Holodomor 2.0 Archives

September 18, 2024September 18, 2024

Bill C-293 (International Pandemic Treaty) Revisited: Concerns Raised Over Food Supply

Bill C-293 was covered in early 2023. This is a Private Member’s Bill for domestic implementation of the International Pandemic Treaty, and is now in the Senate.

Parliament had hearings back in late 2023, and those same issues may come up in the Senate. In particular, several groups raised concerns about the food supply should this legislation pass. Specifically, these would include:

regulate commercial activities that can contribute to pandemic risk, including industrial animal agriculture
promote commercial activities that can help reduce pandemic risk, including the production of alternative proteins
phase out commercial activities that disproportionately contribute to pandemic risk, including activities that involve high-risk species

Back in 2017, there was a major initiative from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada to push for mass production of “plant proteins”. For ideological reasons, the Government was trying to phase out meat.

Some participants in the hearings expressed concerns that echoed this.

1. Canadian Federation of Agriculture

However, we write today to express significant concerns with aspects Bill C-293, particularly in its impact on the Canadian animal agriculture sector. While the primary objective of the Bill is pandemic prevention and preparedness, it contains content and language that will adversely affect Canadian farmers and ranchers if passed in its current form. Specifically, we are concerned by the Bill’s language around livestock farming, the promotion of alternative proteins, and the focus on animal agriculture in the context of antimicrobial resistance rather than within the more comprehensive One Health perspective.

Irrelevant focus on alternative proteins, in the context of pandemic preparedness
.
In particular, section 4 (2) (I) of Bill C-293 dissents from the tone and language used throughout other
sections of the Bill and instead, includes language promoting the production and use of alternative proteins and the regulation of animal agriculture, and the phase-out of high-risk species.

2. Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario

Animal Agriculture
Section 4 (2) (l) (ii – iv) directly correlate animal agriculture with increased pandemic risk. These sections further direct the promotion of “alternative proteins,” based on a notion of reduced pandemic risk. This language unfairly represents the risks posed by animal agriculture. These sections of the Bill, as worded, further require drastic action including measures to regulate” animal agriculture and to “phase out…high risk species” in response to this exaggerated notion of risk. These sections should also be removed from the Bill.

Drastic actions, such as those suggested in the current wording of the Bill, in the case of food animals in particular, would result in loss of food supply, economic losses, and increased cost of food, among other effects.

3. Chicken Farmers of Canada

While the majority of the Bill uses overarching language to describe the work of the Advisory Committee on pandemic response (as appointed by the Minister of Health) and the content of their reports, Section 4 (2) (l) is very specific in its intent to promote alternative proteins, regulate animal agriculture and phase out high-risk species.

CFC believes that the basis of this section makes a judgment call that animal agriculture is the cause of pandemics – a notion that is not supported and does not represent the cause of diseases listed in the preamble of the Bill. This premise is tied to the initiative of promoting the production of alternate proteins, which is a specific example not seen elsewhere in the Bill. Initiatives to promote alternative proteins in a Bill on pandemic prevention and preparedness is misplaced and misaligned with the Bill’s objectives. CFC believes that Section 4 (2) (l) is too limiting in its direction and in turn could distract the Advisory Committee from more beneficial areas of work.

4. Canada Mink Breeders Association

1. Remove Clause 2(l)(iii)
(l) after consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of Industry and
provincial governments, provide for measures to
• (iii) promote commercial activities that can help reduce pandemic risk, including the production of alternative proteins

2. Remove Clause 2(l)(iv)
(l) after consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food, the Minister of Industry and
provincial governments, provide for measures to
• (iv) phase out commercial activities that disproportionately contribute to pandemic risk, including activities that involve high-risk species

3. Remove Clause 2(m)(ii)
(m) include the following information, to be provided by the Minister of the Environment:
• (ii) a summary of the measures the Minister of the Environment intends to take to reduce the risk that the commercial wildlife trade in Canada and abroad will lead to a pandemic, including measures to regulate or phase out live animal markets

All of these groups raised concerns that social policies would be implemented through the backdoor, under the guise of “pandemic prevention”.

