Word is that Vaccine Choice Canada is supposed to have a live online meeting to discuss various anti-lockdown lawsuits. Presumably, their highly publicized case from July 6, 2020 will be covered. This is Ontario Superior Court (Toronto) #CV-20-00643451-0000. Word is trickling through social media right now about it.
Just a prediction, but there probably won’t be many (if any) specifics given about this case. The meeting will be bland. There’ll likely be vague statements about “making progress”, or the suit “working it’s way through the system”. So, let’s get into some specifics.
The problem is: this case has been sitting dormant for the last 2 years. There have been no defenses filed, no motions, applications, hearings, or anything else.
The above screenshots from the court search are from today. They aren’t old.
For anyone interested in SEARCHING CASE FILES, click on this link. A free account can be created. If you have the court file number, it can be instantly searched. Other information can be found here.
Other than Windsor-Essex County and their Medical Officer of Health, none of the other defendants even have representation listed. CBC, for their part, claims they weren’t served, but just “obtained an unredacted copy”. This implies they got it from the Court itself.
According to the Toronto Court, the only other item on file is a Notice of Intent to Defend, from Windsor-Essex County. That was filed September 30, 2020.
Yes, there was a moratorium on filing deadlines. That expired on September 14, 2020, so there’s no reason not to have sent anything afterwards.
There are serious questions that need to be answered. Has everyone even been served? Why are most service addresses missing? How come no one filed a defense? How come none of the major parties even have representation? And why was it written so poorly?
Additionally, claims have been made that various affidavits of evidence have been filed, and they amount to the thousands of pages. Problem is, they likely don’t exist. One phone call to the Toronto Court confirmed that no such documents are on record.
Considering no one ever filed a defense, why was no effort to seek a default judgement ever undertaken? There’s nothing on file to indicate that any attempt was made. This is something that even self-represented litigants would know about.
Now, the argument has been made that no one besides parties to the case have the right to dig into this. This is disingenuous. Considering that the public is constantly on the receiving end of requests donations, it’s fair to inquire where the money has gone, and what’s been happening. Rumour has it that several million dollars has already been raised for this lawsuit.
Ontario Superior Court, Civil Branch
330 University – Toronto
330 University Ave.
Toronto ON M5G 1R7
Court file# CV-20-00643451-0000
Civil – Superior Court of Justice
tel. 416-327-5440 (front desk)
And again, by checking this link, anyone can SEARCH ONLINE FOR FREE to see what’s happening with various cases. Don’t accept the word of anyone here, but check it out for yourselves. Call the Court, or visit in person if that’s a feasible option.
Since everything is filed online these days, the Court staff can send emails with pdf attachments of case documents (if originally sent electronically). It’s incredibly easy to get ahold of such information.
If this really is such an urgent case, why has nothing happened in 2 years?
Vaccine Choice Canada also has another suit from October 2019. This is Ontario Superior Court (Toronto) #CV-19-00629810-0000. It has to do with vaccinating students in Ontario schools. The pleadings closed in March 2020, and it seems nothing has happened since. It also appears to have been financed with public contributions.
Also, consider that according to Rule 24 of Civil Procedure for Ontario, a case can be dismissed for delay if everyone hasn’t been served within 6 months, or if it’s been stagnant for 6 months. Both of these lawsuits would qualify under that Rule.
Note: This was published November 2020 (4 months after the initial filing). It’s been followed up on several times since. Even back then it was apparent that this “groundbreaking” lawsuit would go nowhere.
People who donated money should be asking these questions. And those who took the funds really need to come clean on what’s been happening. Clearly, no lawsuit(s) is/are being advanced.
Have you heard about the World Circular Economy Forum? If not, let’s take a look at what’s going on over here. This is a collection of people who devise ways to make the economy function in a waste free world.
At first, this organization seems to present as a large scale recycling scheme, devoted to reducing garbage and pollution. While there is truth in that, it appears the goals are much larger.
The first forum took place in 2017, and the most recent one was hosted in 2021. That said, 2017 is an interesting year, since that’s when the Canadian budget started pumping money into alternative protein sources.
It’s a bit amusing that this group goes out of its way to have a name as close as possible to the World Economic Forum. Did they thing no one would notice? Or that no one would care? Anyhow, let’s see who’s supposedly running this thing.
Partners include:
African Circular Economy Alliance
Circular Economy Leadership Canada
City of Toronto
Ellen MacArthur Foundation
European Circular Economy Stakeholders Platform
European Union
Finnish Government
International Chamber of Commerce
Government of Canada
Government of the Netherlands
United Nations Environmental Program
Strangely, I don’t recall any public figures campaigning on becoming part of such an organization. Nor does there seem to have been anything in the way of media coverage. But at least we aren’t forced to help finance this “circular economy” fad, are we?
It turns out, that we will be. At least that’s what this 2021 report makes pretty clear. Like other eco initiatives, this will require lots of start-up money.
[Page 3]
The current state of circular finance
.
