Pierre Beaudoin: Bombardier Chairman; Power Corporation Director

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Desmarais, Power Corp, Bombardier, Loblaws.
CLICK HERE, for Desmarais, Air Canada, Trudeau Fdn, Agenda 2030.

CLICK HERE, for Pierre Beaudoin is Power Corp Director.
CLICK HERE, for Beaudoin is Bombardier Chairman.
CLICK HERE, for Beaudoin lobbying as the Bombardier Chairman.
CLICK HERE, for Beaudoin lobbying both sides in election.

CLICK HERE, for G&M article, generous donors.
CLICK HERE, for Beaudoin’s trip with Harper.
CLICK HERE, for Bombardier execs use bailout for bonuses.

2. Beaudoin Lobbies As Bombardier Chair

Subject Matter Details
Grant, Contribution or Other Financial Benefit
Obtain financial support from Canada with respect to various research and development initiatives.
Obtain financial support from Industry Canada under the Strategic Aerospace and Defence Initiative for research and development.
Grant, Contribution or Other Financial Benefit, Policies or Program
Management of ongoing projects reated to various research and development initiatives.
Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution
Enhance research and development tax incentives under the Income Tax Act, including Investment Tax Credits (ITC)
Obtain support from Export Development Canada (EDC) with respect to transportation equipment procurement.
Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution, Policies or Program
Tax legislation and policies affecting the innovation and manufacturing of global firms operating in Canada.
Policies or Program
Canada’s participation in the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation Development consensus financing guidelines pertaining to sales financing framework.
Canada’s support for the development of standard for rail technology.
Canada’s support for the development of the rail industry.
Canadian Multi-Mission Aircraft Program with regard to procurement of aircraft.
Define appropriate levels for aircraft certification at Transport Canada.
Economic and trade agreements with respect to equal market access with other countries.
Establish appropriate regulations for export permits and controlled goods.
Expansion of various air services agreements under Canada’s Blue Sky Policy.
Obtain support from Canada to enable Export Development Canada (EDC) to provide customer financing of aircraft.
The protection and promotion of Canada’s access to global markets.
Policies or Program, Regulation
Canada’s participation in potential plurilateral discussions around the WTO on aerospace and ways to strengthen them.
Canada’s support for the development of a skilled workforce.
Changes to the civil aviation regulations with respect to private operators.

Government Institutions
Bank of Canada
Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions
Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)
Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC)
Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC)
Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC)
Export Development Canada (EDC)
Finance Canada (FIN)
Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
House of Commons
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Infrastructure Canada (INFC)
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED)
National Defence (DND)
National Research Council (NRC)
Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
Privy Council Office (PCO)
Public Safety Canada (PS)
Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC)
Transport Canada (TC)
Treasury Board Of Canada Secretariat (TBS)

Please note: that Bombardier has been lobbying the Federal Government a lot longer than Beaudoin himself has been registered as a lobbyist. However, since 2015, he has gotten his own hands dirty with it.

While Beaudoin himself is listed 18 times (18 communications reports) with the Federal Government and Federal officials, Bombardier itself is listed in 809 communications reports.

3. Anthony Graham: Bombardier/Power Corp

Anthony Graham is a Director at Power Corporation, at Bombardier. He shares the same conflict of interest that Pierre Beaudoin has. Graham is also the Vice Chairman of Whittington Investments (busy man), which owns the Weston Loblaws Group.

4. Beaudoin Donates To Both LPC/CPC

In an emailed statement, a spokesperson for the Liberals highlighted the “growing success” of their grassroots fundraising and emphasized the implementation of transparency rules around the party’s fundraising events.

A spokesperson for the Conservative party said if someone “chooses to donate to multiple parties, they’re within the rules to do just that.” He said due to the volume of donations the party receives, the number of dual-party donors was not particularly notable.

People who max out their individual donations to both parties are “hedging their bets” ahead of the fall election, according to Duff Conacher, the head of Democracy Watch, an ethics watchdog.

“With those donations, they are able to at least buy access to the top people in the parties, and having that access gives them a chance to have influence over their decisions,” Conacher said.

An article by the National Post highglighted how many wealthy and influential people were donating to both the Liberals and Conservatives. The rationale being, that regardless of who wins, those donors will have access to the politicians at the top.

The National Post isn’t wrong about their claim. Looking up “election financing” on the Elections Canada website confirms the allegations.

While it was nice of the National Post to bring this issue up, they missed the chance to do a spectacular piece of investigative journalism by not going further and publishing all of their findings. Oh well.

5. Beaudoin Always Playing Both Sides

And in the year 2019, Beaudoin donated the same amount to both the Conservative Party, and the Liberal Party. In 2017, Beaudoin again donated to both parties. In fact, he did so on the same day. Playing both sides it seems.