A group called Results Canada took a very different approach. It asked that Bill C-293 be amended to include something called “surge financing”. It appears to be an attempt to trigger easier access to money, in the event of a “pandemic”,

4(2)(n.1) “a summary, to be provided by the Minister of Finance, of the measures the Minister intends to take to support the availability of surge financing, as well as the funding of pandemic preparedness and response by the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and other relevant international organizations;”

Lisa Barrett, the infamous Nova Scotia doctor who had pushed lockdowns, said that she preferred that the Bill be altered in a way where the “correct” science could be promoted.

Again, it’s not specifically about the bill, but I could link it to the bill.

I think that having pieces of misinformation and disinformation out there like that, particularly around vaccination, is part of the issue. If this bill can actually develop a process where science is promoted, as well as the dissemination of science in a trustful way, we could probably get rid of a lot of those statements. Those are not statements I would support, and I think it’s a demonstration of overt mis- and disinformation from certain individuals. Hopefully, we can get beyond that and maybe there’s some use for a bill like this to promote it.
As with most of these Bills, the devil is in the details. The broad outline provided does nothing to answer specifics regarding food supply. Presumably, there would be regulations made by unelected bureaucrats.

Private Member’s Bills usually go nowhere. But this one is already in the Senate. Where did Nathaniel Erskine-Smith get the idea to introduce this? Who wrote it for him?

Critics fear that entire crops and industries could disappear under the guise of “public safety”. It doesn’t really specify any built-in protections. And with “experts” like Lisa Barrett, it’s not a stretch to think that martial law mandates could return in some form.

What will happen in the Senate?

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(1) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(2) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(3) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(4) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(5) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(6) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(7) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(8) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(9) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(10) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(11) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(12) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(13) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(14) Bill C-373: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism 2.0
(15) Bill C-388: Fast Tracking Weapons, Energy, Gas To Ukraine
(16) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(17) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(18) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(19) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights
(20) Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

November 2, 2023June 1, 2024

U.N. Sendai Framework Introduced Domestically Via B.C. Bill 31 (Emergency & Disaster Management Act)

A few weeks ago, British Columbia Bill 31, the Emergency and Disaster Management Act, made ripples because of the embedded language which seemed to be a threat to property rights. Under the pretense of emergencies, rights could be suspended in a manner that heavily paralleled the Public Health Act.

However, it’s noteworthy that the B.C. Government isn’t actually responsible for this legislation. It’s domestic implementation of the United Nations Sendai Framework, signed in Japan in 2015.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
.
BILL 31 — EMERGENCY AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT
.
Hon. B. Ma presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Emergency and Disaster Management Act.
.
Hon. B. Ma: I move that Bill 31 be introduced and read a first time now.
.
Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to introduce the Emergency and Disaster Management Act. This bill delivers on government’s pledge to introduce modernized emergency management legislation that aligns with the United Nations Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction, the international best practices for how we make our communities safer and more resilient.
.
This legislation formally recognizes the rights of First Nations as decision-makers in emergency management, which is an important step in aligning B.C.’s approach with the declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.
.
The Emergency and Disaster Management Act moves towards a holistic four-phase approach of mitigation, preparation, response and recovery. It embraces disaster risk reduction and will require that climate risk be assessed so that entities can better mitigate the impacts of climate-related emergencies before they happen.
.
This bill updates the concept of what constitutes an emergency to reflect modern realities and risks and provides improved tools for response and recovery. I look forward to debate on this bill and, ultimately, to the improvements it will bring for the safety of people across British Columbia.
.
Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is the first reading of the bill.
.
Motion approved.

It’s also explicitly stated that it will be used to “mitigate the risks” of climate change, but without specifying what those risks are.

