Category: Canadian Bills

Posted on

CCS #6(B): Carbon Tax Challenge Is Designed To Fail At Supreme Court Of Canada

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.

SCC Attorney General Of Ontario
SCC Attorney General Of Canada
SCC Attorney General Of Saskatchewan
SCC Attorney General Of Alberta
SCC Attorney General Of New Brunswick
SCC Attorney General Of Manitoba
SCC Attorney General Of Quebec
SCC Attorney General Of British Columbia
SCC Amnesty International
SCC Canadian Labour Congress
SCC David Suzuki Foundation
SCC Intergenerational Climate Committee
SCC International Emissions Trading Association
SCC Smart Prosperity Institute
SCC Attorney General Of Ontario Reply
SCC Attorney General Of Canada Reply

Listings Of Documents Filed With Court

3. Saskatchewan Court Of Appeal (May, 2019)

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

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

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

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
[6] 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”.

[7] 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.

[8] 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.

[29] 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.

[55] 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.

[56] 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.

[57] 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.

[58] 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)

I. Introduction
[1] Calls to action to save the planet we all share evoke strong emotions. And properly so. The dangers of climate change are undoubted as are the risks flowing from failure to meet the essential challenge. Equally, it is undisputed that greenhouse gas emissions caused by people (GHG emissions) are a cause of climate change. None of these forces have passed judges by. The question the Lieutenant Governor in Council referred to this Court though – is the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, SC 2018, c 12 (Act) unconstitutional in whole or in part – is not a referendum on the phenomenon of climate change.[1] Nor is it about the undisputed need for governments throughout the world to move quickly to reduce GHG emissions, including through changes in societal behaviour. The federal government is not the only government in this country committed to immediate action to meet this compelling need. Without exception, every provincial government is too.[2]

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

[460] 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”.[346]

[461] 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”.[347]

[462] He also claims that Alberta was one of the first Canadian jurisdictions to adopt “a comprehensive action plan to reduce GHG emissions”.[348]

[463] 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.[349]

[464] 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
A. Introduction
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)

A. Overview
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
Introduction
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
Introduction
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?

Posted on

CCS #7(B): NGOs Support Carbon Taxes In Court Cases, Have Other Interests

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.

CLICK HERE, for the David Suzuki Foundation.
CLICK HERE, for Int’l Emissions Trading Ass’n.
CLICK HER, for IETA’s governance and leadership.
CLICK HERE, for Int’l Carbon Reduction Offset Alliance.
CLICK HERE, for ICROA’s partners and members.
CLICK HERE, for Smart Prosperity Institute.

(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

  • Amnesty International
  • 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?

Suzuki Foundation 2019 Annual Report
Suzuki Foundation 2019 Audited Financials

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.

5. International Emissions Trading Association

IETA Economic Potential Article 6 Paris Accord
IETA Partnership For Market Readiness

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.

8. Constitutional Challenges: SK, ON, AB, SCC

(A.1) SK COA Ruling On Carbon Tax
http://archive.is/tNe2k
(A.2) Saskatchewan Court Of Appeal Reference Question
(A.3) SKCA Attorney General Of Canada
(A.4) SKCA Attorney General Of Ontario
(A.5) SKCA Attorney General Of New Brunswick
(A.6) SKCA Attorney General Of British Columbia
(A.7) SKCA Canadian Taxpayers Association
(A.8) SKCA David Suzuki Foundation
(A.9) SKCA International Emissions Trading Association
(A.10) SKCA United Conservative Association
(B.1) ONCA Ruling On Carbon Tax
http://archive.is/tbMTC
(B.2) ONCA Reference Documents
(B.3) ONCA Attorney General Of Ontario
(B.4) ONCA Attorney General Of Canada
(B.5) ONCA Attorney General Of Saskatchewan
(B.6) ONCA Attorney General Of New Brunswick
(B.7) ONCA David Suzuki Foundation
(B.8) ONCA Intergenerational Climate Coalition
(B.9) ONCA International Emissions Trading Association
(B.10) ONCA Attorney General Of Ontario Reply
(B.11) ONCA Attorney General Of Canada Reply
(C.1) ABCA Ruling On Carbon Tax
http://archive.is/guxXF
(C.2) Alberta Court Of Appeal Reference Question
(C.3) ABCA Attorney General Of Alberta
(C.4) ABCA Attorney General Of Canada
(C.5) ABCA Attorney General Of Ontario
(C.6) ABCA Attorney General Of Saskatchewan
(C.7) ABCA Attorney General Of New Brunswick
(C.8) ABCA Attorney General Of British Columbia
(C.9) ABCA International Emissions Trading Association
(C.10) ABCA Attorney General Of Alberta Reply
(C.11) ABCA Attorney General Of Canada Reply
(C.12) Jason Kenney Repeals Carbon Tax
http://archive.is/Q1gGb
(C.13) Kenney Supports New Carbon Tax
http://archive.is/wTYoE
(C.14) Kenney To Hike New Carbon Tax
http://archive.is/jbLjN
(D.2) Supreme Court Of Canada To Hear Challenge
(D.3) SCC Attorney General Of Ontario
(D.4) SCC Attorney General Of Canada
(D.5) SCC Attorney General Of Saskatchewan
(D.6) SCC Attorney General Of Alberta
(D.7) SCC Attorney General Of New Brunswick
(D.8) SCC Attorney General Of Manitoba
(D.9) SCC Attorney General Of British Columbia
(D.10) SCC Amnesty International
(D.11) SCC Canadian Labour Congress
(D.12) SCC David Suzuki Foundation
(D.13) SCC Intergenerational Climate Committee
(D.14) SCC International Emissions Trading Association
(D.15) SCC Smart Prosperity Institute
(D.16) SCC Attorney General Of Ontario Reply
(D.17) SCC Attorney General Of Canada Reply

