant at $25 from 2018 to 2022.
Manitoba has decided to enter the case as an Intervenor for Ontario. The “conservative” Brian Pallister supports the climate change agenda fully, but only objects to this specific tax. Ideologically, he is fully on board.
9. Supreme Court: Saskatchewan (Intervenor)
PART I – OVERVIEW AND FACTS
1. This appeal concerns whether federal legislation that regulates provincial greenhouse gas (GHG) emission sources is constitutional. What is specifically at stake is whether the federal government has jurisdiction to unilaterally impose its chosen policy to regulate sources of GHG emissions on the provinces. The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (the “GGPPA” or “Act”) functions as if the federal government is legislating in place of a province itself. It is supervisory, and its legislative machinery reveals that what the federal government is truly doing is passing provincial legislation in those provinces it feels have inadequately adopted the federal policy.
2. This appeal does not concern whether global climate change is real and concerning or if the provinces are taking sufficient action to reduce GHG emissions. All parties agree that global climate change is a significant societal problem and all provinces have and continue to take action to reduce GHG emissions. In the Courts below, many submissions, including those of the Attorney General of Canada, focused on the nature of climate change and the importance of carbon pricing as an effective method of reducing GHG emissions. However, the efficacy of carbon pricing is not relevant to the constitutionality of the GGPPA, which must be derived from whether it is within the legislative competence of the federal government.
That was from the submissions of the Attorney General of Saskatchewan, acting as an Intervenor in the Ontario appeal to the Supreme Court. Again, Scott Moe confirms that climate change is a threat to humanity, but that this particular tax is unconstitutional on technical grounds.
10. Supreme Court: Alberta (Intervenor)
1. In a case like this with profound implications for the division of powers, the court’s overriding concern must be maintaining the structure of our federal system of government.
2. The court cannot and should not base its decision on what it considers necessary to address a global problem such as climate change or what it believes are the best policy solutions for reducing greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, particularly in light of genuine and reasonable policy disputes as to what approaches strike the right balance in particular contexts.
3. With respect, this was lost sight of in the majority decisions of the Courts of Appeal below. The majority judges in these cases appeared to conclude that the importance of addressing climate change justified the federal government controlling how the provinces exercise their jurisdiction over the regulation of GHG emissions under the national concern branch of the Peace, Order and Good Government (“POGG”) power.
As before, Alberta doesn’t actually challenge the climate change agenda in any way. The argument (as in all cases), is that Provinces should be left alone to come up with their own solutions. With everyone saying that climate change is a serious threat, the Court will never consider just how corrupt and fraudulent it really is.
11. Supreme Court: BC (Intervenor)
PART I: OVERVIEW OF POSITION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The troubling question raised by these references is whether our system of federalism is an obstacle to addressing the existential threat of global climate change. Are we the only major emitting country in the world whose constitution renders it impossible to make national commitments to reduce greenhouse gases? Or can national targets be met using means compatible with the unity-in-diversity that characterizes Canada’s federal structure?
2. In British Columbia, the “future” of a climate transformed by human greenhouse gas emissions is here now. A major industry has already been devastated: people have already been forced out of their homes. The province has experienced an average temperature increase of 1.4°C since 1900 – the limit of what scientists tell us would destabilize biological and social systems globally. A succession of relatively warm winters in the 1990s led to the mountain pine beetle epidemic and, as a direct consequence, the loss of most of the merchantable pine volume in interior British Columbia by 2012. The worst forest fire seasons on record occurred back-to back in 2017 and 2018. The elevated risk is because of climate change. In coming decades, British Columbia can expect wildfires like California’s today. Melting permafrost will damage infrastructure in Northern British Columbia, especially for remote communities and Indigenous peoples. Sea level rise poses risk of unquantifiable flooding losses for coastal British Columbia, particularly Prince Rupert and the Fraser River delta, where 100 square kilometres of land are currently within one metre of sea level. This includes the City of Richmond, home to 220,000 people
The NDP Government of British Columbia openly supports the climate change agenda, as do so-called “conservatives”. But at least the NDP is up from about this.