Bill 31 is quite long, but here are a few notable parts. Section 76 allows the Minister to suspend property rights under the guise of mitigating an emergency. It also allows for warrantless entry under that same pretense.

Furthermore, the Minister is able to order that property be destroyed …. including crops. By this logic, food supply would not be secure either.

Land and other property
76 (1) The minister may, by order, do one or more of the following:
(a) appropriate, use or control the use of any personal property;
(b) use or control the use of any land;
(c) authorize the entry without warrant into any structure or onto any land by any person for the purpose of taking emergency measures;
(d) prohibit the entry into any structure or onto any land by any person;
(e) authorize or require the alteration, removal or demolition of any trees, crops, structures or landscapes;
(f) authorize or require the construction, alteration, removal or demolition of works;
(g) require the owner of a structure to
(i) have any damage to the structure assessed, and
(ii) give the results of the assessment to the minister or a person in a class of persons specified by the minister.
(2) The power under subsection (1) (b) to use or control the use of land does not apply to specified land.

Section 78 would give the Government the power to restrict travel and movement, shut down businesses, and various events. This greatly parallels what happened from 2020 to 2022. The difference here is that the excuse isn’t a disease.

General restrictions
78 (1) The minister may, by order, control or prohibit one or more of the following:
(a) travel to or from any area;
(b) the carrying on of a business or a type of business;
(c) an event or a type of event.
(2) The minister may, by order, do one or more of the following:
(a) require a person to stop doing an activity, including an activity that a person is licensed, permitted or otherwise authorized to do under an enactment;
(b) put limits or conditions on doing an activity, including limits or conditions that have the effect of modifying a licence, permit or other authorization issued under an enactment.

Section 82 says that the Lieutenant Governor in Council can make retroactive orders. This would presumably legalize actions that would previously have been illegal.

Section 139 makes it clear that compliance is mandatory.

Section 140 gives provincial administrators the power to ask for police enforcement

Section 141 outlines judicial remedies to obtain injunction.

Section 154 provides protection from legal proceedings for pretty much anyone involved in implementing emergency management orders.

There is much more to this Bill, and that will be covered in a follow-up.

Now, what does this have to do with the United Nations?

Turns out, that the Sendai Framework was agreed to in 2015, and this is just B.C. implementing their version of it. This is also the third conference, with the first being Yokohama in 1994, and the second in Hyogo in 2005. The specific agency is the UNDDR, the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction.

The full text of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (see archive) is available online. As should be apparent, Bill 31 heavily copies this content.

And the Emergency & Disaster Management Act heavily mirrors the Provincial Public Health Acts, which strip away property rights under the cloak of disease prevent. Those have been covered here and here.

More to come!

(1) https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-debates-proceedings/42nd-parliament/4th-session/bills/bills-with-hansard-debate
(2) https://www.leg.bc.ca/documents-data/debate-transcripts/42nd-parliament/4th-session/20231003am-Hansard-n331#bill31-1R
(3) https://www.preventionweb.net/publication/sendai-framework-disaster-risk-reduction-2015-2030
(4) https://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf
(5) https://www.preventionweb.net/files/44983_sendaiframeworkchart.pdf
(6) Sendai Framework 2015 Full Text English
(7) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Conference_on_Disaster_Risk_Reduction

March 4, 2023March 5, 2023

Canadian Grants In Recent Years To Develop Mass Euthanasia Systems For Animals

Searching through Government archives can often lead to some interesting finds. One such result is that we have apparently been handing out taxpayer money to develop euthanasia systems. These are said to be done to prevent the spreading of diseases.

Now, there are only a few listed on this site, but it’s certainly worth a look.

