Category: World

Posted on

CV #35: Vaccine Indemnification Rulings In The Canadian Courts

If vaccines work as advertised, then why is it necessary to immunize (no pun intended), the manufacturers from potential legal action?

Bill Gates believes that Governments will have to be involved in the process of vaccine development and distribution, in order to indemnify (make immune), manufacturers for the harm their products will cause. However, Gates seems far less concerned about the potential harms from the vaccines. His worry appears to be potential lawsuits resulting from those harms. By the way, you don’t have a choice about being vaccinated.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy is thoroughly compromised, as shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. Important Links

Quebec (Attorney-General) v. Lapierre, 1983 CanLII 2860 (QC CA)
QC Court Of Appeal Ruling
Lapierre v. A.G. (Que.), 1985 CanLII 66 (SCC), [1985] 1 SCR 241
Supreme Court Of Canada Ruling

Rothwell v. Raes (Ont. H.C.J.), 1988 CanLII 4636 (ON SC)
Rothwell 1988 Ruling
Rothwell Ruling 1988 Vaccine Injury

Frank v Alberta Health Services, 2019 ABCA 332 (CanLII)
Frank V. AHS Trial Court Ruling
Frank V. AHS Appellate Ruling

Interim Order For Temporary Vaccine Approval
Product Information For H1N1 Approved Vaccine
Adam, Abudu v. Ledesma-Cadhit et al, 2014 ONSC 5726 (CanLII)
2014 Ruling On Indemnification of Manufacturer
Adam v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2019 ONSC 7066 (CanLII)
Adam V. GSK Ruling (ONSC)
ONSC 2014 Ruling
Adam V GlaxoSmithKline 2019

WHO On Vaccine Injury Compensation Programs

3. LaPierre V. Attorney General Of Quebec

Appellant’s daughter was vaccinated against measles as part of a vaccination program established by the Government of Quebec. A few days after receiving the vaccine, she was the victim of acute viral encephalitis which ultimately resulted in the permanent almost total disablement of the child. Appellant brought an action for damages against the Government. The Superior Court allowed the action and decided against the Government on the basis of no‑fault liability resulting from necessity and grounded on art. 1057 C.C. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment on the ground that Quebec civil law does not recognize no‑fault liability. In this Court, the causal link between the vaccine and the encephalitis was no longer disputed and fault was no longer alleged against anyone. Appellant based his claim against the Government on no‑fault or “objective” liability. He relied on a legal principle derived from the theory of necessity, that damages suffered or costs incurred by an individual for the benefit of the community must be borne by the latter. The question was therefore whether the principle on which appellant’s entire case rested has any support in the law of Quebec.

Held: The appeal should be dismissed.
.
The Government of Quebec cannot be held liable for the harm caused to the child by administration of the vaccine. Although in the case at bar recognition of the existence of an obligation independent of any fault would be an excellent thing, no such obligation exists in Quebec civil law. Extrapolation of several provisions of the Civil Code and the ancient law provide no basis for a general principle of the civil law that damages suffered or costs incurred by an individual for the benefit of the community must be borne by the latter. Article 1057 C.C. also provides no legislative support for this principle. That article exists only to explain art. 983 C.C. by giving examples of obligations resulting solely from the operation of law. It does not have the effect of making fortuitous events ‑‑ the danger of an epidemic in the case at bar ‑‑ a sixth and new source of obligations.

The Supreme Court ultimately decided that just because someone may be harmed (by a vaccine), which was taken to protect the community, the community itself owes no obligation to the person. It seems no good deed goes unpunished.

Following this case, however, Quebec did end up introducing a plan to compensate victims of vaccine injury. It remains the only such program in Canada.

4. Rothwell V. Raes, Ontario, Et Al

Even the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses agreed that if a causal connection existed between pertussis vaccine and brain damage — encephalopathy — it was extremely rare. Thus the personal experience of such cases, even on the part of the most specialized consultants, was necessarily limited. The witnesses referred to many scientific publications in giving testimony and annexed them to their reports. The decision had to be based on the evidence of the witnesses including their reports, but articles and studies referred to could be used to assess the evidence where there was conflict. The question was difficult and complex.

The defendant physician was not negligent either in recommending the vaccination or in failing to warn of possible damaging effects. It was at the time the practice to recommend vaccination without reference to the rare possibility of harmful consequences. Three doses of the vaccine were administered, two of them by the locum, and no reaction which would have caused alarm occurred after either of the first two. Nor was the physician negligent in his choice of physicians to serve as locum tenens. No evidence of negligence on her part was offered.

Liability for the locum tenens
.
Even if the locum had been negligent, she was exercising her own professional skill and judgment and the family physician could not be vicariously liable.

Manufacturer’s liability
.
The manufacturer’s leading researchers were familiar with the literature postulating encephalopathy and grave brain damage as possible consequences of administration of the vaccine. Had the manufacturer warned the physician the court could not presume that he would have failed to discuss the possibilities or at least mention them. Therefore the manufacturer was negligent in this respect. It was not negligent in failing to manufacture the Japanese version of the vaccine since no tests had been done which would have led to its acceptance by the scientific community as superior to the product used.

The ministry’s liability
.
The province reasonably relied on the federal government to license and monitor vaccines. The province’s decision not to exercise the authority it had, and had at one time used, to regulate and monitor did not subject it to liability. No other province issued warnings at the time. Only one monitored drugs used. Hence no negligence could be found on the part of the ministry.

One of the reasons cited in the dismissal was failure to prove causation. However, the ruling makes it pretty clear that there would be no finding of negligence even if it were demonstrated. The only exception would have been the manufacturer (possibly), for failing to disclose risks.

5. Frank V. AB Health Services 2019

[1] Health Services, 2018 ABQB 541. The issue on this appeal is whether Alberta Health Services and the nurse who immunized her are immune from liability even if negligence was proven.

[2] The trial judge found that the respondents are protected by the immunity provisions in s. 66.1 of the Public Health Act, RSA 2000, c. P-37:
.
66.1(1) No action for damages may be commenced against
(a) the Crown or a Minister of the Crown,
(b) a regional health authority or a member, employee or agent of a regional health authority,
(c) an employee under the administration of the Minister,
(d) the Chief Medical Officer, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, an executive officer or a medical officer of health,
(e) a health practitioner,
(f) a teacher, a person in charge of an institution or a medical director of a facility, or
(g) repealed 2008 c. H-5.3 s. 24,
(h) a provincial health board established under the Regional Health Authorities Act
.
for anything done or not done by that person in good faith while carrying out duties or exercising powers under this or any other enactment.