Despite the lack of harmonized frameworks, taxonomies, and metrics, financial institutions are beginning to move forward with initiatives to advance circular finance solutions in various ways. Globally, some financial institutions have set multi-billion dollar targets for investing in circular deals. Large multilateral development banks are supporting financial institutions in developing structured frameworks to accommodate innovative financial solutions and advisory services. A report authored by Patrick Schröder and Jan Raes and published by Chatham House titled, “Financing an inclusive circular economy: De-risking investments for circular business models and the SDGs,” highlights the importance of public investment and stimulus packages to de-risk and incentivize financial investments in circular models.
In order to get this going, billions of dollars will need to be pumped into it. Note: this doesn’t refer to any accounting, just an idea in broad strokes. The report continues:
[Page 8] Circular economy opportunities and priorities are increasingly intersecting with broader ESG considerations such as biodiversity, equity, diversity and inclusion, and climate action goals, although the intersections are not yet well understood. Investment in circular business strategies and operations can result in significant positive social, environmental, and economic benefits. Circular businesses are creating more resilient green jobs and skills that will be needed in a low-carbon future. For instance, the Share, Reuse, Repair Initiative’s Just Circular Recovery and Transition project brings together circular innovators and community organizations to advance employment opportunities within marginalized communities. Additionally, circular businesses are prompting consumers to have conversations around lighter living and to make more sustainable choices.
[Page 8]
A study by the Ellen McArthur Foundation shows that 45% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are associated with products and food. Achieving net-zero commitments will require reducing embodied carbon through circular strategies, such as designing for reuse and remanufacturing, product-as-a-service models, and advanced recycling. For instance, the Ellen McArthur foundation estimates that remanufacturing and reusing an engine reduces carbon intensity by 85%
This also ties in with the idea of “alternative” protein sources and eating bugs. After all, if traditional food sources are considered to not be environmentally friendly, they need to be phased out.
It turns out that taxpayer dollars are being used for the “circular economy” initiative, even if they aren’t being directly given to this organization. Here are some of those grants:
And in a turn of events, Canadian taxpayers is also giving large amounts of money directly to the World Economic Forum. In fact, there is a lot they are forced to finance.
RECIPIENT
DATE
DATE
Accelerating Sustainability Events Management Inc
Jul 28, 2021
$175,000.00
Carboncure Technologies Inc
Jan 8, 2021
$2,026,500.00
City Of Guelph
Mar 13, 2020
$10,000,000.00
Collège D’Enseignement Général Et Professionnel
Feb 6, 2020
$2,000,000.00
Conference Board Of Canada
Mar 31, 2021
$390,000.00
Council Of The Great Lakes Region
Mar 18, 2020
$553,000.00
Distillerie Maison Alfred Inc.
Dec 5, 2021
$30,476.00
Gabriola Island Recycling Organization
Mar 24, 2022
$98,000.00
Global Centre For Indigenomics
Oct 27, 2021
$49,900.00
Keddie, Leanne
Mar 15, 2022
$234,045.00
Leading Change For Young Professionals
Jul 28, 2021
$299,875.00
Natural Step (Canada) Inc.
Feb 21, 2019
$299,875.00
Ontario Genomics Institute
Oct 1, 2021
$1,262,661.00
Leadership Coalition, Natural Step Canada Inc
Mar 18, 2020
$175,000.00
Pivot Furniture Technologies Inc.
Feb 1, 2019
$170,900.00
Pivot Furniture Technologies Inc.
Sep 16, 2021
$460,000.00
Rethink Resource Inc.
May 31, 2021
$30,000.00
Rethink Resource Inc.
May 31, 2021
$50,000.00
Tgm Tours Inc.
Jan 25, 2021
$143,000.00
University Of British Columbia
Mar 18, 2022
$1,040,000.00
World Economic Forum
Dec 23, 2014
$1,000,000.00
World Economic Forum
Sep 29, 2015
$6,000,000.00
World Economic Forum
Dec 14, 2015
$10,000,000.00
World Economic Forum
Dec 3, 2018
$52,925.00
World Economic Forum
Apr 25, 2019
$999,580.00
World Economic Forum
Jan 17, 2020
$500,000.00
World Economic Forum
Mar 16, 2020
$5,933,063.00
The University of British Columbia is a registered charity, so it already receives a favourable tax rate on its income.
It’s also worth mentioning that both Carboncure Technologies Inc. and the Conference Board Of Canada were receiving CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, over the last few years. This is run by the C.R.A. and is used to help pay employees’ wages.
There is a corresponding group here called Circular Economy Leadership Canada. Its partners include many well known chains. It states on its main page that:
“We’re collectively committing to support the U.N. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12 on responsible consumption and production, and to substantially reduce waste, in all of its forms, by 2030.”
In other words, it’s helping to implement parts of Agenda 2030. The organization just needs large amounts of financial assistance (continuously) to make this happen.
Goal #2 in the U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda is ending hunger in all its forms. One of the methods pushed is phasing out traditional agriculture with alternative protein sources, such as bugs.