NAME	DATE	AMOUNT
Catch Data Ltd.	May 9, 2022	$100,000.00
Équipe Québécoise De Santé Porcine (Eqsp)	Jan 1, 2022	$948,029.00
Western Canada Livestock Development Corporation	Mar 9, 2018	$854,250.00
Western Canada Livestock Development Corporation	Sep 1, 2019	$235,125.00

According to the program purpose from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada:

Funding to facilitate the agriculture, agri-food and agri-based products sector’s ability to seize opportunities, to respond to new and emerging issues and to pathfind and pilot solutions to new and ongoing issues in order to help it adapt and remain competitive.

Équipe Québécoise De Santé Porcine has a somewhat different agenda, explained as:

The objective of this project is to design and develop an on-farm unit for pig euthanasia by electrocution that will be used during depopulations ordered by the CFIA following a health crisis, for herds undermovement restriction and to rapidly cull livestock in the event that the Canadian borders are closed to exports. In addition, evaluate, identify and acquire equipment to support complementary methods of mass euthanasia, with the aim of better preparing the Quebec pig sector to face a health crisis.

CIFA is, of course, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. That’s very interesting. Supposedly, we need to design systems to mass euthanize pigs, in the event of some upcoming health crisis. Has it already been determined?

Catch Data Ltd.’s agenda, and funded by the National Research Council, is

Development of an automated, connected, adaptive, and self-resetting mechanical cervical dislocation euthanasia system for rodents

This is a euthanasia system that kills by dislocating the spine from the brain. It’s supposed to be very quick. Of course, what’s to stop this from being scaled up to target larger animals? It can’t just be about the rodents. Is disease prevention really the goal?

It could be that all of this is well meaning and benevolent. Then again, this could be developing systems to wipe out parts of the food supply under the guise of “public health”. Who knows?

(1) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/?sort=agreement_start_date+desc&page=1&search_text=euthanasia
(2) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/record/nrc-cnrc,172-2022-2023-Q1-990927,current
(3) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/record/aafc-aac,235-2021-2022-Q4-00130,current
(4) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/record/aafc-aac,235-2019-2020-Q4-00032,current
(5) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/record/aafc-aac,GC-2017-Q4-00046,current

HOLODOMOR, FOOD SHORTAGES
(A) Cricket Production Subsidies, Aspire Food Group
(B) Subsidizing Plant-Based Industry To Replace Meat
(C) Manufactured Food Shortages, Or Just a Coincidence?
(D) NACIA, Global Markets For Insect Consumption, Alternative Protein, Agenda 2030
(E) World Circular Economy Forum, Related Groups, Manufactured Shortages
(F) Private Member’s Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Pandemic Treaty

February 6, 2023February 6, 2023

Private Member’s Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of International Pandemic Treaty

Remember the hype in 2022 about a a proposed Global Pandemic Treaty? This was supposed to be an agreement that would give the World Health Organization binding legal authority over elected Governments. That seems to have stalled, at least to the casual observer.

Of course, the W.H.O. already has binding legal authority over Member States, which includes Canada. Anyone who’s ever read their Constitution would know that. That said, it doesn’t stop politicians from slipping in their rules in domestic legislation.

Private Member’s Bill C-293 was sponsored by Liberal M.P. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York). The content of which is interesting, to say the least.

Most Private Bills don’t become law. However, their content may become embedded into other legislation, and rammed through without proper debate and consideration.

Erskine-Smith isn’t a big player in Canadian politics. So, it’s strange that he would introduce something like this. Have to wonder if he wrote any of it.

Preamble
Whereas the costs of prevention and preparedness measures are insignificant in comparison to the human and economic costs of a pandemic;

Whereas Parliament is committed to making efforts to prevent the risk of and prepare for future pandemics and to promote transparency and accountability in relation to those efforts;

Whereas it is critical to build on the lessons learned from previous outbreaks of serious diseases, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Ebola virus disease (EVD), Zika virus disease, tuberculosis, H1N1 flu and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19);

Whereas a One Health approach — a multisectoral and multidisciplinary collaborative approach that focuses on the human, animal, plant and ecosystem health and welfare interface — is central to preventing the risk of future pandemics;

And whereas this approach requires sustained collaboration among various ministers, all levels of government and Indigenous communities;

Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

There is something of a bait-and-switch here. While the Bill is presented as cooperation between various Governments in Canada, it’s clear that it also involves supra-national control.

