CV #56: CTV News Selectively Edits Out Admission That 98% Of Deaths In Long Term Care

At about 3:40 in the video, there is a very obvious edit where a stunning admission was made. A few days ago, it was reported that 10,781 out of 10,947 “Covid deaths” had actually occurred in long term care homes and residences.

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 vile agenda called 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 compromised, shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. Clip From Original, Unedited Broadcast

This portion was taken from the original video on November 15. It seems that that admitting the true death rate caused a lot of backlash

3. 98% LTC Death Rate Admission Edited Out

At about the 3:40 mark, there is an edit, an not even a very smooth one. This detail cannot be allowed to stand. CTV realized that telling the public that 10,781 out of 10,947 deaths were in these residences was destructive to the narrative.

The dishonesty of these people is endless it seems.

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?

Canadian Media Obedient To Gov’t Covid Narrative Largely Because Of Subsidies

Justin Trudeau (or his clone), and Theresa Tam take questions from the obedient and largely compliant media. Some highlights from the video include:

[1] No clear answer given about quarantine camps
[2] Journalists asked to be puppets and discredit alternative sources
[3] Social media censored/demonitized, made invisible by algorithm
[4] Information should be checked against official sources — not necessarily for accuracy
[5] Asking people to do testimonials, no specification it be true
[6] Innoculate people “from vaccine misinformation”
[7] Public should only trust official sources

One has to wonder why there is no skepticism whatsoever shown, and why members of the media are toeing the line like this. And there is a simple answer: money.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances: the 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. Our democracy is thoroughly compromised, as shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. Important Links

Reminder: 2018 Fall Economic Update To Subsidize Journalism
2019 Budget For Canada

CLICK HERE, for Digital News Subscription Tax Credit.
https://archive.is/4of5V
WayBack Machine Archive

CLICK HERE, for Refundable Labour Tax Credit (25% of salaries)
https://archive.is/SKSh1
WayBack Machine Archive

CLICK HERE, for Canadian Periodical Fund. ($1.5M limit)
https://archive.is/yZP02
WayBack Machine Archive

CLICK HERE, for April 2020 announcement on media subsidies
https://archive.is/53cVu
WayBack Machine Archive

CLICK HERE, for Special Measures For Journalism (Covid)
https://archive.is/4JeLG
WayBack Machine Archive

3. Reminder Of $595M Media Grant In Nov 2018

Support for Canadian Journalism
A strong and independent news media is crucial to a well-functioning democracy. It empowers citizens by providing them with the information they need to make informed decisions on important issues, and also serves to hold powerful institutions—including governments—to account by bringing to light information that might not otherwise be made available to the public. In short, strong and independent journalism serves the public good—for Canada, and for Canadians. Canadians have a right to a wide range of independent news sources that they can trust, and government has a responsibility to ensure that Canadians have access to these kinds of news sources.

A New Non-Refundable Tax Credit for Subscriptions to Canadian Digital News Media
.
To support Canadian digital news media organizations in achieving a more financially sustainable business model,
the Government intends to introduce a new temporary, non-refundable 15-per-cent tax credit for qualifying subscribers of eligible digital news media.
.
In total, the proposed access to tax incentives for charitable giving, refundable tax credit for labour costs and non-refundable tax credit for subscriptions will cost the federal government an estimated $595 million over the next five years. Additional details on these measures will be provided in Budget 2019.

It was 2 years ago that this media subsidization was covered on this site. See page 40 in the report. The goal was to keep otherwise unprofitable media afloat usin taxpayer money in order to hold the Government to account, and to promote diverse ideas.

Now, if holding the Government to account, and promoting viewpoint diversity were the results, then it “may” be worthwhile. But as we will see, that’s not the goal at all.