That said, the part about forest fires needs to be addressed. The RCMP has stated — at least for the 2018 fires — that the bulk of them were intentionally set (arson).
Even if conservatives were in power, they seem to support the agenda.
12. Supreme Court: Quebec (Intervenor)
PARTIE III. EXPOSÉ DES ARGUMENTS
8. La PGQ ne conteste pas que la protection de l’environnement constitue un enjeu fondamental qui nécessite une action de la part des deux ordres de gouvernement, comme la Cour l’a reconnu dans l’arrêt Hydro-Québec. La Cour a défini la protection de l’environnement comme étant une matière « diffuse », non expressément attribuée de manière exclusive à un ordre de gouvernement plutôt qu’à un autre Affirmant au premier chef la compétence de l’Assemblée
nationale de légiférer sur la protection de l’environnement, la PGQ ne remet pas en cause la compétence législative du Parlement fédéral à l’égard de cette même matière. La PGQ est d’avis que la protection de l’environnement requiert d’ailleurs une collaboration de la part de tous les acteurs concernés
PART III. STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS
8. The PGQ does not dispute that environmental protection is an issue fundamental that requires action from both levels of government, such as the Court recognized this in the Hydro-Québec decision. The Court defined the protection of the environment as being a “diffuse” matter, not expressly attributed exclusively to an order of government rather than another. Primarily affirming the competence of the Assembly to legislate on the protection of the environment, the QMP does not call into question the legislative competence of the federal Parliament with regard to the same matter. The PGQ is of opinion that the protection of the environment requires collaboration on the part of all actors involved
Francois Legault, the Premier of Quebec, is another “conservative” that does not actually oppose the climate change agenda. In fact, Legault seems content with Premiers imposing PROVINCIAL Carbon taxes everywhere.
13. Supreme Court: New Brunswick (Intervenor)
PART I – INTRODUCTION
1. The Intervenor, Attorney General of New Brunswick (“New Brunswick”) supports the position of the Attorney General of Alberta (“Alberta”) and adopts the arguments in Alberta’s factum. New Brunswick is also in general agreement with the climate data submitted by the Attorney General of Canada (“Canada”). Consistent with the previous references of the Attorney General of Saskatchewan (“Saskatchewan”) and the Attorney General of Ontario (“Ontario”) in their respective Courts of Appeal, this should not be a platform on which to debate climate change however real the threat may be. Climate data and warnings regarding the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions (“GHG emissions”) are relevant to the extent that such information dispassionately informs the constitutional question. Objectivity is paramount.
2. Much of Canada’s record and arguments support a resolve to deal with a looming existential threat; but it also provokes an emotional response – the natural result of contemplating any dire
circumstance. When imbued with the weight and gravitas it deserves, equally weighty solutions feel appropriate. In turn, it may feel appropriate to a layperson that the regulation of GHG emissions should be controlled by Parliament. Such may seem both harmless and practical. When a central control over the matter is cast in supervisory terms and is fixated on minimum standards, the layperson could believe that a benign form of federalism has been accomplished. But those conclusions would ignore the constitutional division of powers.
New Brunswick avoids the issue of climate change in the Supreme Court filings, but had this to say elsewhere: These hearings should not be used as a forum to question the science. Similar submissions were made in Ontario as well.
14. NGOs Meddling In Court Affairs
This was covered in the last article. There are several non-government organizations who are acting as Intervenors for their own reasons. It’s not just the Provinces and Ottawa involved.
15. SCC Challenges Are Designed To Fail
It’s difficult to see the Supreme Court of Canada ruling against the Carbon tax, though it’s possible in theory. Alberta was successful, although their courts are more tilted that way. There’s no real opposition to the theft being done under the guise of environmentalism.
What is even the point of doing this? Well, it’s not about stopping the public from being fleeced. It’s about APPEARING to stop the public from being fleeced, (or at least trying to). All parties support this hoax. As such, Canadians are being deceived.
One final thought: even if this challenge is ultimately successful, who’s to say that Provinces won’t start implementing their own Carbon taxes? Or who’s to say Erin O’Toole would actually drop the Federal tax if he became Prime Minister?