One common thread throughout these challenges is that all parties agree climate change is a threat to humanity. This includes parties challenging the Carbon taxes.

Posted on

Canada’s Bills/Treaties Undermine Hague Convention On Child Abduction

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

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

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

2. Important Links

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

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

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

CLICK HERE, for CANZUK International website.
CLICK HERE, for proposed expansion of CANZUK zone.
CLICK HERE, for review of new USMCA (NAFTA 2.0)
CLICK HERE, for link to official Agenda 2030 text.
CLICK HERE, for review of UNSDA Agenda 2030.
Text Of Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda
CLICK HERE, for text of New York Declaration.
new.york.declaration.2016

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

UN Global Migration Compact (Full Text)

OTHER SOURCES:
CLICK HERE, for UN Review On Smuggling Migrants.
CLICK HERE, for UN Convention On Transnational Crime.
http://archive.is/q0XqK
CLICK HERE, for UN Protocol Against Human Trafficking.
http://archive.is/cjnJt
CLICK HERE, for UN Opt. Protocol On Rights Of The Child.
http://archive.is/onmrr
CLICK HERE, for UN Global Initiative To Fight Trafficking.
http://archive.is/Fjuv6
CLICK HERE, for UN Protocol To Prevent/Punish Trafficking.
CLICK HERE, for UN Rights Of The Child, Sale, Prostitution, Porn.
http://archive.is/onmrr
CLICK HERE, for Eliminate Worst Forms Of Child Labour.
http://archive.is/OZQM
CLICK HERE, for the Rome Statute, Int’l Criminal Court.
CLICK HERE, for Canada’s antitrafficking strategy, 2019-24.
http://archive.is/15ov0

3. Quotes From Hague Convention (Civil) Treaty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Announcement From Global Affairs Canada

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

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

What other treaties or bills do this?

5. Canada’s Bills/Treaties Since 1980

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

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

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

6. Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement

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

ARTICLE 8
(1) The Parties shall develop standard operating procedures to assist with the implementation of this Agreement. These procedures shall include provisions for notification, to the country of last presence, in advance of the return of any refugee status claimant pursuant to this Agreement.
(2) These procedures shall include mechanisms for resolving differences respecting the interpretation and implementation of the terms of this Agreement. Issues which cannot be resolved through these mechanisms shall be settled through diplomatic channels.
(3) The Parties agree to review this Agreement and its implementation. The first review shall take place not later than 12 months from the date of entry into force and shall be jointly conducted by representatives of each Party. The Parties shall invite the UNHCR to participate in this review. The Parties shall cooperate with UNHCR in the monitoring of this Agreement and seek input from non-governmental organizations.

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

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

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

7. FIPA Between Canada And China

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

8. Sanctuary Cities Forming In Canada

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. UN Agenda 2030, Sustainable Development

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

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

11. New York Declaration, UN GMC Prelude

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

12. Bill C-6, Citizenship For Terrorists

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

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

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

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

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

14. UN Global Migration Compact

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

15. USMCA, More Than Just Trade

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

16. How Does Any Of This Help Children?

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

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

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

Posted on

CV #28: The B.C. Election Just An Illusion Of Choice, All Parties Compromised

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

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

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

2. Ethical Concerns Over Recordings? Nope

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

3. Peter Milobar: BC Liberals (Incumbent)

MILOBAR: BC Liberals

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

4. Sadie Hunter: BC NDP (Challenger)

HUNTER: BC NDP

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

5. Thomas Martin: BC Greens (Challenger)

MARTIN: BC GREENS

Again, all of the parties are on board with letting Public Health (Bonnie) run the affairs of the province. The only real difference seemed to be on some of the spending details.
2020_BC_Greens_platform_(1)