4. 2019 Budget Includes These Measures

Supporting Canadian Journalism
A strong and independent news media is crucial to a well-functioning democracy. Recognizing the vitally important role the media play in helping citizens make informed decisions about important issues, in the 2018 Fall Economic Statement the Government announced its intention to introduce three new tax measures to support Canadian journalism:
• A new refundable tax credit for journalism organizations.
• A new non-refundable tax credit for subscriptions to Canadian digital news.
• Access to charitable tax incentives for not-for-profit journalism.
As previously announced, the Government will establish an independent panel of experts from the Canadian journalism sector to assist the Government in implementing these measures, including recommending eligibility criteria. Given the importance of ensuring that media outlets are able to operate with full independence, the Government proposes to establish an independent administrative body that will be responsible for recognizing journalism organizations as being eligible for any of the three measures.
Further details are available in Tax Measures: Supplementary Information.

That’s from page 173 of the 2019 budget. The goal is to provide: (a) tax credits for organizations; (b) tax credits for subscribers; and (c) further tax incentives for NFP journalism. More details are listed on page 373.

Of course, there will be an “independent panel” deciding on who gets this money. It can’t be too independent, since real journalists call out the lies and fabrications of governments.

5. Digital News Subscription Tax Credit

Qualifying subscription expense
A qualifying subscription expense is the amount a subscriber paid in the year for a digital news subscription with a QCJO that does not hold a license as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Broadcasting Act. To qualify for the credit, a digital news subscription must entitle an individual to access content in digital form that is primarily original written news.

How to apply
A new form, T622, Digital News Subscription Tax Credit, and process will be published so that organizations can get confirmation that the subscriptions they offer are eligible as qualifying subscriptions. Eligible subscriptions will be published on the CRA’s webpages.

Organizations whose subscriptions no longer qualify for the credit are required to inform their subscribers.

How to claim the credit
Individuals who have entered into an agreement with a QCJO for a qualifying subscription that is eligible, can claim the credit on their income tax return for the years 2020 to 2024.

This essentially amounts to pushing propaganda, since the Government can easily decide what does and does not count as a Qualifying Canadian Journalism Organization. It effectively subsidizes (at taxpayer expenses), outlets and topics it wants to see advanced.

However, this is not the only subsidy that is now in place.

6. Refundable Labour Tax Credit (25% Of Salary)

1. What is the proposed new refundable labour tax credit?
The budget proposes to introduce a new refundable labour tax credit (Tax Credit) on qualifying labour expenditures (Qualifying Labour) payable to an eligible newsroom employee of a qualifying journalism organization (Qualified Organization).

4. What is Qualifying labour?
Qualifying Labour for a taxation year includes the salary or wages payable by a Qualified Organization to an eligible newsroom employee in respect of the portion of the taxation year throughout which the organization is a Qualified Organization. The salaries and wages will be reduced by the total of all amounts of assistance that a Qualified Organization received or is entitled to receive in respect of the salary of eligible newsroom employees. The amount of Qualifying Labour will be limited to $55,000 in respect of each eligible newsroom employee.

5. What salary and wages are eligible as Qualifying Labour?
Qualifying Labour will include salary and wages payable to an eligible newsroom employee in respect of a period on or after January 1, 2019. As such, salary and wages that are in respect of a period before January 1, 2019 will not be Qualifying Labour. In addition, salary and wages will be Qualifying Labour of an organization only if they are in respect of a period throughout which the organization is a Qualified Organization.

6. What is an eligible newsroom employee?
An eligible newsroom employee, in respect of a Qualified Organization in a taxation year, means an individual who:
is employed by the Qualified Organization in the taxation year; works, on average, a minimum of 26 hours per week throughout the portion of the taxation year in which the individual is employed by the Qualified Organization; at any time in the taxation year, has been, or is reasonably expected to be, employed by the Qualified Organization for a minimum period of 40 consecutive weeks that includes that time; spends at least 75% of their time engaged in the production of news content, including researching, collecting information, verifying facts, photographing, writing, editing, designing and otherwise preparing content; and meets any prescribed conditions.

Up to 25% of an employee’s salary (of the first $55,000) would be subsidized by the Government, or more correctly, by taxpayers. This means potentially $13,750 of an employee’s salary in total, and that’s per employee. This is designed for full time media outlets.

But these handouts aren’t limited to full time media outlets. Even part time, or infrequent periodicals can benefit from the taxpayer money.