Goal #13 in the UNSDA is preventing climate change. There is actually considerable overlap with #2. By stating that certain agricultural practices cause these changes, it provides a further excuse to further shut down farms.
Goal #12 ties in to both #2 and #13. This calls for creating “sustainable food and consumption patterns”. By saying that current models do not suffice in feeding everyone, while asserting they cause climate change, this goal is able to solve the other two. It’s another instance of causing the problem, getting a reaction, then proposing a solution.
A cynic may wonder just how literally the term “circular economy” is meant to be taken. After all, there are efforts to get people in the West eating bugs. After humans are dead and buried, presumably they’ll be eaten by bugs themselves.
The Canadian Parliament is taking a break for the summer on studying the issue of facial recognition in society. Considering the vast privacy implications, this isn’t a topic to be decided lightly.
There have been 8 briefs submitted for public viewing, and some 33 witnesses have been scheduled to appear before the House of Commons. There has been overlap in the concerns, particularly around what sort of safeguards would be in place to prevent misuse and abuse of this technology.
Questions have also been asked about how reliable this type of equipment is, and can its use inadvertently lead to large numbers of false positives. This seems particularly true given how many people are still wearing masks. Beyond that, how broadly could this be used? Would the scope be narrow and focused, or turned onto society more broadly?
Given the increasing use of AI, or artificial intelligence, it seems that much of this would be done automatically, with little to no personal oversight. That again raises the potential for more errors.
And really, many just don’t want such systems around.
Hearings went from March through June 2022. However, with Parliament recessed for the summer, the issue is on hold for the time being.
The timing is also bad for another reason. Earlier this year, it was revealed that the Public Health Agency of Canada had been tracking cell phone data from users without their knowledge or consent. See their recommendations. This doesn’t exactly contribute to gaining the public’s trust.
Clearly, we will have to see where things go this these issues. However, there is a significant portion of the population which is unhappy with ever encroaching measures.
We’ve previously addressed how “approved” media outlets effectively get a tax subsidy with digital subscriptions. In short, they are able to somewhat discount the price because readers can send their receipts to the Canada Revenue Agency for a 15% discount.
Now, this only covers 15% of up to $500/year. This means that it could amount to $75 in the following tax season. Who’s eligible to offer this?
It’s also a bit sickening to see “conservative” commentators who pretend to be against bailouts, but who see nothing wrong working for outlets that receive them. Guess resigning from such a job on principle is too much to ask.
Offre Tout Inclus Combo Papier et Édition Électronique
Journal de Montréal
January 1, 2020
MédiaQMI Inc.
Édition Électronique 7 jours sur 7
Journal de Montréal
January 1, 2020
MédiaQMI Inc.
Offre Tout Inclus Combo Papier et Édition Électronique
Journal de Québec
January 1, 2020
MédiaQMI Inc.
Édition Électronique 7 jours sur 7
Journal de Québec
January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd.
Digital access + ePaper
Hamilton Spectator
January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd.
Home delivery including digital access + ePaper
Hamilton Spectator
January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd.
Digital access + ePaper
Waterloo Region Record
January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd.
Home delivery including digital access + ePaper
Waterloo Region Record
January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd.
Home delivery including digital access + ePaper
Peterborough Examiner
January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd.
Digital access + ePaper
Peterborough Examiner
January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd.
Digital access + ePaper
St. Catharines Standard
January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd.
Home delivery including digital access + ePaper
St. Catharines Standard
January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd.
Digital access + ePaper
Niagara Falls Review
January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd.
Home delivery including digital access + ePaper
Niagara Falls Review
January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd.
Digital access + ePaper
Welland Tribune
January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd.
Home delivery including digital access + ePaper
Welland Tribune
January 1, 2020
Mishmash Media Inc
Numérique et Papier
L’actualité
January 1, 2020
Mishmash Media Inc
Numérique
L’actualité
January 1, 2020
Observer Media Group Inc.