Plan — contents
(2) The pandemic prevention and preparedness plan must

(a) set out a summary of mitigation strategies that the Minister of Health intends to implement in order to prevent the risk of and prepare for disease outbreaks that could lead to pandemics, as well as a projected timeline for their implementation;

Should we just state the obvious? They aren’t preparing for future outbreaks. Instead, this is laying the groundwork to erase more of people’s rights under the pretext of an outbreak.

(iv) the surge capacity of human resources required for the testing and contact tracing of persons exposed to infectious diseases, and

Contact tracing is just a means to implement mass surveillance.

(i) the manufacturing capacity in Canada with respect to any product relevant to pandemic preparedness, including vaccines, testing equipment and personal protective equipment, and the measures that the Minister of Industry intends to take to address any supply chain gaps identified, and

Expect more taxpayer money to be pumped into “building up reserves”, regardless of whether such items would ever be used. Think of the millions of vaccines that are going to waste.

(ii) the communications capacity and infrastructure for electronic platforms and tools, including electronic applications that enable contact tracing of persons exposed to infectious diseases that could lead to pandemics;

Building the infrastructure for electronic monitoring of “infected” people?! Canada already has a system in place to track people on parole and probation. Why would such an expansion be necessary, unless they were anticipating a massive influx?

(ii) regulate commercial activities that can contribute to pandemic risk, including industrial animal agriculture,

(iii) promote commercial activities that can help reduce pandemic risk, including the production of alternative proteins, and

Going back to the 2017 Federal Budget, millions were pumped into the “alternative protein” industry. Considering that this Bill also talks about reducing natural agriculture, a cynic may wonder if this is done to force citizens to take these alternative “foods”.

(iv) phase out commercial activities that disproportionately contribute to pandemic risk, including activities that involve high-risk species;

The suggestion has been made many times before, that this can be used as an excuse to attack the food supply. As such, the public would be forced to starve, or seek other alternative foods.

(m) include the following information, to be provided by the Minister of the Environment:
(i) after consultation with relevant provincial ministers, a summary of changes in land use in Canada, including in relation to disturbed habitats, that could contribute to pandemic risk, such as deforestation, encroachment on wildlife habitats and urbanization and that were made, in the case of the first plan, since the last report on changes in land use published under the Federal Sustainable Development Act or, in the case of the updated plans, during the reporting period for the updated plan,

This is essentially merging the U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda with the W.H.O.’s goals. Sorts of sounds like the GREAT RESET, which was just a conspiracy theory.

(ii) a summary of the measures the Minister of the Environment intends to take to reduce the risk that the commercial wildlife trade in Canada and abroad will lead to a pandemic, including measures to regulate or phase out live animal markets, and

Phase out live animal markets? Is this a way to help manufacture a food shortage? Could this be done by claiming that entire farms are “at risk”, and then culling them to protect the public?

(n) include a summary, to be provided by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, of the measures that that minister intends to take to support global health equity, including measures to increase public health capacity around the world and to ensure equitable access to vaccines, testing equipment and treatment;

(o) set out, in consultation with relevant ministers, a summary of key cooperative measures or agreements on disease outbreak prevention and preparedness between the Government of Canada, other foreign governments and key international organizations, including the World Health Organization, the United Nations Environment Programme, the World Organization for Animal Health and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; and

Here’s where it hits home. This will not simply be a Canadian system. Instead, it will be done in collaboration with:

Foreign Governments
World Health Organization
United Nations Environment Programme
U.N. Animal Health and the Food and Agriculture Organization

Read the entire Bill to make sure that nothing is being taken out of context. But this looks like a way to slip even more draconian measures onto the public.