(2) No action for damages may be commenced against any person or organization acting under the direction of the Crown, a Minister of the Crown, the Chief Medical Officer, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer or a medical officer of health for anything done or not done by that person or organization in good faith directly or indirectly related to a public health emergency while carrying out duties or exercising powers under this or any other enactment. [emphasis added]

[5] The trial judge wrote at para. 19 that Nurse Sykes was performing “a duty delegated to her”, which is no more than a synonym for “a duty assigned” to her. The appellant argues that immunity is not extended to those exercising “delegated duties”, but that would render the section largely redundant. It is difficult to conceive of a situation where an employee of the Health Authority (or a number of others in the protected categories, like “teachers”) would be “carrying out duties” (to use the words of s. 66.1) that are not in some sense “delegated” or “assigned” to them. The appellant also argues that the immunity does not extend to “negligence”, but that would also render the section ineffective. There is no civil liability for non-negligent health services, so the immunity clause must extend to the negligent provision of services to have any meaning.

[6] It is true that health care practitioners generally owe a private duty of care to their patients, and are liable in tort for negligent care that causes damage. But as the trial judge noted at para. 18, this statute is directed at “public” health concerns, not just “private” health concerns:

. . . The intent of the Act and the Communicable Diseases Regulation is in the protection of public health, including preventative care against communicable diseases which may affect large segments of the population. The liability immunity for health practitioners like Sykes is consistent with the purpose of the Act particularly when one considers the nature of mass vaccination clinics and the need for the Minister and regional health authorities to efficiently administer vaccinations.

There is a public benefit to having a significant level of vaccination against communicable diseases within the larger community. The Legislature has identified a public benefit in protecting professionals practicing in the public health field from liability for public health treatment administered in good faith.

[7] The appellant points to the rather complicated legislative history of this provision. The immunity clause, however, must be interpreted according to its plain words, in the context of the entire statute. On that basis there is no reviewable error in the decision under appeal.

[8] The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

In short, health practitioners (and bureaucrats), cannot be held liable in Alberta if they are acting in good faith, and are following the orders of Public Health Officials. While there may be some benefit to this, it allows practitioners to “pass the buck” in a sense, and just defer to someone else.

6. Interim Orders On H1N1 Vaccines

Adam, Abudu v. Ledesma-Cadhit et al, 2014 ONSC 5726 (CanLII)
Adam v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2019 ONSC 7066 (CanLII)

There are actually 2 different rulings based on vaccine injury from GlaxoSmithKline. Here are quotes from the later ruling.

[15] In early 2009, the WHO became aware of the development of a new strain of influenza virus: H1N1, commonly known as swine flu. It had not been seen in human populations before, as a result of which humans had no built up immunity. The WHO declared H1N1 to be a pandemic.

[16] On June 11, 2009, the WHO declared a phase 6 pandemic. This is the final and most serious stage of a pandemic. It marks sustained human-to-human transmission of the virus in more than one region of the world. By early July there had been 94,512 reported cases and approximately 429 recorded deaths attributable to H1N1.

[17] In the summer of 2009, the WHO called for manufacturers to begin clinical trials for a vaccine to combat H1N1.

[18] GSK developed two vaccines to combat H1N1: Arepanrix and Pandemrix. Both are substantially similar. Pandemrix was manufactured and distributed in Europe. Arepanrix was manufactured and distributed in Canada. Clinical trials for Arepanrix began in 2008 but had not been completed when the pandemic was declared.

[19] The federal Minister of Health authorized the sale of the Arepanrix vaccine pursuant to an interim order dated October 13, 2009. Human trials of the vaccine were still underway. The Minister of Health is empowered to make interim orders if immediate action is required because of a danger to health, safety or the environment. In issuing the interim order, Health Canada deemed the risk profile of Arepanrix to be favourable for an interim order. The authorization was based on the risk caused by the current pandemic threat and its danger to human health. As part of the interim order process, Health Canada agreed to indemnify GSK for any claims brought against it in relation to the administration of the Arepanrix vaccine.

[20] Although human trials of Arepanrix were not finished by the time Health Canada authorized its use, the vaccine was not without clinical history.

[33] The fundamental challenge with the plaintiffs’ case in this regard is that they produced no expert to testify to this effect. While I agree with the plaintiffs’ submission that expert evidence is not necessarily required to demonstrate a breach of the standard of care, the absence of such evidence when faced with complex issues beyond the day-to-day experience of the trier creates additional challenges for the plaintiffs’ case.

[34] The plaintiffs’ principal allegation with respect to the standard of care is that GSK failed to make adequate disclosure of the risks involved with Arepanrix.

[35] The plaintiffs began their challenge about disclosure with the evidence of Ms. Hyacenth who testified that she was not told that: (i) the vaccine had not been tested through the usual route, (ii) the vaccine had been subject to a hastened approval process by Health Canada, (iii) adjuvants had never been used in children, (iv) the Government of Canada was indemnifying the vaccine manufacturer; and (v) some countries refused to make the vaccine available because of safety concerns. Ms. Hyacenth says that had she been told about these things she would not have risked having her children vaccinated.

[36] Part of the challenge of the plaintiffs’ inadequate disclosure case is that Ms. Hyacenth was not the direct purchaser of the vaccine. Vaccines are administered through a “learned intermediary,” in this case, her family physician. The issue is significant because any disclosures GSK makes are made in product monographs or inserts that accompany each vial of vaccine. The patient getting the vaccine does not receive the box containing the vaccine and whatever disclosure document it contains. It is the physician who receives this.

[37] GSK did disclose in its Product Information Leaflet for the Arepanrix vaccine and in its product monograph that Health Canada had authorized the sale of the vaccine based on only limited clinical testing and no clinical experience at all with children. Dr. Ledesma-Cadhit believes she knew this from the Health Canada website. She was also aware that Arepanrix was authorized through a special process because of the pandemic.

[38] The product monograph for Arepanrix disclosed that there was limited clinical experience with an investigational formulation of another adjuvanted vaccine but no clinical experience with children. In addition, the product information leaflet and product monograph disclosed a number of risks.

In short, Health Canada approved a vaccine that in which trials were still ongoing. The doctor, despite reading the lengthy disclaimer, injected it, and this comes in spite of there being no trials on children.

The Canadian Government had agreed to indemnify the manufacturer ahead of time. Moreover, the victims didn’t buy the product from the manufacturer, but from the doctor, a “learned intermediary”. In short, GlaxoSmithKline was legally off the hook for what it sold to the public.

7. Canada To Expedite Vaccines

This admission from Theresa Tam should concern people. She openly admits that vaccine development takes over a decade, but that this will be pushed ahead.

However, if this is such a “novel” virus, then how exactly can scientists rely on all this previous research? Either it’s a similar virus, or it’s very different. It can’t simultaneously be both.

And no, it wasn’t “Covid-19” that took away people’s livelihoods. It was the dictatorial actions of power hungry politicians and bureaucrats.

8. WHO On Vaccine Injury Compensation

Arguments for schemes
Arguments supporting vaccine-injury compensation include political and economic pressures, litigation threats, increasing confidence in population-based vaccine programmes and ensuring sustainability of vaccine supply. However, compensation schemes are also based on underlying principles of fairness and justice.