Originally featured as “The Resistance”, this group of politicians only pretends to oppose the fleecing of taxpayers. They endorse the climate change hoax 100%, and only argue against the Carbon tax on narrow technical grounds. Now this is finally at the Supreme Court of Canada.
But it’s not just politicians and their parties involved. A number of private groups are attempting to change the course, for their own selfish and ideological reasons.
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. Carbon taxes are just a small part of the picture, and conservatives are intentionally sabotaging their court cases.
2. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruling. CLICK HERE, for Saskatchewan Courts, info for users. CLICK HERE, for Ontario Court of Appeal ruling. CLICK HERE, for ONCA challenge documents, pleadings. CLICK HERE, for Alberta Court of Appeal ruling. CLICK HERE, for ABCA challenge documents, pleadings. CLICK HERE, for Supreme Court of Canada constitutional challenge.
(also see the last section for many more links to parties attempting to intervene in the Carbon tax challenges. Note: that list is not exhaustive.)
3. NGOs To Profit From Climate Scam
Canadian Labour Congress
Climate Justice Saskatoon
David Suzuki Foundation
Intergenerational Climate Coalition
International Emissions Trading Association
Smart Prosperity Institute
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation opposes the Carbon tax, but stays pretty neutral on the issue of climate change itself. It’s worth a mention for 2 reasons: (a) CTF is part of the Koch-funded Atlas Network; and (b) CTF was once headed by Jason Kenney, now Alberta Premier. Now, let’s take a look at a few groups.
4. David Suzuki Foundation
Revenue (August 31, 2018)
Receipted donations $5,820,601.00 (49.84%)
Non-receipted donations $784,563.00 (6.72%)
Gifts from other registered charities $2,727,009.00 (23.35%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $2,347,296.00 (20.10%)
Total revenue: $11,679,469.00
Expenses (August 31, 2018)
Charitable programs $7,378,892.00 (70.41%)
Management and administration $638,154.00 (6.09%)
Fundraising $1,779,300.00 (16.98%)
Political activities $583,341.00 (5.57%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $96,578.00 (0.92%)
Other $4,234.00 (0.04%)
Total expenses: $10,480,499.00
Revenue (August 31, 2019)
Receipted donations $6,847,386.00 (53.92%)
Non-receipted donations $1,132,648.00 (8.92%)
Gifts from other registered charities $3,242,143.00 (25.53%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $1,476,568.00 (11.63%)
Total revenue: $12,698,745.00
Expenses (August 31, 2019)
Charitable programs $8,738,812.00 (75.28%)
Management and administration $808,096.00 (6.96%)
Fundraising $1,964,567.00 (16.92%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $93,302.00 (0.80%)
Other $4,234.00 (0.04%)
Total expenses: $11,609,011.00
According to the Canada Revenue Agency, the Suzuki Foundation took in $12.7 million in the period ending in August 2019, and $11.7 million the previous year. There is clearly good money, so where is it going?
How does pricing carbon pollution build more sustainable communities?
Putting a price on carbon pollution through a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system helps speed the transition to cleaner, better energy solutions. We have low-carbon alternatives to our largest emissions sources that are improving by the day.
Working toward a fair and effective national price on carbon pollution
For more than a decade, the Foundation has been a leading voice in calling for a carbon price in Canada. Through research, policy work and public engagement, we built support for this foundational climate change policy.
The Foundation offered the B.C. government support to introduce North America’s first carbon tax in 2008. Our policy experts met with leaders at all levels of government and across industries to advocate for a national approach to carbon pricing.
The Foundation is an intervener in court cases in Saskatchewan and Ontario to support the federal government’s right to implement fair and effective climate policies that include carbon pricing.
In both cases, the courts of appeal agreed with us that the federal government has the power to take national action to tackle climate change. With Parliament and cities across the country declaring climate emergencies, including carbon pricing in the solutions toolkit is essential to meeting Paris Agreement climate commitments and avoiding the worst impacts of climate breakdown.