And again, there has been — to my knowledge — any debate or reporting on this Bill. Why exactly is that? Isn’t this in the public interest?

1908: International Public Health Office to be created
1926: International Sanitary Convention was ratified in Paris.
1946: WHO’s Constitution was signed, and it’s something we’ll get into in more detail.
1951: International Sanitary Regulations adopted by Member States.
1969: International Health Regulations (1st Edition) replaced ISR. These are legally binding on all Member States.
2005: International Health Regulations 3rd Edition of IHR were ratified.

Without regurgitating the whole thing, the W.H.O. Constitution has been covered before, including the fact that it’s legally binding on Member States.

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. It takes over (to a large degree) what Health Canada had been doing. The timeline is laid out, and worth a read.

Why does an unknown like Nathaniel Erskine-Smith introduce such a Bill? According to his Wikipedia page, he’s actually brought forward several pieces. This included (in the last Parliament) Bill C-235 to delete the drug possession offence from the Criminal Code. He also brought Bill C-236, to expand diversion alternatives for criminal cases involving drugs.

Whether or not this “Pandemic Treaty” ever goes ahead, this legislation seems designed to carry out the goals it was intended for. Perhaps this should be put to a public debate.

Again, why is this being done quietly in a Private Member’s Bill?

July 11, 2022

World Circular Economy Forum, Related Groups

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.

This is eye-catching, this grant to the World Economic Forum, Center for 4th Industrial Revolution. Isn’t that the name of one of Klaus Schwab’s books? Isn’t this all supposed to be just a conspiracy theory?

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.

(1) https://www.wcef2021.com/
(2) https://www.wcef2021.com/about/
(3) https://circulareconomyleaders.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/WCEF-Financing-the-Circular-Economy-What-We-Heard-Report-20211015-EN1.pdf
(4) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/
(5) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/record/ic,230-2018-2019-04-0189,current
(6) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/habs/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(7) https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf

FOOD SERIES:
(A) https://canucklaw.ca/cricket-production-subsidies-aspire-food-group/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/budget-2017-subsidizing-the-phase-out-of-meat-in-canada/
(C) https://canucklaw.ca/holomodor-2-0-coming-or-all-just-a-coincidence/
(D) https://canucklaw.ca/nacia-and-insect-consumption-alternative-protein-market/

June 20, 2022June 20, 2022

NACIA, And Insect Consumption, Alternative Protein Market

“Eat the bugs” is a global effort to change the consumption habits of people and animals across the world. It’s also part of a larger movement towards “alternative” sources of protein. And a significant piece of this is being financed with public money. Let’s get into some of the details.

For clarity: the $152.8 million to Protein Industries Canada is to fund the “Supercluster” as outlined in the 2017 Federal Budget. The money is then redistributed to various grantees.

There are also significant grants being handed out for various plant-based meats and alternatives. So, it’s not all about just the bugs. Merit is a new food processor on the north end of Winnipeg and works with plant proteins. Seems that Government really is trying to kill traditional farming.

Isn’t it strange that so much money is spent on pesticides and other things to wipe out insects, but now, they are to be breed on a massive scale?

Note: some of these entries were included in a previous piece on the subject of subsidies for cricket farming. However, the issue is far bigger than just that.