A vaccine-injury compensation scheme removes the uncertainty of tort liability for manufacturers and provides a more fair, efficient and stable approach for injured parties. Litigation is an expensive and restricted avenue that is inaccessible for many vaccine recipients. Furthermore, compensation schemes avoid the polarization of drug companies against vaccine recipients through litigation and the associated negative media coverage.

Standard of proof
No-fault vaccine-injury compensation programmes are based on the premise that the adverse outcome is not attributable to a specific individual or industry but due to an unavoidable risk associated with vaccines. A problem for all compensation schemes is determining whether there is a causal relationship between a vaccine and a specific injury. The method by which causation is proven in tort law can be quite different from the accepted method of establishing causation in science and epidemiology. The most commonly accepted criteria for establishing epidemiological causation are the Bradford Hill criteria. While they do not provide a definitive checklist for assessing causality, these criteria provide a framework for separating causal and non-causal explanations of observed associations. Despite its importance, there is no single, clear consensus on the definition of causation.

Conclusion
Vaccine-injury compensation programmes are increasingly regarded as an important component of successful vaccination programmes. They have been used for the past 50 years to ensure that individuals who are adversely affected in the interests of protecting the whole community are adequately compensated and cared for. There are a variety of schemes with different structures and approaches in use throughout the world. The schemes function most efficiently when they operate alongside well established, comprehensive national social welfare systems. In these countries, vaccine-injury compensation schemes have been found to have a relatively low administrative cost, especially compared to civil litigation cases.

In the first decade of the 21st century, acceptance of vaccine-injury compensation has grown. Schemes are being enacted beyond industrialized Europe and North America. The importance of these schemes, based on ethical principles, has been stressed by parent groups, and claimants have reported satisfaction in having received compensation through a streamlined process. Apart from the reluctance of governments to move away from the adversarial approach to providing compensation, we believe there is a strong argument for widespread implementation of these programmes in other developed countries.

This is a 2011 article from the World Health Organization. Despite the claimed benefits, there are certainly drawbacks. It’s worth pointing out that they don’t actually make vaccines any safer. They are just a way to placate the public and increase confidence by offering a (tax-payer funded), way for victims to get some money.

Drug companies will still get their profits, but the losses will be socialized. This is typical of the corporatist mindset.

From their perspective, there isn’t really any downside. Pharma companies can still push their drugs onto the public, and any serious harm will be paid back by the public. While the process for collecting is certainly easier than going to court, it ensures that the full truth will never come out.

Currently, a vaccine injury compensation program exists in Quebec, but no other Canadian Province.

Posted on

Bill C-10; Censorship; Theresa Tam Openly Admits Social Media Collusion

What a goldmine this short video clip is. Theresa “the Apple” Tam openly admits that there is collusion on social media, (see 3:55), such as: (a) automatically forwarding searches to specific sites; (b) demonetizing certain accounts; and (c) algorithm manipulation to prevent certain information from being seen.

Tam also parrots the UNESCO narrative regarding misinformation. At 6:00, Tam asks people to create videos and testimonials promote the Covid narrative. At 7:00, Tam uses “Vaccine Confidence“, which is actually a global psychological effort to get people vaccinated.

And while Trudeau denies internment camps are being built, Brampton Mayor, a “conserative” Patrick Brown thanks people for receiving the funding to build an internment camp.
https://twitter.com/patrickbrownont/status/1325997706943352832

1. Free Speech Is Under Constant Threat

Check here for the series free speech. It’s a crucial topic, and is typically intertwined with other categories. Topic include: Digital Cooperation; the IGF, or Internet Governance Forum; ex-Liberal Candidate Richard Lee; the Digital Charter; Dominic LeBlanc’s proposal. There is also collusion, done by UNESCO, more UNESCO, Facebook, Google, and Twitter lobbying.

2. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy is thoroughly compromised, as shown: here, here, here, and here.

3. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Trudeau/Tam casually admitting to censorship.
CLICK HERE, for Tam looking for ways to vaccinate more people.
CLICK HERE, for great censorship piece by INFORRM.ORG.
CLICK HERE, for social media firms “catching misinformation”.
CLICK HERE, for Dominic LeBlanc considering “misinformation” law.
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-10 introduced in Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for openparliament.ca, Bill C-10 entry.

CLICK HERE, for Google censorship “keeping the public safe”.
CLICK HERE, for Google meeting Canadian Gov’t.
https://archive.is/2NNky
WayBack Machine Archive

CLICK HERE, for information on Twitter platform censorship.
CLICK HERE, for Twitter lobbying Canadian Government.
https://archive.is/L67ID

CLICK HERE, for Facebook promoting censorship.
CLICK HERE, for Facebook influence/lobbying Gov’t.
https://archive.is/3Mwny
WayBack Machine Archive

4. Tam: Duties For Social Media Companies

Tam and Deputy Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Howard Njoo warned against misinformation about vaccine safety online and explained why social media giants have a role to play in sharing trusted material.

“This is the first pandemic in the age of the Internet and social media. This is an area of significant work because we have an overload of information through which many Canadians can’t sort out what is credible and what is not,” she said.

“I look towards different partners, government departments coming together to look at how we better address some of the myths and misinformation that is in that space. I think fundamentally it’s a massive challenge.”

The Statistics Canada report also shows that nearly 58 per cent of respondents said that they were very likely to get the COVID-19 vaccine, a majority being 65 and older.

Theresa Tam openly says that social media has a role to play in advancing the vaccination agenda, and in countering information that contradicts the official narrative. Also, take a look into the issue of “vaccine hesitancy“, or vaccine confidence.

5. YouTube/Google Openly Censor Critics Online

Canuck Law was given a strike and had a video removed for contradicting the official narrative on YouTube. The video was based on Part 29 in the series: lies of public health officials. As such, it has become clear that real discussion on the platform will never be permitted.

If you’re posting content
Don’t post content on YouTube if it includes any of the following:
.
Treatment Misinformation: Discourages someone from seeking medical treatment by encouraging the use of cures or remedies to treat COVID-19.
.
-Claims that COVID-19 doesn’t exist or that people do not die from it
-Content that encourages the use of home remedies in place of medical treatment such as consulting a doctor or going to the hospital
-Content that encourages the use of prayer or rituals in place of medical treatment
-Content that claims that a vaccine for coronavirus is available or that there’s a guaranteed cure
-Claims about COVID-19 vaccinations that contradict expert consensus from local health authorities or WHO
-Content that claims that any currently-available medicine prevents you from getting the coronavirus
-Other content that discourages people from consulting a medical professional or seeking medical advice
-Prevention Misinformation: Content that promotes prevention methods that contradict local health authorities or WHO.
.
Diagnostic Misinformation: Content that promotes diagnostic methods that contradict local health authorities or WHO.
.
Transmission Misinformation: Content that promotes transmission information that contradicts local health authorities or WHO.
.
-Content that claims that COVID-19 is not caused by a viral infection
-Content that claims COVID-19 is not contagious
-Content that claims that COVID-19 cannot spread in certain climates or geographies
-Content that claims that any group or individual has immunity to the virus or cannot transmit the virus
-Content that disputes the efficacy of local health authorities’ or WHO’s guidance on physical distancing or self-isolation measures to reduce transmission of COVID-19

Educational, documentary, scientific or artistic content
We may allow content that violates the misinformation policies noted on this page if that content includes context that gives equal or greater weight to countervailing views from local health authorities or to medical or scientific consensus. We may also make exceptions if the purpose of the content is to condemn or dispute misinformation that violates our policies. This context must appear in the images or audio of the video itself. Providing it in the title or description is insufficient.