6. BC Conservative Party

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

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

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

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

Posted on

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

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

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

2. Parliamentary Hearing Transcripts

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

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

WHO Constitution Full Document
ihr.2005.areas.for.implementation

3. Quotes From November 4, 2004 Hearing

(11:35)
Dr. Paul Gully: During an outbreak we certainly would communicate with the countries involved. During SARS we had close collaboration with the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, for example, as required, to share intelligence.
.
In terms of utilization of their legislation, such as quarantine acts, we feel that our relationship with WHO, which is closer, and also clarification of WHO’s powers under the international health regulations will, I think, further ensure there is consistency in terms of response from individual member states as a result of that.
.
Does that answer your question?
.
Mr. Colin Carrie: Yes.
.
Are you aware of international standards for quarantine?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: The international health regulations would be the regulations that individual states would then use to design their quarantine acts. I don’t know of any other standards out there or best practices to look at quarantine acts, but the IHRs really have been used over the years as the starting point.
.
Now, with the improvement of the international health regulations, maybe, as is the case in Canada, changes will occur to quarantine acts in other countries in order to better comply with the international health regulations.

(11:55)
Mrs. Carol Skelton: When did these consultations begin, and how long do you expect they will go on?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: We had a meeting in September with the provinces and territories in Edmonton about the Quarantine Act as it stood at that time. We got input. We’re having another teleconference with the Council of Chief Medical Officers next week to talk about a number of issues that were raised and to further clarify what they would like to see as changes to the bill as it stands at the present time.
.
Mrs. Carol Skelton: Why did Health Canada proceed with a separate Quarantine Act at this time?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: Those of us who administered the Quarantine Act over the years always knew there were deficiencies in the old act, and because it was rarely used there wasn’t the inclination to update it. As a result of SARS and utilization of the act, which certainly put it under close scrutiny, and the requirement for the Government of Canada to respond to the various reports on SARS, it was felt that updating the act sooner rather than later was appropriate.
.
In addition, during discussions about the international health regulations of the World Health Organization, it was felt that it was appropriate to do it and to spend time and energy, which it obviously does require, to do it now, before other parts of legislative renewal, of which Mr. Simard is well aware, were further implemented or further discussion was carried out.

(12:05)
Ms. Ruby Dhalla: I have one question. In terms of the Quarantine Act for our country, where are we at in terms of best practices models when we look at the international spectrum?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: I don’t know the acts in other countries, but because we are updating our act right now and we’re taking into account the probable revisions to the international health regulations, I believe we would be well in the forefront in terms of having modern legislation.

Canada Quarantine Act Nov 4 Hearing

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

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

4. Quarantine Facilities Discussed Dec 7

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

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

5. WHO’s Constitution Gives Binding Authority

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

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

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

6. Int’l Health Regulations Legally Binding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Again, IHR Are Legally Binding On Us All

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

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

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

Posted on

In 2005, Conservatives, 30% Liberals, Voted To “Conserve” Marriage

In 2005, almost the entire Conservative Party Caucus, and over 1/4 of the Liberal Party Caucus voted to conserve marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. Taking such a stand would be completely unthinkable in today’s climate.

1. Understanding Our Real History

CLICK HERE, for #1: UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Indian Act of Canada, wards of the Crown.
CLICK HERE, for #3: UNESCO’s land grabs as “heritage sites”.

2. Why Cover This Particular Topic?

If anything, this marks a point where the globohomo movement really took off in Canada. Instead of being a small group out on its own, this was the beginning of lawfare in order to force itself on the public at large. Certainly there had been lobbying and court challenges before, but this seems to be a turning point.

The court challenges started in 2003, and it ended with Bill C-38 in 2005. For the full text of Bill C-38.

To accept this (and other “changes”) as part of our heritage to rewrite history. These changes — always done incrementally — are done to subvert and undermine what the country is.

3. Preceding Challenges In Provincial Courts

  • June 10, 2003: Ontario
  • July 8, 2003: British Columbia
  • March 19, 2004: Quebec
  • July 14, 2004: Yukon
  • September 16, 2004: Manitoba
  • September 24, 2004: Nova Scotia
  • November 5, 2004: Saskatchewan
  • December 21, 2004: Newfoundland and Labrador
  • June 23, 2005: New Brunswick

    • Source: Wikipedia

    There is more to the story than just Bill C-38. Starting in 2003, there were a series of Provincial Court challenges (each successful). In some sense, this made the Federal Bill a mere formality.

    4. Harper Made No Real Effort To Reverse

    After winning power in 2006, the Harper Government made a very half hearted attempt to pass a motion to reopen the debate on marriage. But it was obvious that it was just going through the motions to appease supporters.

    5. Modern Conservatism In Canada

    There is a vast difference between accepting a group, and openly promoting their agenda. Difficult to imagine these cucks standing up to “conserve” anything now. At this point, modern conservative parties need to be allowed to die so new options can come forward.

    If a bill was introduced to restore the traditional definition of marriage, there is not a liberal politician in Canada who would support it. Very few conservatives would, and they would receive backlash for doing so.

    P.S. It’s not just “conservatives” in Canada who pander to the gay mafia. It’s happening elsewhere as well.