COMPANY	DATE	SUBJECT	AMOUNT
2066879 Alberta Ltd.	May 17, 2018	Baked Products W/Insect Proteins	$10,000.00
2589002 Ontario Inc.	Jun 1, 2020	Raw Insect-Based Protein For Pets	$43,812.00
Aspire Food Group Ltd.	Jul 10, 2020	Build Comm. Demonstration Facility	$8,500,000.00
Aspire Food Group Ltd.	Nov 1, 2021	Cricket Production, Processing Facility	$50,000.00
Casa Bonita Foods, Inc.	Aug 9, 2021	Protein Snacks With Cricket Flour	$39,000.00
Dalhousie University	Mar 30, 2021	Hemp/Cannabis Waste	$25,000.00
Enterra Feed Corp.	May 1, 2020	Alternative Proteins For Animals	$24,000.00
Entologik Inc	Jun 18, 2020	Continuity Of Operations	$58,979.00
Entologik Inc	Aug 3, 2020	Automate The Rearing Process	$30,000.00
Ferme Bogemans Inc.	Dec 3, 2018	Animal Nutrition From Insects, Fertilizer	$40,430.00
Gaia Protein Ltd.	Apr 1, 2021	Cricket Production Technology	$42,000.00
Grévio Inc.	May 11, 2020	Egg Laying, Hatching, Rearing Crickets	$48,800.00
Griffith Foods Limited	May 1, 2019	Alternative Protein Products	$61,000.00
McGill University	Nov 5, 2021	Cricket Rearing, Collection, Transformation	$30,000.00
Merit Functional Foods	Feb 24, 2020	Plant-Based Proteins From Peas/Canola	$10,000,000.00
Näak Inc.	Oct 29, 2018	Products Cooked W/Cricket Powder	$48,517.00
Näak Inc.	Sep 23, 2020	Low-Powder Cricket Energy Bars	$123,178.00
OECD	Mar 20, 2020	Market Research, Alt Proteins	$97,460.00
PEI Bioalliance	Nov 18, 2020	Sustainable Protein Production Program	$601,817.00
Pholoho Biotechnology	Jan 24, 2022	Equipment For Insect-Based Proteins	$115,000.00
Protein Industries Canada	Mar 15, 2018	Protein Industries Supercluster	$152,843,759.00
Queen’s University	Mar 30, 2020	Insect/Plant-Based Proteins	$132,158.00
Sustento Inc.	Dec 1, 2021	Dog Food With Novel Ingredients	$50,000.00
Veterinarians W/O Borders	Dec 16, 2021	Innovation, Cricket Farming	$1,999,999.00

Of course, all of the listings here can be verified by checking the Federal Government’s own database on grant money issued.

The alternative protein section is just 1 out of 5 initiatives undertaken in this program. Pretty convenient that we had shutdowns over the last 2 years decimating undesirable industries.

Aspire Food Group, did recently announce that its cricket production plant in London, Ontario was finally finished. A large part of this was financed by Canadian taxpayers. Additionally, Aspire is part of NACIA, the North American Coalition for Insect Agriculture. This is big business.

Insects are an untapped natural resource with the potential to change our agricultural systems to be safer and more sustainable.

Anchored by Founding Member companies, Aspire Food Group, Beta Hatch, EnviroFlight, InnovaFeed, and Ynsect, NACIA members are currently 200 strong, based in 12 countries, 50 companies, and 23 universities.

NACIA members include insect producers, product makers in food, animal feed, pet food and soil health, as well as technology and service providers for agriculture and food. Researcher and university student members are examining how to improve the insect agriculture industry through scientific inquiry.

NACIA is currently working to improve the regulatory environment in North America, connect our members with industry stakeholders, and the knowledge they need to grow. We also work to inform key stakeholders about the potential for insects to provide environmentally sustainable, highly nutritious ingredients that can be produced as part of circular and regenerative agriculture.

It’s interesting that their “mission statement” talks about creating more sustainable agriculture systems. This suggests that the goal isn’t just to supplement more traditional farming, but to replace it altogether. Hard to disregard the food processing plants being destroyed, in light of this.

NACIA partners with similar organizations in Asia and Australia, and with the pet-food industry. It’s not just about getting humans to eat the bugs, but their dogs and cats too.

NACIA retweeted this February 9 article from the World Economic Forum on how eating bug can help reduce climate change. That is a very common talking point: that converting from a meat diet to a bug or plant based diet will reduce greenhouse gases.

NACIA’s Twitter account was created in 2017. Although not terribly active, it does boost other groups and individuals connected in the industry.