Can we assume that they either bribed or leaned on the B.C. Government to get that Carbon tax imposed? The Suzuki Foundation doesn’t come right out and say it (though it’s implied), that making certain comforts unaffordable by various carbon pricing schemes will lead to this great transition. It’s stated that causing a drastic change in the Western lifestyle is the only way to do this.
The Foundation is also involved with Youth Climate Lawsuit. This has young adults trying weaponize the Courts by forcing Governments to adopt their environmental demands. The claim is that ignoring climate change violates Section 7 of the Canadian Charter, which is security of the person.
And of course, the Suzuki Foundation has attached itself to the various Carbon tax challenges. It’s fair to assume that Suzuki’s donors are paying him to advance (by whatever means), policies that will lead to more money coming in. In a sense, it’s like paying a lobbyist.
Suzuki’s recent donors include: Power Corporation, the Bronfman Foundation, Tides Canada, Smart Prosperity Institute, several anonymous donors, and many more.
IETA is the International Emissions Trading Association. It is an organization that tries to monetize the climate change agenda, by convincing countries to pay out money for “polluting”. A quote from their market readiness report:
Understand what emissions trading is: emissions trading is a market-based approach to controlling pollution by providing an economic incentive to achieve CO2 emissions reductions. To succeed in managing such a cap-and-trade system, your company will need strategic, technical and financial skills.
Find the appropriate department to coordinate the organisation: emissions trading is linked to climate change strategy. Climate strategy often lies between the sustainable development and finance functions. Emissions trading is about financial management, but it also implies a deep understanding of regulation, CO2 management strategy and a good technical knowledge of industrial installations which fall under the cap. Whichever the appropriate department is, the most important thing is to have a project manager. Start a working group: the working group should be able as a first step to define whether or not emissions trading could be managed internally or outsourced. A cost/benefit analysis should be carried out to evaluate the choice between delegating trading to a specialised broker or to carrying it out internally. Such an approach gives the opportunity to create a “CO2 network” within the company.
Assess possible optimisation among installations: if entities are spread geographically, a centralised option could be considered. For example, in the European emissions market it is often the case that installations of one company are spread across a number of member states. Local exchanges with local brokers co-exist with European CO2 exchange platforms and may be able to offer more targeted solutions.
Understand that none of this actually helps the environment. It is simply a way to get wealthy under a misleading banner of cutting pollution. This is an expansive wealth transfer scheme.
IETA received legal non-profit status from the government of Switzerland in June 2000, and received United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change non-governmental organisation accreditation in October 2000.
It should trouble Canadians that this “non-profit” with financial motivations to keep the Carbon tax should be filing for intervenor status in four court cases (Saskatchewan, Ontario, Alberta, & the Supreme Court). Theie interests are different than ours.
6. Smart Prosperity Institute
The Smart Prosperity Institute has a number of government and private sector donors, and perhaps most notably includes the Tides Foundation. SPI writes extensively about transitioning Canada to a low carbon economy, and is promoting the green bonds industry, and have partnered with HSBC and the Climate Bonds Initiative. They also push the “sustainable finance” narrative, and are enthusiastic supporters of the UN.
Smart Prosperity Institute’s annual “Green Bonds – State of the Market in Canada” reports provide unique insight on the role of green bonds in funding environment and climate-related projects in Canada. The annual report is a special supplement to the Bonds and Climate Change: The State of the Market global report and is prepared collaboratively with Climate Bonds Initiative. Commissioned by HSBC, the report marks specific highlights from the current year, emerging trends, and identifies specific opportunities for market development of green bonds in Canada.
Keeping the Carbon taxes intact is very much in their interest, as it is tied to many of the initiatives that SPI advances. Another NGO that Canadians should be weary of meddling in local affairs.
7. Amnesty International
Amnesty International was founded by Peter Benenson, grandson of Russian banker, Grigori Benenson. The organization has been used to bring large numbers of people from the 3rd World to the West. The group appears to have no direct financial motive, but rather an ideological one. It argues that forced Carbon taxes amount to a human rights issue for the planet. Is this not foreign interference though? AI is based out of Britain.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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 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.