Digital Access
Canada’s National Observer
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online Access
National Post
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Weekend Home Delivery
National Post
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Daily Home Delivery
National Post
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online Access
Calgary Herald
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Weekend Home Delivery
Calgary Herald
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Daily Home Delivery
Calgary Herald
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online Access
Calgary Sun
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Weekend Home Delivery
Calgary Sun
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Daily Home Delivery
Calgary Sun
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online Access
Edmonton Journal
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Weekend Home Delivery
Edmonton Journal
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Daily Home Delivery
Edmonton Journal
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online Access
Edmonton Sun
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Weekend Home Delivery
Edmonton Sun
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Daily Home Delivery
Edmonton Sun
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online Access
The Province (Vancouver)
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Weekend Home Delivery
The Province (Vancouver)
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Daily Home Delivery
The Province (Vancouver)
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online Access
The Vancouver Sun
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Weekend Home Delivery
The Vancouver Sun
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Daily Home Delivery
The Vancouver Sun
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online Access
Winnipeg Sun
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Weekend Home Delivery
Winnipeg Sun
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Daily Home Delivery
Winnipeg Sun
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online Access
London Free Press
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Weekend Home Delivery
London Free Press
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Daily Home Delivery
London Free Press
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online Access
Ottawa Citizen
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Weekend Home Delivery
Ottawa Citizen
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Daily Home Delivery
Ottawa Citizen
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online Access
Ottawa Sun
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Weekend Home Delivery
Ottawa Sun
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Daily Home Delivery
Ottawa Sun
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online Access
Toronto Sun
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Weekend Home Delivery
Toronto Sun
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Daily Home Delivery
Toronto Sun
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online Access
Windsor Star
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Weekend Home Delivery
Windsor Star
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Daily Home Delivery
Windsor Star
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online Access
Montreal Gazette
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Weekend Home Delivery
Montreal Gazette
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Daily Home Delivery
Montreal Gazette
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online Access
Regina Leader-Post
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Weekend Home Delivery
Regina Leader-Post
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Daily Home Delivery
Regina Leader-Post
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online Access
Saskatoon Star Phoenix
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Weekend Home Delivery
Saskatoon Star Phoenix
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
Online plus Daily Home Delivery
Saskatoon Star Phoenix
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
E-Paper
Daily Herald-Tribune
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
E-Paper
The Intelligencer (Belleville)
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
E-Paper
The Expositor (Brantford)
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
E-Paper
The Recorder & Times (Brockville)
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
E-Paper
The Chatham Daily News
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
E-Paper
Standard Freeholder (Cornwall)
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
E-Paper
The Kingston Whig-Standard
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
E-Paper
North Bay Nugget
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
E-Paper
The Observer (Sarnia)
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
E-Paper
The Sault Star (Sault Ste. Marie)
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
E-Paper
Simcoe Reformer
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
E-Paper
St. Thomas Times-Journal
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
E-Paper
The Beacon Herald (Stratford)
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
E-Paper
The Sudbury Star
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
E-Paper
The Daily Press (Timmins)
January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc.
E-Paper
Sentinel-Review (Woodstock)
January 1, 2020
Presse-Ouest Ltée.
Numérique la-liberte.ca
La Liberté
January 1, 2020
Presse-Ouest Ltée.
Numérique et Papier la-liberte.ca
La Liberté
January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc.
Unlimited Digital Access
The Telegram
January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc.
Print + Unlimited Digital Access
The Telegram
January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc.
Unlimited Digital Access
The Guardian
January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc.
Print + Unlimited Digital Access
The Guardian
January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc.
Unlimited Digital Access
The Cape Breton Post
January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc.
Print + Unlimited Digital Access
The Cape Breton Post
January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc.
Unlimited Digital Access
Tri-County Vanguard
January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc.
Print + Unlimited Digital Access
Tri-County Vanguard
January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc.
Unlimited Digital Access
Truro News
January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc.
Print + Unlimited Digital Access
Truro News
January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc.
Unlimited Digital Access
New Glasgow News
January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc.
Print + Unlimited Digital Access
New Glasgow News
January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc.
Unlimited Digital Access
Valley Journal Advertiser
January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc.
Print + Unlimited Digital Access
Valley Journal Advertiser
January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc.
Unlimited Digital Access
Annapolis Valley Register
January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc.
Print + Unlimited Digital Access
Annapolis Valley Register
January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc.
Unlimited Digital Access
Journal Pioneer
January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc.
Print + Unlimited Digital Access
Journal Pioneer
January 1, 2020
TC Publication Limited Partnership
Print and E-edition
Times Colonist
January 1, 2020
TC Publication Limited Partnership
E-edition
Times Colonist
January 1, 2020
The Catholic Register
Digital Edition
The Catholic Register
January 1, 2020
The Catholic Register
Print and Digital
The Catholic Register
January 1, 2020
The Globe and Mail Inc.
Digital Access
The Globe and Mail
January 1, 2020
The Globe and Mail Inc.
Home Delivery plus Digital Access
The Globe and Mail
January 1, 2020
The Globe and Mail Inc.
Globe2Go
The Globe and Mail
January 1, 2020
The Halifax Herald Limited
Unlimited Digital Access
The Chronicle Herald
January 1, 2020
The Halifax Herald Limited
Print + Unlimited Digital Access
The Chronicle Herald
January 1, 2020
The Logic Inc.
The Logic Annual Subscription
The Logic
January 1, 2020
The Logic Inc.
The Logic All-Access Subscription
The Logic
January 1, 2020
Thunder Bay Chronicle Limited Partnership
Digital e-version
The Chronicle Journal
January 1, 2020
Thunder Bay Chronicle Limited Partnership
Print subscriber free online account
The Chronicle Journal
January 1, 2020
Toronto Star Newspaper Limited
Print + ePaper + Digital access
The Toronto Star
January 1, 2020
Toronto Star Newspaper Limited
ePaper + Digital Access
The Toronto Star
January 1, 2020
Toronto Star Newspaper Limited
The Star Digital Access
The Toronto Star
January 1, 2020
Toronto Star Newspaper Limited
The Star ePaper
The Toronto Star
January 1, 2020
While there are 165 listings (thus far) for this tax credit, many are of the same outlet offering different formats. It’s also obvious that many are owned by the same conglomerates, such as Post Media.