7. Canada Periodical Fund ($1.5M Limit)

Limits of government assistance
Except for farm periodicals, we can fund up to $1.5 million per periodical.
.
Publication receiving the Government of Canada Refundable Labour Tax Credit (RLTC) are ineligible to the Aid to Publishers component of the Canada Periodical Fund.
.
The total financial assistance received from the Aid to publishers component of the Canada Periodical Fund and other levels of government (federal, provincial, territorial and municipal) cannot exceed 75% of any publisher’s total expenditures for the creation, production, marketing and distribution of magazines and non-daily newspapers.

The Canadian Periodical Fund will provide a magazine or non-daily publication with up to 75% subsidization, or $1.5 million, whichever is less. Although there are rules as to how much the publication must produce anyway, it’s still a significant amount of taxpayer money.

Also note: there is the disclaimer that “periodicals that contain offensive content in the opinion of the department of Canadian Heritage” may not receive funding.

8. Special Measures For Journalism (Covid-19)

And in case the magazine or periodical doesn’t qualify for subsidies under the Canadian Periodical Fund, there is a new program announced, the “Special Measures For Journalism”. That’s right, a special program to prop up alternative media outlets during this “pandemic”.

Objectives and expected results for the Special Measures for Journalism component
The purpose of the Special Measures for Journalism component is to provide short-term emergency financial relief to Canadian magazines and community newspapers during the COVID-19 crisis in 2020. The component will provide funds for the 2020-2021 fiscal year, to publishers that have a free circulation model or low levels of paid circulation, or are published in digital format. Please note that daily newspapers will not be eligible to this new component.

The component provides a flexibility to allow publishers to direct funds to the areas of greatest need. Recipients can spend the funds on a variety of publishing activities, such as content creation, production, distribution, or business development.

This initiative is above and beyond the $595 million expense that was announced back in 2018. This is specifically to keep media outlets going “through the pandemic”. Note: it excludes daily publications, which means that the more infrequent outlets would get it. It creates the huge conflict of interest by subsidizing outlets who most desperately need the money. And how much money?

The maximum amount that can be awarded to an eligible publication is $1,500,000.

Publication receiving the Government of Canada Refundable Labour Tax Credit (RLTC) can obtain funding from the Special Measures for Journalism component. Please note that the amount of any funding received will be deducted from the RLTC.

The total financial assistance received from Special Measures for Journalism and other levels of government (federal, provincial, territorial and municipal) cannot exceed 75% of any publisher’s total expenditures for the creation, production, marketing and distribution of magazines and community newspapers for the current fiscal year.

Again, this applies to non-daily publications, such as weekly or monthly outlets. These are typically the ones who would need it the most. Wonder if giving favourable coverage was a requirement.

If an outlet receives no subsidies, it could theoretically be subsidized under this program to the tune of 75%, or $1.5 million. If subsidies exist from other sources, it could still be topped up to reach that amount.

If a 75% subsidy amounted to $1.5 million, that would mean the organization in question ran up some $2 million in expenses in a year. Considering that non-daily outlets are excluded, most, if not all, of the less frequently published media companies would fall into these limits.

Similar to the Canadian Periodicals Fund, there is the disclaimer that “periodicals that contain offensive content in the opinion of the department of Canadian Heritage” may not receive funding.

This program is similar in many ways to the Canadian Periodical Fund, but removes many of the limitations that had been imposed.

9. Canadian Media Is Bought Off

Even for periodicals that didn’t qualify normally, there is now a grant of up to $1.5 million for the year. One has to assume that any coverage of the “pandemic” would be friendly towards the Government.

Regarding outlets that didn’t qualify beforehand, are they really going to bite the hand that feeds them? After all, if their coverage becomes too critical of the Government narrative, they may find that the CRTC concludes their content to be offensive.

Even without an access to information request, it’s possible to estimate how much an organization will take. If it’s a regular publication, and the approximately salaries are known, just multiply $13,750 times the number of employees. For less frequent publications, just multiply their total expenses by 75%. Far from exact, but these will provide rough estimates.