Examples
Here are some examples of content that’s not allowed on YouTube:
.
–Denial that COVID-19 exists
-Claims that people have not died from COVID-19
-Claims that there’s a guaranteed vaccine for COVID-19
-Claims that a specific treatment or medicine is a guaranteed cure for COVID-19
-Claims that certain people have immunity to COVID-19 due to their race or nationality
-Encouraging taking home remedies instead of getting medical treatment when sick
-Discouraging people from consulting a medical professional if they’re sick
-Content that claims that holding your breath can be used as a diagnostic test for COVID-19
-Videos alleging that if you avoid Asian food, you won’t get the coronavirus
-Videos alleging that setting off fireworks can clean the air of the virus
-Claims that COVID-19 is caused by radiation from 5G networks
-Videos alleging that the COVID-19 test is the cause of the virus
-Claims that countries with hot climates will not experience the spread of the virus
-Videos alleging that social distancing and self-isolation are not effective in reducing the spread of the virus
-Claims that the COVID-19 vaccine will kill people who receive it

These are the rules that YouTube (which is actually owned by Google), now have in place. The actual truth or research of the videos are irrelevant. The deciding factor is whether or not it contradicts the official narrative.

Google, the parent company of YouTube, has been meeting with Federal officials for a variety of issues, including media manipulation regarding the “pandemic”.

6. Twitter Censorship, Meeting With Gov’t

In serving the public conversation, our goal is to make it easy to find credible information on Twitter and to limit the spread of potentially harmful and misleading content. Starting today, we’re introducing new labels and warning messages that will provide additional context and information on some Tweets containing disputed or misleading information related to COVID-19.

In March, we broadened our policy guidance to address content that goes directly against guidance on COVID-19 from authoritative sources of global and local public health information. Moving forward, we may use these labels and warning messages to provide additional explanations or clarifications in situations where the risks of harm associated with a Tweet are less severe but where people may still be confused or misled by the content. This will make it easier to find facts and make informed decisions about what people see on Twitter.

New labels and warnings
.
During active conversations about disputed issues, it can be helpful to see additional context from trusted sources. Earlier this year, we introduced a new label for Tweets containing synthetic and manipulated media. Similar labels will now appear on Tweets containing potentially harmful, misleading information related to COVID-19. This will also apply to Tweets sent before today.

Twitter has updated their policies a few times this year, but it falls along the same idea as YouTube: information that openly contradicts the official position and recommendation of the World Health Organization and its proxies is at risk of being censored.

People like Theresa Tam and Justin Trudeau aren’t alarmed at the blatant censorship going on in the online sphere. On the contrary, they fully support it, as it undermines attempts to disprove their claims.

Subject Matter Details
Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution
–Bill C-10, An Act to Amend the Broadcasting Act and make related and consequential amendments to other acts
-Broadcasting and Telecommunications Review with regard to proposals to regulate online content.
-Income Tax Act, with regard to digital tax proposals.
-Intellectual property proposals and legislation with regard to copyright and online content.
-National Data Strategy consultations with regard to innovation, trust and privacy.
-Privacy legislation or proposals such the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) with regard to data collection, safety, and use.

Policies or Program
-Internet advertising policy, specifically the adoption of digital media and advertising by government.
-Working with government agencies to help them understand how social media companies create their own rules and policies.
-Working with government agencies to help them understand how to use social media during elections.

Twitter has also been meeting with the Federal Government on issues such as Bill C-10, and regulating online content. This screams of efforts to crack down on free speech and censor unpleasant truth.

7. Facebook Censorship/Collusion Over Covid

Ever since COVID-19 was declared a global public health emergency in January, we’ve been working to connect people to accurate information from health experts and keep harmful misinformation about COVID-19 from spreading on our apps.

We’ve now directed over 2 billion people to resources from the WHO and other health authorities through our COVID-19 Information Center and pop-ups on Facebook and Instagram with over 350 million people clicking through to learn more.

But connecting people to credible information is only half the challenge. Stopping the spread of misinformation and harmful content about COVID-19 on our apps is also critically important. That’s why we work with over 60 fact-checking organizations that review and rate content in more than 50 languages around the world. In the past month, we’ve continued to grow our program to add more partners and languages. Since the beginning of March, we’ve added eight new partners and expanded our coverage to more than a dozen new countries. For example, we added MyGoPen in Taiwan, the AFP and dpa in the Netherlands, Reuters in the UK, and others.

Facebook is quite open about the fact that they are trying to alter the narrative and prop up official versions of events. They also have no qualms about censoring so-called “misinformation”.

Facebook has also been meeting with the Federal Government, on a variety of issues. It would be nice to actually have the minutes of these meetings, not just a vague description.

8. CBC Promotes Limiting Free Speech

Social media platforms have taken unprecedented steps to fight misinformation online because of the COVID-19 pandemic, but some critics say they could still do more.

Facebook, Twitter and Google/YouTube have ramped up their efforts to police content that contains incorrect or harmful information, taking down the worst offenders, attaching warnings to content that has been fact-checked and linking to official sources, such as the Public Health Agency of Canada.

That includes posts such as a viral video by an American doctor on disciplinary probation in which he claims 5G technology causes coronavirus (it does not) or a false post implying the Canadian Armed Forces were in Toronto, but which turned out to be a photo of a tank taken during a festival in 2016.

On Thursday, Facebook said it has attached warnings to 40 million posts about COVID-19, and that 95 per cent of the time, users did not click through to see the content. Twitter says it has taken down over 2,000 tweets related to COVID-19 and “challenged” 2.8 million accounts, which can mean limiting who sees certain tweets, requiring a tweet to be removed or placing a warning on tweets that violate rules but are in the public interest to leave up.

This should alarm people. Twitter, Google and Facebook have all decided what shall constitute the truth, and are intentionally limiting access to information that doesn’t fit the narrative. Let’s not forget that the Liberals are considering laws to ban what they call “misinformation”.

9. Trudeau/Erin O’Toole Both Compromised

Trudeau: His Chief-Of-Staff, Katie Telford, is married to Rob Silver, co-founder of Crestview Strategy. Crestview has long lobbied for GAVI (which is Gates funded). Andrew Scheer was also lobbied by GAVI.