There are, of course, other subsidies available. Independent media — that doesn’t receive handouts — is virtually nonexistent, at least for large and medium companies. Even groups that claim to be truly independent can withhold important information.
Now, the question everyone needs to ask: will these outlets be too critical of Government policy, or investigate too deeply? After all, it’s not wise to bite the hand that feeds you.
Today’s topic concerns Danielle Smith, running to become Premier of Alberta. She used to be the head of the Wildrose Party in that Province.
Why go after someone who claims to be fighting for freedom, at least in Alberta? Because there are critical topics that are going unsaid.
In fairness, ideas like setting up a Provincial police force (like the O.P.P.), and doing local tax collection are interesting.
While Smith’s campaign seems to be starting well, there are plenty of red flags. Specifically, there are concerns that she doesn’t appear to be addressing. Her rise also seems controlled and inorganic, much like that of Poilievre.
Of course, if these things were properly addressed, than an apology is warranted. But they don’t seem to have been.
For starters, Smith (and all Western “conservatives”) claim to want to rebuild the oil & gas sector. However, they ignore the fact that Agendas 21 and 2030 make it clear these industries are to be killed off. These were signed by Mulroney and Harper respectively.
Smith is running for the leadership of the United Conservative Party, which Jason Kenney is leaving. In launching her campaign, she goes on about how Alberta needs to be protected from Trudeau. Of course, this applies to Ottawa more generally.
What makes this ring hollow is that the UCP received the wage subsidy, CEWS, for at least a portion of the last 2 years. It’s pretty hard to be against the Trudeau regime when his programs are paying your organization’s bills.
While Jason Kenney claimed to be resisting tyranny in Ottawa, his party was sucking at the teet of Federal bailout programs.
It’s a great talking point to be challenging Trudeau on “vaccinations” for certain things, but it completely glosses over the fact that Kenney brought in a Provincial system in late 2021, despite repeatedly promising not to. Smith is also running to head the party that was too spineless to stop Kenney, Hinshaw and Shandro.
Of course, the UCP is hardly alone in being bought off. The Alberta Liberals also got the subsidies, as did the Federal Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP. Watch the original video, or the remake for a look at the rot in our system.
There’s also no mention about the rampant pharma lobbying trying to influence policies in Alberta. Yes, it happens everywhere, but it’s not exactly a secret.
If Smith was serious about freedom and sovereignty for Alberta, she could always have thrown Kenney under the bus for his World Economic Forum connection. Either she doesn’t know about it, or just chose not to do so.
For obvious reasons, anyone tied to that organization can never be trusted to put their constituents first.
YEAR END
TOTAL REVENUE
NON-GOV’T
PERCENTAGE
March 2017
$14,325,881,000
$922,364,000
6.54%
March 2018
$13,780,984,000
0
0%
March 2019
$15,134,433,000
$948,317,000
6.27%
March 2020
$15,335,736,000
$971,471,000
6.33%
March 2021
$16,489,501,000
$767,768,000
4.66%
Alberta Health Services is a registered charity, according to the Canada Revenue Agency. Although 2017/2018 seems to be an anomaly, A.H.S. takes close to $1 billion/year from non-Governmental sources. It would be nice to know who these are.
Not only are private organizations allowed to donate, and potentially influence policy, taxpayers are forced to subsidize those donations. Tax credits amount to approximately 40% – 50% of the contributions.
Worth mentioning: this site has asked the C.R.A. several times for donor information. However, those requests were refused, citing privacy protections.
Pretty hard to do a proper job of criticizing A.H.S. while leaving this out.
In order for Alberta to have control over its affairs, it’s important to know what international agreements various Federal Governments have signed over the years. Smith doesn’t appear to have addressed any of this. As such, she’s in no position to offer such things, even if she were Premier.
Over a century ago, an International Public Health Office was created, which we became a part of. This was done without any democratic mandate of course.
In order to be part of the World Health Organization, it means adopting their Constitution, and ceding a large amount of sovereignty to an international body. No prominent politicians in Canada of any stripe have addressed this point. Are they all controlled?
Article 4
Members of the United Nations may become Members of the Organization by signing or otherwise accepting this Constitution in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XIX and in accordance with their constitutional processes.
Article 19
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt conventions or agreements with respect to any matter within the competence of the Organization. A two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly shall be required for the adoption of such conventions or agreements, which shall come into force for each Member when accepted by it in accordance with its constitutional processes.