Now, are any of these media outlets likely to seriously challenge the Government on this “pandemic” narrative? Probably not.

Go back to the video at the start. Even Tam admits that social media censors, both by deleting content, and by using the algorithms to make them invisible.

10. Followup With Canada Revenue Agency

Hello ********,

The Government remains committed to supporting newsrooms while respecting the basic principle of journalistic independence.

Now, more than ever, strong and independent news media are essential to contribute to an informed public and an effective democracy.

To be eligible for the journalism tax measures, an organization must first be designated as a qualified Canadian journalism organization (QCJO). Once designated, a QCJO must then meet additional criteria for each of the tax measures:

· The Canadian journalism labour tax credit, a 25% refundable tax credit on salaries or wages payable in respect of an eligible newsroom employee for periods beginning on or after January 1, 2019.

· The digital news subscription tax credit, a 15% non-refundable personal income tax credit for digital news subscription costs paid by an individual to a qualified Canadian journalism organization, which applies to qualifying amounts paid after 2019 and before 2025.

· A new type of qualified donee called a registered journalism organization for not-for-profit journalism organizations, which is in effect as of January 1, 2020.

A QCJO that meets the additional criteria can claim the Canadian journalism labour tax credit by completing schedule T2SCH58 Canadian Journalism Labour Tax Credit and filing it with its return of income for the year.

The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has been receiving QCJO applications since December 2019. With the establishment of the Independent Advisory Board on Eligibility for Journalism Tax Measures (the Board) in March 2020, and the legislative amendments that were proposed in April 2020, the CRA is in a position to provide journalism organizations with the support they need, beginning with the QCJO designation.

You can find information about applying for QCJO designation and the application form at Qualified Canadian journalism organization.

The CRA is working with the Board to seek its recommendations on whether applicant organizations meet certain QCJO criteria related to original news content and journalistic principles and processes.

The confidentiality provisions of the Income Tax Act prevent the CRA from disclosing the names of organizations that have applied for, received, or been denied QCJO designation. We are able to advise that QCJO designations are now being issued, with files being addressed on the basis of the order they were received.

For more information on the tax measures to support journalism, please go to Frequently Asked Questions.

Sincerely,

************************

Media Relations| Relations avec les médias
Canada Revenue Agency | Agence du revenu du Canada
For media inquiries | Pour les demandes médiatiques : cra-arc.media@cra-arc.gc.ca

CV #28(C): Manitoba’s “Conservative” Premier, Brian Pallister, Considering Curfew

Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister: will this become Canada’s version of Dan Andrews?

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

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

2. Pallister Proposes “Temporary” Curfew


https://twitter.com/BrianPallister/status/1323638895586779136

Why is it always the conservatives (at least in Canada), who turn out to be the biggest tyrants? Is it ideological, or are they being bribed or threatened?

Yes, we’re stepping up enforcement.
Yes, we need to be proactive.
Yes, we need to be preventative in our decision making.
And so, I also want Manitobans perspective on an initiative that’s been taken in other jurisdictions around the world. It’s actually been taken in Manitoba as well, and we are giving serious consideration to it.
As with all of our plans, we make them available to Manitobans before they’re implemented, and I want to do the same with this one.
.
We’re giving serious consideration to implementing a curfew, a curfew that would be designed to restrict travel between key hours, when gathering sizes tend to be dangerously in excess of the rules, (late night hours, obviously).
.
These late night situations in Winnipeg have expanded out Covid cases very significantly, According to Dr. Roussin, this is an action we should seriously consider, and I am seriously considering it now. I want Manitobans to tell us what they think of the idea of a limited period curfew (we hope very short time period is involved here). But, this potential measure will have to be acted upon. If Manitobans can support and encourage it. If they disagree, I want to hear from them.

It all seems so harmless and well intentioned, doesn’t it? Pallister actually comes across as a sincere person, but anyone who pays attention knows where this is heading.