O’Toole: His Chief-Of-Staff, Walied, Soliman, is a director for Sick Kids Hospital in Toronto (which is also Gates funded).

Also: Erin O’Toole, who is currently the head of the Conservative Party of Canada, was previously a lobbyist for Facebook, when he worked for Heenan Blakie. Blakie is the now defunct law firm which Jean Chretien and Pierre Trudeau both worked at.

10. Bill C-10: Online Censorship, Licensing

In early February, Steven Guilbeault, the Heritage Minister announced that the Government wanted mandate that all media outlets to have a license. He (sort of) backtracked after a public backlash. While this may have just been viewed as a tax grab at the time, it takes on a whole new look in light of the censorship attitude in this “pandemic”.

It’s official: Bill C-10 has now been introduced in the House of Commons. It’s been marketed as an effort to force media giants to spend money on Canadian content. Let’s take a look.

SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Broadcasting Act to, among other things,
(a) add online undertakings — undertakings for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet — as a distinct class of broadcasting undertakings;
(b) update the broadcasting policy for Canada set out in section 3 of that Act by, among other things, providing that the Canadian broadcasting system should serve the needs and interests of all Canadians — including Canadians from racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds — and should provide opportunities for Indigenous persons, programming that reflects Indigenous cultures and that is in Indigenous languages, and programming that is accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities;
(c) specify that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (the “Commission”) must regulate and supervise the Canadian broadcasting system in a manner that
(i) takes into account the different characteristics of Indigenous language broadcasting and the different conditions under which broadcasting undertakings that provide Indigenous language programming operate,
(ii) is fair and equitable as between broadcasting undertakings providing similar services,
(iii) facilitates the provision of programs that are accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities, and
(iv) takes into account the variety of broadcasting undertakings to which that Act applies and avoids imposing obligations on a class of broadcasting undertakings if doing so will not contribute in a material manner to the implementation of the broadcasting policy;
(d) amend the procedure relating to the issuance by the Governor in Council of policy directions to the Commission;
(e) replace the Commission’s power to impose conditions on a licence with a power to make orders imposing conditions on the carrying on of broadcasting undertakings;
(f) provide the Commission with the power to require that persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings make expenditures to support the Canadian broadcasting system;
(g) authorize the Commission to provide information to the Minister responsible for that Act, the Chief Statistician of Canada and the Commissioner of Competition, and set out in that Act a process by which a person who submits certain types of information to the Commission may designate the information as confidential;
(h) amend the procedure by which the Governor in Council may, under section 28 of that Act, set aside a decision of the Commission to issue, amend or renew a licence or refer such a decision back to the Commission for reconsideration and hearing;
(i) specify that a person shall not carry on a broadcasting undertaking, other than an online undertaking, unless they do so in accordance with a licence or they are exempt from the requirement to hold a licence;
(j) harmonize the punishments for offences under Part II of that Act and clarify that a due diligence defence applies to the existing offences set out in that Act; and
(k) allow for the imposition of administrative monetary penalties for violations of certain provisions of that Act or of the Accessible Canada Act.
The enactment also makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Part (b) would require providers to pander to all groups under the sun, although not aiming content at Europeans would probably be considered okay.

Does (i) specify that online content (such as videos and websites) would be excluded from any media licensing requirement?

Although the Government (now) says specifically that news outlets would be exempt from being required to get a license, one has to wonder if this will actually be the case. It’s also unclear if access to social media will be limited to only the approved parties. After all, they seem pretty pro censorship. As with many things, the devil is in the details.

Bill C-10 deserves a stand-alone piece, which will be coming soon. This hardly does it justice.

11. “Misinformation-Fighting” Efforts Online

https://pledgetopause.org/
https://www.shareverified.com/en
https://en.unesco.org/fightfakenews

A few of the sites popping up to stop people from asking the questions that need to be asked.

12. Will IHR Make Censorship Mandatory?

Risk communication and community engagement
-Continue risk communications and community engagement activities through the WHO Information Network for Epidemics (EPI-WIN) and other platforms to counter rumours and misinformation.
-Continue to regularly communicate clear messages, guidance, and advice about the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic, how to reduce transmission, and save lives.
-Work with partners and countries to articulate potential long-term consequences of COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing the need for strengthened cross-sectoral preparedness, transparency and global coordination.

The International Health Regulations that the WHO puts out are legally binding. Considering that WHO supports efforts to “combat misinformation”, one has to wonder if laws to censor certain views will be imposed.

Posted on

CV #59(B): Corona Scanner Reports 35 Million People Have Already Recovered Globally

The site: corona-scanner.com has reported that over 35 million people worldwide have already recovered from the coronavirus. Remember, this is the “pandemic” that is sweeping the globe.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy is thoroughly compromised, as shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. Disclaimer On Site’s Validity

This is a good time to add in a disclaimer. There’s no information about who runs the site, or where its information is coming from, so some skepticism is warranted. However, a valid point must be noted: of this is such a deadly virus — with no cure or vaccine — then how are people recovering en masse?

3. This Is Just A Fraction Of People Infected

These videos are from June 8 and 9, 2020. Both videos, here, and here, are of Maria Van Kerkhove, head of the World Health Organization’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit. First, she claims that asymptomatic transfer of this virus is extremely rare. Obvious question, where are the numbers coming from if asymptomatic transfer is so rare? This statement would indicate that the lockdown and shutdown measures are unnecessary, and should be immediately ended. That is the logical conclusion. Then she claims that an estimated 6% to 41% of the global population may be infected but not have symptoms. Supposedly they think it’s around 16%, but refused to disclose how that estimate was arrived at. So nearly half the population could be infected already.

Again, that is back in June. So the 35 million people who have officially “recovered” is likely just a drop in the bucket.

4. Hard Questions Need To Be Asked

People need to realize what is really going on, and to start questioning the narratives that are thrown in our faces. It isn’t difficult to pick up on the lies, contradictions. and errors in logic.

[1] Public officials repeat the mantra that the PCR tests are accurate
[2] Public officials downplay the overwhelming recovery rate
[3] Only friendly or compliant media gets to ask questions
[4] Little reporting on the lack of science behind the measures
[5] Public officials avoid mentioning the big agenda
[6] Vaccines are pushed, but who’s financing this?

Posted on

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

Originally featured as the resistance, this group is going through the motions of pretending to oppose a Carbon tax, and the globalist agenda as a whole. Now the Supreme Court of Canada is about to weigh in.