Article 20
Each Member undertakes that it will, within eighteen months after the adoption by the Health Assembly of a convention or agreement, take action relative to the acceptance of such convention or agreement. Each Member shall notify the Director-General of the action taken, and if it does not accept such convention or agreement within the time limit, it will furnish a statement of the reasons for non-acceptance. In case of acceptance, each Member agrees to make an annual report to the Director-General in accordance with Chapter XIV
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.
Being part of the World Health Organization means submitting to their rules and control. It’s laid out in their own constitution. To be clear, sovereignty will never be possible as long as Canada is part of this entity.
As has been outlined here before, the 2005 Quarantine Act, Bill C-12, was really just domestic implementation of the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations.
We’ve also gone heavily into the creation of PHAC, which is essentially just a branch of the World Health Organization. It was created at WHO’s instigation. The timeline is laid out, and worth a read.
Isolation, Quarantine and Special Measures
.
Isolation and quarantine
.
29(1) A medical officer of health who knows of or has reason to suspect the existence of a communicable disease or a public health emergency within the boundaries of the health region in which the medical officer of health has jurisdiction may initiate an investigation to determine whether any action is necessary to protect the public health.
(2) Where the investigation confirms the presence of a communicable disease, the medical officer of health
(a) shall carry out the measures that the medical officer of health is required by this Act and the regulations to carry out, and
(b) may do any or all of the following:
(i) take whatever steps the medical officer of health considers necessary
(A) to suppress the disease in those who may already have been infected with it,
(B) to protect those who have not already been exposed to the disease,
(C) to break the chain of transmission and prevent spread of the disease, and
(D) to remove the source of infection;
(ii) by order
(A) prohibit a person from attending a school,
(B) prohibit a person from engaging in the person’s occupation, or
(C) prohibit a person from having contact with other persons or any class of persons for any period and subject to any conditions that the medical officer of health considers appropriate, where the medical officer of health determines that the person’s engaging in that activity could transmit an infectious agent;
.
(iii) issue written orders for the decontamination or destruction of any bedding, clothing or other articles that
have been contaminated or that the medical officer of health reasonably suspects have been contaminated.
(2.1) Where the investigation confirms the existence of a public health emergency, the medical officer of health
(a) has all the same powers and duties in respect of the public health emergency as he or she has under subsection (2) in the case of a communicable disease, and
(b) may take whatever other steps are, in the medical officer of health’s opinion, necessary in order to lessen the impact of the public health emergency.
A serious candidate would vow to scrap the Alberta Public Health Act, or at least gut it. This legislation (and all Provinces have a similar version) are derived from the 2005 Quarantine Act, which itself came from WHO’s International Health Regulations.
It makes no sense to propose an Alberta Sovereignty Act, while leaving intact the legislation which signs away the Province’s control in the first place.
On November 30, 2020, Smith interviewed Kenney for the show she had at the time. The clip starts at about 28:30 in the full recording. Smith made it pretty clear she’s quite able to do research.
She also brought up the issue of 90% false positives for PCR testing (notwithstanding the fact that no virus exists). Even 18 months ago, she clearly knew that this “pandemic” was a scam. But that person seems to have vanished.
Much like Ron DeSantis of Florida, Smith will scream about bodily autonomy, all while ignoring or downplaying the obvious psy-op over the last few years. This was planned and deliberate, not just some collective incompetence.
A cynic would view all of this as a candidate dropped in to placate the masses. A more charitable interpretation would be a total lack of understanding of what’s going on.
Now, could Smith be a decent Premier? Maybe. However, she leaves out so much that it’s hard to see her as anything but another fake freedom fighter.
Here’s some data going back to the 1960s. These years feature quite differently than more recent reports. The United States and United Kingdom were consistently at the top of the source countries list. That has since been replaced by China, India and the Philippines. White genocide (a.k.a “replacement”) is a very real thing.
According to the United Nations, enacting policies designed to bring about the destruction of an ethnic, racial, or religious group (in all or in part), is considered genocide. Consequently, forced multiculturalism and population replacement should be viewed through that lens.
1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada
Despite what many think, LEGAL immigration into Canada is actually a much larger threat than illegal aliens, given the true scale of the replacement that is happening. What was founded as a European (British) colony is becoming unrecognizable due to forced demographic changes. There are also social, economic, environmental and voting changes to consider. See this Canadian series, and the UN programs for more detail. Politicians, the media, and so-called “experts” have no interest in coming clean on this.
CLICK HERE, for UN Genocide Prevention/Punishment Convention. CLICK HERE, for Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan. CLICK HERE, for UN Kalergi Plan (population replacement). CLICK HERE, for UN replacement efforts since 1974. CLICK HERE, for tracing steps of UN replacement agenda.
Note: If there are errors in calculating the totals, please speak up. Information is of no use to the public if it isn’t accurate.
2. Source Countries From 1966 To 1979
Let’s look at the “official” numbers from 1966 to 1979. The U.S. and U.K. are still featured prominently, something that will change in the coming years.