3. This Is Only The Beginning

There is little doubt that Brian Pallister will “claim” there is widespread support for curfews, even if the overwhelming majority oppose it. Alternatively, he may claim that it’s the call of Public Health, and he has no say in the matter.

Calling it “temporary” or “limited” are just soft sells to deceive people into what is really going to happen. Look at Australia as a model.

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?

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

Originally featured as “The Resistance”, this group of politicians only pretends to oppose the fleecing of taxpayers. They endorse the climate change hoax 100%, and only argue against the Carbon tax on narrow technical grounds. Now this is finally at the Supreme Court of Canada.

But it’s not just politicians and their parties involved. A number of private groups are attempting to change the course, for their own selfish and ideological reasons.

1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam

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

2. Important Links

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

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

(also see the last section for many more links to parties attempting to intervene in the Carbon tax challenges. Note: that list is not exhaustive.)

3. NGOs To Profit From Climate Scam

  • Amnesty International
  • Canadian Labour Congress
  • Climate Justice Saskatoon
  • David Suzuki Foundation
  • Intergenerational Climate Coalition
  • International Emissions Trading Association
  • Smart Prosperity Institute

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation opposes the Carbon tax, but stays pretty neutral on the issue of climate change itself. It’s worth a mention for 2 reasons: (a) CTF is part of the Koch-funded Atlas Network; and (b) CTF was once headed by Jason Kenney, now Alberta Premier. Now, let’s take a look at a few groups.

4. David Suzuki Foundation

Revenue (August 31, 2018)
Receipted donations $5,820,601.00 (49.84%)
Non-receipted donations $784,563.00 (6.72%)
Gifts from other registered charities $2,727,009.00 (23.35%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $2,347,296.00 (20.10%)
Total revenue: $11,679,469.00

Expenses (August 31, 2018)
Charitable programs $7,378,892.00 (70.41%)
Management and administration $638,154.00 (6.09%)
Fundraising $1,779,300.00 (16.98%)
Political activities $583,341.00 (5.57%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $96,578.00 (0.92%)
Other $4,234.00 (0.04%)
Total expenses: $10,480,499.00

Revenue (August 31, 2019)
Receipted donations $6,847,386.00 (53.92%)
Non-receipted donations $1,132,648.00 (8.92%)
Gifts from other registered charities $3,242,143.00 (25.53%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $1,476,568.00 (11.63%)
Total revenue: $12,698,745.00

Expenses (August 31, 2019)
Charitable programs $8,738,812.00 (75.28%)
Management and administration $808,096.00 (6.96%)
Fundraising $1,964,567.00 (16.92%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $93,302.00 (0.80%)
Other $4,234.00 (0.04%)
Total expenses: $11,609,011.00

According to the Canada Revenue Agency, the Suzuki Foundation took in $12.7 million in the period ending in August 2019, and $11.7 million the previous year. There is clearly good money, so where is it going?

Suzuki Foundation 2019 Annual Report
Suzuki Foundation 2019 Audited Financials

How does pricing carbon pollution build more sustainable communities?
.
Putting a price on carbon pollution through a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system helps speed the transition to cleaner, better energy solutions. We have low-carbon alternatives to our largest emissions sources that are improving by the day.

Working toward a fair and effective national price on carbon pollution
For more than a decade, the Foundation has been a leading voice in calling for a carbon price in Canada. Through research, policy work and public engagement, we built support for this foundational climate change policy.

The Foundation offered the B.C. government support to introduce North America’s first carbon tax in 2008. Our policy experts met with leaders at all levels of government and across industries to advocate for a national approach to carbon pricing.

The Foundation is an intervener in court cases in Saskatchewan and Ontario to support the federal government’s right to implement fair and effective climate policies that include carbon pricing.

In both cases, the courts of appeal agreed with us that the federal government has the power to take national action to tackle climate change. With Parliament and cities across the country declaring climate emergencies, including carbon pricing in the solutions toolkit is essential to meeting Paris Agreement climate commitments and avoiding the worst impacts of climate breakdown.