1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam

The entire climate change industry, (and yes, it is an industry) is a hoax perpetrated by the people in power. See the other articles on the scam, the propaganda machine in action, and some of the court documents in Canada. Carbon taxes are just a small part of the picture, and conservatives are intentionally sabotaging their court cases.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruling.
CLICK HERE, for Saskatchewan Courts, info for users.
CLICK HERE, for Ontario Court of Appeal ruling.
CLICK HERE, for ONCA challenge documents, pleadings.
CLICK HERE, for Alberta Court of Appeal ruling.
CLICK HERE, for ABCA challenge documents, pleadings.
CLICK HERE, for Supreme Court of Canada constitutional challenge.

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

Listings Of Documents Filed With Court

3. Saskatchewan Court Of Appeal (May, 2019)

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

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

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

From the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruling. All parties, including those of Scott Moe, and his “conservative” allies, all admitted that climate change was a dire threat. The case was only over very narrow technical arguments. The junk science behind the Carbon tax was never questioned.

4. Ontario Court Of Appeal (June, 2019)

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
[6] Climate change was described in the Paris Agreement of 2015 as “an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet”. It added that this “requires the widest possible cooperation by all countries, and their participation in an effective and appropriate international response”.

[7] There is no dispute that global climate change is taking place and that human activities are the primary cause. The combustion of fossil fuels, like coal, natural gas and oil and its derivatives, releases GHGs into the atmosphere. When incoming radiation from the Sun reaches Earth’s surface, it is absorbed and converted into heat. GHGs act like the glass roof of a greenhouse, trapping some of this heat as it radiates back into the atmosphere, causing surface temperatures to increase. Carbon dioxide (“CO2”) is the most prevalent GHG emitted by human activities. This is why pricing for GHG emissions is referred to as carbon pricing, and why GHG emissions are typically referred to on a CO2 equivalent basis. Other common GHGs include methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride.

[8] At appropriate levels, GHGs are beneficial. They surround the planet like a blanket, keeping temperatures within limits at which humans, animals, plants and marine life can live in balance. The level of GHGs in the atmosphere was relatively stable for several million years. However, since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the 18th century, and more particularly since the 1950s, the level of GHGs in the atmosphere has been increasing at an alarming rate. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are now more than 400 parts per million, a level not reached since the mid-Pliocene epoch, approximately 3-5 million years ago. Concentrations of other GHGs have also increased dramatically.

[29] On December 9, 2016, eight provinces, including Ontario, and the three territories adopted the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change (the “Pan-Canadian Framework”), which explicitly incorporated the Benchmark. At that time, British Columbia, Alberta and Québec already had carbon pricing mechanisms, and Ontario had announced its intention to join the Québec/California cap-and-trade system. Manitoba subsequently adopted the Pan-Canadian Framework on February 23, 2018. Saskatchewan did not adopt it. The Pan-Canadian Framework emphasized the significant risks posed by climate change to human health, security and economic growth and recognized carbon pricing as “one of the most effective, transparent, and efficient policy approaches to reduce GHG emissions”, promote innovation and encourage individuals and industries to pollute less.

[55] Ontario agrees that climate change is real, is caused by human activities producing GHG emissions, is having serious effects, particularly in the north, and requires proactive measures to address it. Ontario does not agree, however, that what it labels a “carbon tax” is the right way to do so. It says that Ontario will continue to take its own approach to meet the challenge of reducing GHG emissions.

[56] Ontario points to the success of its own efforts to reduce GHG emissions, the most significant of which has been the closure of all five of Ontario’s coal-fired electricity generation plants, which has reduced Ontario’s annual GHG emissions by approximately 22 percent below 2005 levels as of 2016.

[57] Ontario’s environmental plan (“Preserving and Protecting our Environment for Future Generations: A Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan”), released in November 2018, proposes to find ways to “slow down climate change and build more resilient communities to prepare for its effects”, but it will do this in a “balanced and responsible” way, without placing additional burdens on Ontario families and businesses.

[58] Ontario has committed to reducing its emissions by 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, which aligns with Canada’s target under the Paris Agreement. It will do so, for example, by updating its Building Code, O. Reg. 332/12, increasing the renewable content of gasoline, establishing emissions standards for large emitters, and reducing food waste and organic waste.

From the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling. The Ford Government does not question the climate change agenda in any way, shape or form. Nor do his partners. In fact, there is a lot of bragging that Ontario is already doing a great job combatting climate change.

5. Alberta Court Of Appeal (February, 2020)

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

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

[460] Alberta, according to Robert Savage, who has worked primarily in the climate change field for Alberta since 2004 and is now Alberta’s assistant deputy minister of the Climate Change Division of Alberta Environmental and Parks, “has long accepted the scientific consensus that human activity, in particular the production of … [greenhouse gases is] … a significant contributory factor to climate change, and that if action is not taken to reduce global … [greenhouse gas] emissions, the potential impacts of climate change will be more severe”.[346]

[461] Mr. Savage, with justification, asserts that “Alberta has been a pioneer in Canada and North America with respect to climate change initiatives, with a long history of innovative policies, regulatory schemes, and investments in technology targeted at reducing GHGs”.[347]

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

[463] The 2002 Albertans & Climate Change: Taking Action plan dealt with better emissions management, enhanced technology to control industrial emissions, enhanced energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy sources.[349]

[464] The 2002 climate change plan contained ambitious components. It targeted a fifty percent reduction of 2002 emissions by 2020 per unit of gross domestic product. It directed large emitters to measure and report to government emissions data. It emphasized the need to manage carbon dioxide emissions and develop biological sinks. It encouraged Albertans to consume less energy.

From the Alberta Court of Appeal ruling. Once again, none of these “conservative” parties oppose the climate change agenda in any way. Instead, they argue for the right to implement their own programs. Now it may be poor wording, but this doesn’t exclude PROVINCIAL Carbon taxes at some point.

6. Federal Conservatives Support Climate Hoax

This interview clip with Alberta MP Garnett Genuis is from 2017. Then Leader Andrew Scheer whipped his caucus into voting for a motion to support the Paris Accord. Now Genuis tries to defend it, and fails.

However, the CPC would likely have still supported it if they were in power. Stephen Harper signed Agenda 2030 in September 2015, and there’s no reason to indicate he wouldn’t have signed the Paris Accord as well. Either Conservatives are unaware of the deeper globalist agenda, or they don’t care.

7. Supreme Court Of Canada: Ontario (Appellant)

PART I – OVERVIEW AND FACTS
1. This case is not about whether action needs to be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or the relative effectiveness of particular policy alternatives. It is about (1) whether the federal Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (the “Act”) can be supported under the national concern branch of the POGG power; and (2) whether the “charges” imposed by the Act are valid as regulatory charges or as taxes. The answer to both questions should be no.

2. The provinces are fully capable of regulating greenhouse gas emissions themselves, have already done so, and continue to do so. Ontario has already decreased its greenhouse gas emissions by 22% below 2005 levels and has committed to a 30% reduction below 2005 levels by 2030 – the same target to which Canada has committed itself in the Paris Agreement.