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1966
SOURCE COUNTRY
NUMBER
PERCENTAGE
RANK
United Kingdom
63,291
32.5
1
Italy
31,625
16.2
2
United States
17,514
9.0
3
Germany
9,263
4.8
4
Portugal
7,930
4.0
5
France
7,872
4.0
6
Greece
7,174
3.7
7
China
4,094
2.1
8
West Indies
3,935
2.0
9
Netherlands
3,794
1.9
10
TOTAL — TOP 10
156,492
80.4
—
TOTAL — OTHERS
38,251
19.6
—
GRAND TOTAL
194,743
100
—
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1967
SOURCE COUNTRY
NUMBER
PERCENTAGE
RANK
United Kingdom
62,420
28.0
1
Italy
30,055
13.4
2
United States
19,038
8.6
3
Germany
11,779
5.3
4
Greece
10,650
4.6
5
France
10,122
4.5
6
Portugal
9,500
4.2
7
West Indies
8,403
3.8
8
China
6,409
2.9
9
Australia
4,967
2.2
10
TOTAL — TOP 10
173,343
77.8
—
TOTAL — OTHERS
49,533
22.2
—
GRAND TOTAL
222,876
100
—
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1968
SOURCE COUNTRY
NUMBER
PERCENTAGE
RANK
United Kingdom
37,889
20.6
1
United States
20,422
11.1
2
Italy
19,774
10.8
3
Germany
8,966
4.8
4
China
8,382
4.6
5
France
8,184
4.4
6
Austria
8,125
4.4
7
Greece
7,739
4.2
8
Portugal
7,738
4.2
9
West Indies
7,563
4.1
10
TOTAL — TOP 10
104,782
57.0
—
TOTAL — OTHERS
79,192
43.0
—
GRAND TOTAL
183,974
100
—
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1969
SOURCE COUNTRY
NUMBER
PERCENTAGE
RANK
United Kingdom
31,977
19.8
1
United States
22,785
14.1
2
West Indies
13,093
8.1
3
Italy
10,383
6.4
4
China
8,272
5.1
5
Portugal
7,182
4.4
6
Greece
6,937
4.3
7
Germany
5,880
3.6
8
France
5,549
3.4
9
India
5,395
3.3
10
TOTAL — TOP 10
117,453
72.7
—
TOTAL — OTHERS
44,078
27.3
—
GRAND TOTAL
161,531
100
—
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1970
SOURCE COUNTRY
NUMBER
PERCENTAGE
RANK
United Kingdom
26,497
18.7
1
United States
24,424
16.5
2
West Indies
12,456
8.4
3
Italy
8,533
5.8
4
Portugal
7,902
5.4
5
Greece
6,327
4.3
6
Yugoslavia
5,672
3.8
7
India
5,670
3.8
8
China
5,377
3.6
9
France
4,410
2.9
10
TOTAL — TOP 10
101,596
68.8
—
TOTAL — OTHERS
46,118
31.2
—
GRAND TOTAL
147,714
100
—
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1971
SOURCE COUNTRY
NUMBER
PERCENTAGE
RANK
United States
24,366
20.0
1
United Kingdom
15,451
12.8
2
Portugal
9,157
7.5
3
Italy
5,790
4.8
4
India
5,313
4.4
5
China
5,009
4.1
6
Greece
4,769
3.9
7
Philippines
4,180
3.4
8
Yugoslavia
2,997
2.4
9
France
2,966
2.4
10
TOTAL — TOP 10
79,998
66.6
—
TOTAL — OTHERS
41,902
34.4
—
GRAND TOTAL
121,900
100
—
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1972
SOURCE COUNTRY
NUMBER
PERCENTAGE
RANK
United States
22,618
18.5
1
United Kingdom
18,197
14.9
2
Portugal
8,737
7.2
3
Hong Kong
6,297
5.2
4
India
5,049
4.1
5
Uganda
5,021
4.1
6
Italy
4,608
3.8
7
Greece
4,016
3.3
8
Philippines
3,946
3.2
9
France
2,742
2.2
10
TOTAL — TOP 10
81,231
66.6
—
TOTAL — OTHERS
40,775
33.4
—
GRAND TOTAL
122,006
100
—
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1973
SOURCE COUNTRY
NUMBER
PERCENTAGE
RANK
United Kingdom
26,973
14.6
1
United States
25,242
13.7
2
Hong Kong
14,662
8.0
3
Portugal
13,483
7.3
4
Jamaica
9,363
5.1
5
India
9,203
5.0
6
Philippines
6,757
3.7
7
Greece
5,833
3.2
8
Italy
5,468
3.0
9
Trinidad-Tobago
5,138
2.8
10
TOTAL — TOP 10
122,122
66.3
—
TOTAL — OTHERS
62,078
33.7
—
GRAND TOTAL
184,200
100
—
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1974
SOURCE COUNTRY
NUMBER
PERCENTAGE
RANK
United Kingdom
38,456
17.6
1
United States
26,541
12.1
2
Portugal
16,333
7.5
3
India
12,868
5.9
4
Hong Kong
12,704
5.8
5
Jamaica
11,286
5.2
6
Philippines
9,564
4.4
7
Greece
5,632
2.6
8
Italy
5,226
2.4
9
Haiti
4,857
2.2
10
TOTAL — TOP 10
143,467
65.7
—