Can we assume that they either bribed or leaned on the B.C. Government to get that Carbon tax imposed? The Suzuki Foundation doesn’t come right out and say it (though it’s implied), that making certain comforts unaffordable by various carbon pricing schemes will lead to this great transition. It’s stated that causing a drastic change in the Western lifestyle is the only way to do this.

The Foundation is also involved with Youth Climate Lawsuit. This has young adults trying weaponize the Courts by forcing Governments to adopt their environmental demands. The claim is that ignoring climate change violates Section 7 of the Canadian Charter, which is security of the person.

And of course, the Suzuki Foundation has attached itself to the various Carbon tax challenges. It’s fair to assume that Suzuki’s donors are paying him to advance (by whatever means), policies that will lead to more money coming in. In a sense, it’s like paying a lobbyist.

Suzuki’s recent donors include: Power Corporation, the Bronfman Foundation, Tides Canada, Smart Prosperity Institute, several anonymous donors, and many more.

5. International Emissions Trading Association

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

IETA is the International Emissions Trading Association. It is an organization that tries to monetize the climate change agenda, by convincing countries to pay out money for “polluting”. A quote from their market readiness report:

Understand what emissions trading is:
emissions trading is a market-based approach to controlling pollution by providing an economic incentive to achieve CO2 emissions reductions. To succeed in managing such a cap-and-trade system, your company will need strategic, technical and financial skills.

Find the appropriate department to coordinate the organisation: emissions trading is linked to climate change strategy. Climate strategy often lies between the sustainable development and finance functions. Emissions trading is about financial management, but it also implies a deep understanding of regulation, CO2 management strategy and a good technical knowledge of industrial installations which fall under the cap. Whichever the appropriate department is, the most important thing is to have a project manager. Start a working group: the working group should be able as a first step to define whether or not emissions trading could be managed internally or outsourced. A cost/benefit analysis should be carried out to evaluate the choice between delegating trading to a specialised broker or to carrying it out internally. Such an approach gives the opportunity to create a “CO2 network” within the company.

Assess possible optimisation among installations: if entities are spread geographically, a centralised option could be considered. For example, in the European emissions market it is often the case that installations of one company are spread across a number of member states. Local exchanges with local brokers co-exist with European CO2 exchange platforms and may be able to offer more targeted solutions.

Understand that none of this actually helps the environment. It is simply a way to get wealthy under a misleading banner of cutting pollution. This is an expansive wealth transfer scheme.

IETA received legal non-profit status from the government of Switzerland in June 2000, and received United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change non-governmental organisation accreditation in October 2000.

It should trouble Canadians that this “non-profit” with financial motivations to keep the Carbon tax should be filing for intervenor status in four court cases (Saskatchewan, Ontario, Alberta, & the Supreme Court). Theie interests are different than ours.

6. Smart Prosperity Institute

The Smart Prosperity Institute has a number of government and private sector donors, and perhaps most notably includes the Tides Foundation. SPI writes extensively about transitioning Canada to a low carbon economy, and is promoting the green bonds industry, and have partnered with HSBC and the Climate Bonds Initiative. They also push the “sustainable finance” narrative, and are enthusiastic supporters of the UN.

Smart Prosperity Institute’s annual “Green Bonds – State of the Market in Canada” reports provide unique insight on the role of green bonds in funding environment and climate-related projects in Canada. The annual report is a special supplement to the Bonds and Climate Change: The State of the Market global report and is prepared collaboratively with Climate Bonds Initiative. Commissioned by HSBC, the report marks specific highlights from the current year, emerging trends, and identifies specific opportunities for market development of green bonds in Canada.

Keeping the Carbon taxes intact is very much in their interest, as it is tied to many of the initiatives that SPI advances. Another NGO that Canadians should be weary of meddling in local affairs.

7. Amnesty International

Amnesty International was founded by Peter Benenson, grandson of Russian banker, Grigori Benenson. The organization has been used to bring large numbers of people from the 3rd World to the West. The group appears to have no direct financial motive, but rather an ideological one. It argues that forced Carbon taxes amount to a human rights issue for the planet. Is this not foreign interference though? AI is based out of Britain.

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

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

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