14. Internationally, while there is broad consensus about the importance of urgently addressing climate change, parties to the Paris Agreement are not required to implement carbon pricing as part of their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Article 6.8 of the Paris Agreement specifies that the Parties “recognize the importance of integrated, holistic and balanced non-market approaches being available to the Parties.” The Act therefore imposes standards that are more stringent than the requirements of the Paris Agreement.

C. Ontario Has Taken and Will Continue to Take Strong Actions Across Its Economy and Society to Address Greenhouse Gas Emissions
.
15. Ontario agrees with Canada that climate change is real and needs to be addressed. That is why Ontario has taken steps to implement a made-in-Ontario plan to protect the environment, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and fight climate change. Ontario has set itself the goal of reducing Ontario’s emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.

Ontario’s Factum (as the Appellant). Although other parties are joining in as Intervenors, Ontario is officially the party that is appealing.

8. Supreme Court: Manitoba (Intervenor)

PART I – OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. This appeal strikes at the heart of federalism. It provides this Court with an opportunity to further delineate the parameters of the test for the national concern branch of peace, order and good government (POGG), as set out in Crown Zellerbach over 30 years ago.

2. No one disputes that climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are of paramount importance. The issue is whether Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to impose its preferred policy choice on the provinces. Manitoba agrees with the Appellants’ submissions that reducing GHG emissions lacks the singleness, distinctiveness and indivisibility necessary to support an exercise of the POGG power. If Parliament were to have jurisdiction under POGG to impose national standards to reduce GHG emissions as a matter of national concern, there would be virtually no limit to Parliament’s ability to legislate in areas of provincial jurisdiction, given the breadth of activities that create GHG emissions. This would substantially disrupt the balance of federalism.

6. Manitoba is fully committed to reduce GHG emissions and agrees that all governments must play a role and work cooperatively to implement effective solutions to combat and mitigate climate change. Climate change is one of the main pillars of Manitoba’s Climate and Green Plan, 2017 (Climate Plan), which aims to reduce GHG emissions, invest in clean energy and adapt to the impacts of climate change.

7. When first introduced, Manitoba’s Climate Plan included carbon pricing as one among many tools to help reduce GHG emissions. It recognized that free-market forces could be used together with smart regulation to tackle climate change and make meaningful emission reductions. In addition to other measures, Manitoba proposed to introduce a flat $25 per tonne carbon tax. The proposed carbon tax would start at more than double the initial federal price of $10 per tonne, and would remain constant at $25 from 2018 to 2022.

Manitoba has decided to enter the case as an Intervenor for Ontario. The “conservative” Brian Pallister supports the climate change agenda fully, but only objects to this specific tax. Ideologically, he is fully on board.

9. Supreme Court: Saskatchewan (Intervenor)

PART I – OVERVIEW AND FACTS
A. Introduction
1. This appeal concerns whether federal legislation that regulates provincial greenhouse gas (GHG) emission sources is constitutional. What is specifically at stake is whether the federal government has jurisdiction to unilaterally impose its chosen policy to regulate sources of GHG emissions on the provinces. The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (the “GGPPA” or “Act”) functions as if the federal government is legislating in place of a province itself. It is supervisory, and its legislative machinery reveals that what the federal government is truly doing is passing provincial legislation in those provinces it feels have inadequately adopted the federal policy.

2. This appeal does not concern whether global climate change is real and concerning or if the provinces are taking sufficient action to reduce GHG emissions. All parties agree that global climate change is a significant societal problem and all provinces have and continue to take action to reduce GHG emissions. In the Courts below, many submissions, including those of the Attorney General of Canada, focused on the nature of climate change and the importance of carbon pricing as an effective method of reducing GHG emissions. However, the efficacy of carbon pricing is not relevant to the constitutionality of the GGPPA, which must be derived from whether it is within the legislative competence of the federal government.

That was from the submissions of the Attorney General of Saskatchewan, acting as an Intervenor in the Ontario appeal to the Supreme Court. Again, Scott Moe confirms that climate change is a threat to humanity, but that this particular tax is unconstitutional on technical grounds.

10. Supreme Court: Alberta (Intervenor)

A. Overview
1. In a case like this with profound implications for the division of powers, the court’s overriding concern must be maintaining the structure of our federal system of government.

2. The court cannot and should not base its decision on what it considers necessary to address a global problem such as climate change or what it believes are the best policy solutions for reducing greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, particularly in light of genuine and reasonable policy disputes as to what approaches strike the right balance in particular contexts.

3. With respect, this was lost sight of in the majority decisions of the Courts of Appeal below. The majority judges in these cases appeared to conclude that the importance of addressing climate change justified the federal government controlling how the provinces exercise their jurisdiction over the regulation of GHG emissions under the national concern branch of the Peace, Order and Good Government (“POGG”) power.

As before, Alberta doesn’t actually challenge the climate change agenda in any way. The argument (as in all cases), is that Provinces should be left alone to come up with their own solutions. With everyone saying that climate change is a serious threat, the Court will never consider just how corrupt and fraudulent it really is.

11. Supreme Court: BC (Intervenor)

PART I: OVERVIEW OF POSITION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The troubling question raised by these references is whether our system of federalism is an obstacle to addressing the existential threat of global climate change. Are we the only major emitting country in the world whose constitution renders it impossible to make national commitments to reduce greenhouse gases? Or can national targets be met using means compatible with the unity-in-diversity that characterizes Canada’s federal structure?

2. In British Columbia, the “future” of a climate transformed by human greenhouse gas emissions is here now. A major industry has already been devastated: people have already been forced out of their homes. The province has experienced an average temperature increase of 1.4°C since 1900 – the limit of what scientists tell us would destabilize biological and social systems globally. A succession of relatively warm winters in the 1990s led to the mountain pine beetle epidemic and, as a direct consequence, the loss of most of the merchantable pine volume in interior British Columbia by 2012. The worst forest fire seasons on record occurred back-to back in 2017 and 2018. The elevated risk is because of climate change. In coming decades, British Columbia can expect wildfires like California’s today. Melting permafrost will damage infrastructure in Northern British Columbia, especially for remote communities and Indigenous peoples. Sea level rise poses risk of unquantifiable flooding losses for coastal British Columbia, particularly Prince Rupert and the Fraser River delta, where 100 square kilometres of land are currently within one metre of sea level. This includes the City of Richmond, home to 220,000 people

The NDP Government of British Columbia openly supports the climate change agenda, as do so-called “conservatives”. But at least the NDP is up from about this.

That said, the part about forest fires needs to be addressed. The RCMP has stated — at least for the 2018 fires — that the bulk of them were intentionally set (arson).

Even if conservatives were in power, they seem to support the agenda.