TOTAL — OTHERS
74,998
34.3
—
GRAND TOTAL
218,465
100
—
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1975
SOURCE COUNTRY
NUMBER
PERCENTAGE
RANK
United Kingdom
34,978
18.6
1
United States
20,155
10.7
2
Hong Kong
11,132
5.9
3
India
10,144
5.4
4
Portugal
8,390
4.5
5
Jamaica
8,211
4.4
6
Philippines
7,364
3.9
7
Italy
5,078
2.7
8
Guyana
4,394
2.3
9
South Korea
4,314
2.3
10
TOTAL — TOP 10
114,163
60.8
—
TOTAL — OTHERS
73,718
39.2
—
GRAND TOTAL
187,881
100
—
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1976
SOURCE COUNTRY
NUMBER
PERCENTAGE
RANK
United Kingdom
21,548
14.4
1
United States
17,315
11.6
2
Hong Kong
10,725
7.2
3
Jamaica
7,282
4.9
4
Lebanon
7,161
4.8
5
India
6,733
4.5
6
Philippines
5,939
4.0
7
Portugal
5,344
3.6
8
Italy
4,530
3.0
9
Guyana
3,430
2.3
10
TOTAL — TOP 10
90,007
60.2
—
TOTAL — OTHERS
59,422
39.8
—
GRAND TOTAL
149,429
100
—
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1977
SOURCE COUNTRY
NUMBER
PERCENTAGE
RANK
United Kingdom
17,977
15.6
1
United States
12,888
11.2
3
Hong Kong
6,371
5.5
3
Philippines
6,232
5.4
4
India
5,555
4.8
5
Lebanon
3,847
3.3
6
Portugal
3,579
3.1
7
Italy
3,411
3.0
8
France
2,757
2.4
9
Guyana
2,472
2.4
10
TOTAL — TOP 10
65,089
56.7
—
TOTAL — OTHERS
49,825
43.3
—
GRAND TOTAL
114,914
100
—
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1978
SOURCE COUNTRY
NUMBER
PERCENTAGE
RANK
United Kingdom
11,801
13.7
1
United States
9,945
11.5
2
India
5,110
5.9
3
Hong Kong
4,740
5.5
4
Philippines
4,370
5.1
5
Portugal
3,086
3.6
6
Italy
2,976
.43
7
France
1,754
2.9
8
South Africa
1,653
1.9
9
Lebanon
1,454
1.7
10
TOTAL — TOP 10
46,880
54.3
—
TOTAL — OTHERS
39,424
45.7
—
GRAND TOTAL
86,313
100
—
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1979
SOURCE COUNTRY
NUMBER
PERCENTAGE
RANK
Vietnam
19,859
17.7
1
United Kingdom
12,853
11.5
2
United States
9,617
8.6
3
Hong Kong
5,966
5.3
4
India
4,517
4.0
5
Laos
3,903
3.5
6
Philippines
3,873
3.5
7
Jamaica
3,213
2.9
8
Guyana
2,473
2.2
9
China
2,058
2.1
10
TOTAL — TOP 10
68,332
61.0
—
TOTAL — OTHERS
43,764
39.0
—
GRAND TOTAL
112,096
100
—
Permanent Residents: U.S., Europe and Australia as a percentage of overall migration globally. The vast majority of people getting PR in recent years aren’t from those areas.
YEAR
# U.S.
% U.S.
# Eur.
% Eur.
# Aust
% Austr
# Other
% Other
1973
25,242
13.7
71,883
39.0
2,096
1.1
84,979
46.1
1974
26,541
12.1
88,694
40.6
2,022
0.1
102,208
46.3
1975
20,155
10.7
72,898
38.8
1,654
0.1
87,174
46.4
1976
17,315
11.5
49,908
33.3
1,387
0.1
80,819
54.1
1977
12,888
11.2
40,747
35.5
1,063
0.1
60,216
52.4
1978
9,945
11.5
30,075
34.8
1,233
1.4
45,060
52.2
1979
9,617
8.6
32,858
29.3
808
0.1
68,813
61.4
3. More Recent Statistics On Immigration Source Countries
The above may not seem too bad, but keep in mind that the trends are about to get a whole lot worse. Here are numbers from within the last decade. Of course, this doesn’t include the hordes of students and “temporary” workers who come and don’t leave.
(Page 16 of the 2015 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 10 of the 2016 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 14 of the 2017 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 28 of the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 36 of the 2019 Annual Report to Parliament)
Notice any major changes? The U.K. and U.S. are nowhere near as prominent as they once were, and the demographic replacement is accelerating.
Of course, this doesn’t address the levels of student visas and “temporary” workers, which would increase drastically in the coming years.