In April 2022, NACIA co-hosted a webinar with IPIFF about trans-Atlantic business opportunities for farmed insects both for human and animal consumption. Bugs were also to be used in fertilizer. Interestingly, they cite the corona “pandemic” and conflict in Ukraine as reasons to accelerate. Watch the clip from the start of the video.

Now, what if things were even more organized than that?

This agreement seemed so harmless when Stephen Harper signed it in 2015, doesn’t it? Now, Trudeau is domestically implementing it, showing there’s really just 1 party.

Kudos as well to Jordan Peterson. He did a great job at the U.N. for those 3 years, removing the ideological clap-trap (his terminology), to make the contents less obvious to readers.

Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture
2.1 By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round
2.2 By 2030, end all forms of malnutrition, including achieving, by 2025, the internationally agreed targets on stunting and wasting in children under 5 years of age, and address the nutritional needs of adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women and older persons
2.3 By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets and opportunities for value addition and non-farm employment
2.4 By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and that progressively improve land and soil quality
2.5 By 2020, maintain the genetic diversity of seeds, cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and their related wild species, including through soundly managed and diversified seed and plant banks at the national, regional and international levels, and promote access to and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, as internationally agreed
2.a Increase investment, including through enhanced international cooperation, in rural infrastructure, agricultural research and extension services, technology development and plant and livestock gene banks in order to enhance agricultural productive capacity in developing countries, in particular least developed countries
2.b Correct and prevent trade restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets, including through the parallel elimination of all forms of agricultural export subsidies and all export measures with equivalent effect, in accordance with the mandate of the Doha Development Round
2.c Adopt measures to ensure the proper functioning of food commodity markets and their derivatives and facilitate timely access to market information, including on food reserves, in order to help limit extreme food price volatility

Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts*
13.1 Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries
13.2 Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning
13.3 Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning
13.a Implement the commitment undertaken by developed-country parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion annually by 2020 from all sources to address the needs of developing countries in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation and fully operationalize the Green Climate Fund through its capitalization as soon as possible
13.b Promote mechanisms for raising capacity for effective climate change-related planning and management in least developed countries and small island developing States, including focusing on women, youth and local and marginalized communities
.
* Acknowledging that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the primary international, intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change.

Consider Goal #2 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda, or Agenda 2030. All of this sounds harmless on the surface, until you realize that “sustainable food systems” means replacing what we have now in the West.

As for Goal #13: if we take the notion at face value that climate change is a dire threat, and bug-based agriculture and manufactured proteins can offset that, then this new type of food supply could be seen as a solution. Of course, this is just an excuse to sabotage existing systems.

It’s a common sales pitch that insect farming leads to a higher protein yield than with more traditional ones (like with livestock). Other sources of protein can be manufactured. The goal is simply to boost production overall, but reducing the quality of the protein sources available. Did anyone here really want bug diets?

It has been widely speculated that pandemic restrictions (particularly restrictions on travel and movement) would be brought back. However, the next iteration would be climate lockdowns. This is a variation of removing freedoms. But instead of losing the ability to travel, the autonomy over diet could be restricted. After all, we can’t have people eating meat when there is a climate crisis.

Re-watch the video above. It’s clear that pushing insect consumption is being done — at least in part — under the guise of UN Agenda 2030. There’s lots of “non-meat” alternatives being pushed.

Of course, it seems very unlikely that the elites who rule us will ever have to eat the bugs. Exceptions will be made for those essential people.

(1) https://search.open.canada.ca/grants/
(2) https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/innovation-superclusters-initiative/en/about-canadas-innovation-superclusters-initiative
(3) https://nacia.org/
(4) https://nacia.org/partners
(5) https://twitter.com/NACIA_org
(6) https://twitter.com/CEIF_InsectAg/status/1491508619740917763
(7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIHbSE_1–g
(8) https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/02/how-insects-positively-impact-climate-change/
(9) https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda

Category: Holodomor 2.0