12. Supreme Court: Quebec (Intervenor)

PARTIE III. EXPOSÉ DES ARGUMENTS
Introduction
8. La PGQ ne conteste pas que la protection de l’environnement constitue un enjeu fondamental qui nécessite une action de la part des deux ordres de gouvernement, comme la Cour l’a reconnu dans l’arrêt Hydro-Québec. La Cour a défini la protection de l’environnement comme étant une matière « diffuse », non expressément attribuée de manière exclusive à un ordre de gouvernement plutôt qu’à un autre Affirmant au premier chef la compétence de l’Assemblée
nationale de légiférer sur la protection de l’environnement, la PGQ ne remet pas en cause la compétence législative du Parlement fédéral à l’égard de cette même matière. La PGQ est d’avis que la protection de l’environnement requiert d’ailleurs une collaboration de la part de tous les acteurs concernés

PART III. STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS
Introduction
8. The PGQ does not dispute that environmental protection is an issue fundamental that requires action from both levels of government, such as the Court recognized this in the Hydro-Québec decision. The Court defined the protection of the environment as being a “diffuse” matter, not expressly attributed exclusively to an order of government rather than another. Primarily affirming the competence of the Assembly to legislate on the protection of the environment, the QMP does not call into question the legislative competence of the federal Parliament with regard to the same matter. The PGQ is of opinion that the protection of the environment requires collaboration on the part of all actors involved

Francois Legault, the Premier of Quebec, is another “conservative” that does not actually oppose the climate change agenda. In fact, Legault seems content with Premiers imposing PROVINCIAL Carbon taxes everywhere.

13. Supreme Court: New Brunswick (Intervenor)

PART I – INTRODUCTION
1. The Intervenor, Attorney General of New Brunswick (“New Brunswick”) supports the position of the Attorney General of Alberta (“Alberta”) and adopts the arguments in Alberta’s factum. New Brunswick is also in general agreement with the climate data submitted by the Attorney General of Canada (“Canada”). Consistent with the previous references of the Attorney General of Saskatchewan (“Saskatchewan”) and the Attorney General of Ontario (“Ontario”) in their respective Courts of Appeal, this should not be a platform on which to debate climate change however real the threat may be. Climate data and warnings regarding the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions (“GHG emissions”) are relevant to the extent that such information dispassionately informs the constitutional question. Objectivity is paramount.

2. Much of Canada’s record and arguments support a resolve to deal with a looming existential threat; but it also provokes an emotional response – the natural result of contemplating any dire
circumstance. When imbued with the weight and gravitas it deserves, equally weighty solutions feel appropriate. In turn, it may feel appropriate to a layperson that the regulation of GHG emissions should be controlled by Parliament. Such may seem both harmless and practical. When a central control over the matter is cast in supervisory terms and is fixated on minimum standards, the layperson could believe that a benign form of federalism has been accomplished. But those conclusions would ignore the constitutional division of powers.

New Brunswick avoids the issue of climate change in the Supreme Court filings, but had this to say elsewhere: These hearings should not be used as a forum to question the science. Similar submissions were made in Ontario as well.

14. NGOs Meddling In Court Affairs

This was covered in the last article. There are several non-government organizations who are acting as Intervenors for their own reasons. It’s not just the Provinces and Ottawa involved.

15. SCC Challenges Are Designed To Fail

It’s difficult to see the Supreme Court of Canada ruling against the Carbon tax, though it’s possible in theory. Alberta was successful, although their courts are more tilted that way. There’s no real opposition to the theft being done under the guise of environmentalism.

What is even the point of doing this? Well, it’s not about stopping the public from being fleeced. It’s about APPEARING to stop the public from being fleeced, (or at least trying to). All parties support this hoax. As such, Canadians are being deceived.

One final thought: even if this challenge is ultimately successful, who’s to say that Provinces won’t start implementing their own Carbon taxes? Or who’s to say Erin O’Toole would actually drop the Federal tax if he became Prime Minister?

Posted on

TSCE #9(C): Canada’s Bills/Treaties Undermine Hague Convention On Child Abduction

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

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

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

2. Important Links

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

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

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

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

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

UN Global Migration Compact (Full Text)

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

3. Quotes From Hague Convention (Civil) Treaty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Announcement From Global Affairs Canada

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

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

What other treaties or bills do this?

5. Canada’s Bills/Treaties Since 1980

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

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

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

6. Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement

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

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

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

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

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

7. FIPA Between Canada And China

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

8. Sanctuary Cities Forming In Canada

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. UN Agenda 2030, Sustainable Development

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

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

11. New York Declaration, UN GMC Prelude

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

12. Bill C-6, Citizenship For Terrorists

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

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

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

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

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

14. UN Global Migration Compact

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

15. USMCA, More Than Just Trade

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

16. How Does Any Of This Help Children?

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

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

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

Posted on

Controlled Opposition “Conservatives” Prop Up Climate, Banking Cartels

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

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

1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam

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

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

2. Alliance Between Climate, Banking Cartels

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

3. Climate Bonds A Growth Industry

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

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

4. Central Banks Support Climate Hoax

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

5. Carbon Taxes Finance Int’l Debt Swaps

UN.new.development.financing.2012.178pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Harper, Conservatives Defend Banking Cartel

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

8. Carbon Tax Court Challenges Are Rigged

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

9. Garnett Genuis Defends Paris Accord

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

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

10. British Columbia Conservative Party

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

11. United Conservative Party (Alberta)

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. Conservatives In Saskatchewan

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

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

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

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

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

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

13. Conservatives In Manitoba

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

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

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

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

14. Conservatives In Ontario

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

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

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

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

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

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

15. Conservatives In Quebec

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16. Conservatives In New Brunswick

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

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

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

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

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

17. Elsewhere In The Maritimes

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

18. Fake Populist (Fake Party) Maxime Bernier

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

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

19. Conservative Party Of Canada

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

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

20. Leslyn Lewis’ Pro-UN/PA Dissertation

Leslyn Lewis PhD Dissertation, Paris Accord

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

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

21. The Controlled Opposition Conservatives

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

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

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

22. Documents On The Climate Change Scam

(A.1) SK COA Ruling On Carbon Tax
http://archive.is/tNe2k
(B.1) ONCA Ruling On Carbon Tax
http://archive.is/tbMTC
(B.2) ONCA Reference Documents
(B.3) ONCA, Ontario Factum, GGPPA
(B.4) ONCA, BC Factum, GGPPA
(B.5) ONCA, NB Factum, GGPPA
(B.6) ONCA, United Conservative Assoc
(B.7) ONCA, CDN Taxpayers Federation
(C.1) ABCA Ruling On Carbon Tax
http://archive.is/guxXF
(C.2) Jason Kenney Repeals Carbon Tax
http://archive.is/Q1gGb
(C.3) Kenney Supports New Carbon Tax
http://archive.is/wTYoE
(C.4) Kenney To Hike New Carbon Tax
http://archive.is/jbLjN
(D.1) SCC, Ontario Factum
(D.2) SCC, Sask Factum, GGPPA

Leslyn Lewis’s 2019 PhD Dissertation On Climate Change