Notice the pattern here? Beaudoin routinely donates to both major Federal parties. It’s almost as if he expects access and favours, regardless of who wins.

Note: There are several Pierre Beaudoins but this will focus on the one I believe is him. (Disclaimer: he may be using multiple addresses in the donations). This is under the address of WESTMOUNT QC H3Y1K8.

Date Amount $ Received
2006 Feb 21 $2000 CPC
2006 Apr 30 $2500 LPC
2006 Sep 29 $1000 Bob Rae
2006 Sep 29 $1000 LPC
2008 Oct 07 $1100 CPC
2009 Mar 03 $1000 CPC
2010 Apr 06 $1000 CPC
2011 Sep 09 $1100 CPC
2012 Mar 16 $1200 CPC
2013 Feb 01 $1200 CPC
2013 Mar 11 $600 J. Trudeau
2013 Dec 28 $1197 LPC
2014 Nov 26 $1200 CPC
2014 Nov 27 $1178 LPC
2015 Apr 10 $1500 CPC
2015 Apr 17 $1200 LPC
2015 Oct 02 $300 LPC
2015 Oct 02 $1500 LPC
2016 Feb 19 $1500 CPC
2016 Feb 23 $1500 LPC

Again, there are other Pierre Beaudoins (who may be him) with different postal codes. However, all of the above donations came from a single postal code.

6. Donations From Desmarais Family

This chart ONLY includes Helene Desmarais, wife of Paul Desmarais Jr. and Chair of the Montreal Economic Institute.

Date Amount $ Received
2004 Jun 09 $5000 CPC, Vernier
2004 Jun 30 $5000 LPC
2005 Jan 20 $5000 CPC
2005 Jan 31 $5000 LPC
2006 Apr 30 $5000 LPC
2006 Apr 30 $1000 LPC
2006 Apr 30 $2000 LPC
2006 Dec 31 $5000 LPC
2007 Jan 01 $1000 CPC
2007 Feb 08 $1000 CPC
2008 Sep 30 $500 Maxime Bernier
2009 Jan 21 $1000 CPC
2009 Feb 19 $1100 LPC
2010 Apr 30 $1100 CPC
2010 May 31 $1171 LPC
2010 Jun 01 $1100 LPC
2011 Mar 14 $923 Beauce Riding Ass’n
2012 Apr 09 $901 Beauce Riding Ass’n
2014 Mar 19 $1000 Beauce Riding Ass’n
2014 Mar 26 $500 LPC
2014 Apr 24 $1200 CPC
2015 Feb 20 $5000 Beauce Riding Ass’n
2015 May 28 $1000 CPC
2015 Nov 09 $1200 LPC
2016 Mar 18 $1500 LPC
2016 Oct 13 $1000 Maxime Bernier
2016 Oct 17 $300 CPC
2017 May 12 $1550 CPC
2017 May 15 $1500 CPC
2018 Mar 16 $1500 LPC
2018 Mar 22 $1575 CPC

And these donations, which are clearly directed to both the Liberal and Conservative parties, is just one member of the Desmarais family.

7. Desmarais & Beaudoin Big Donors

Desmarais family – $290,000
To the Liberals: $190,000
To the Conservatives: $100,000
The influential clan behind Quebec’s Power Corp. of Canada has donated $290,000 over the past decade, slightly favouring the Liberals. The total includes donations from patriarch Paul Desmarais, who died in 2013, wife Jacqueline, sons Paul Jr. and André, who now jointly lead the company, along with daughters Louise and Sophie as well as several grandchildren.

Laurent Beaudoin and the Bombardier family – $213,000
To the Liberals: $132,000
To the Conservatives: $81,000
The Quebec family that controls Bombardier Inc. has donated more than $200,000, with the largest share going to the Liberals. Donors include chairman emeritus Laurent Beaudoin, wife Claire Bombardier Beaudoin, son Pierre, who stepped down as CEO this year, along with other relatives who make up the controlling shareholders of Bombardier.

The Globe & Mail did a piece on major donors and how they tend to donate to both parties. The Beaudoin and Desmarais families are the two biggest, but there are other players.

It doesn’t take much to understand the reason behind this: these families want to have influence, regardless of which party wins power. Paying off all sides is apparently how you do it.

8. Beaudoin Took Trip With Harper

Corporations and associations — including Bombardier, Cenovus Nuclear Energy, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and Cameco — confirmed that the government paid for portions of the expenses, with the amount varying from firm to firm.

“We’ll leave it to the government to confirm those expenses. We won’t comment any further on that,” Isabelle Rondeau, director of communications at Bombardier, said of CEO Pierre Beaudoin’s participation.

Pretty influential to get an all inclusive trip with the PM, to be covered by taxpayers. And considering how often Bombardier needs to be bailed out, it is hardly a success story.

9. Why Maxime Bernier Bailed Out Bombardier

As stated earlier, Pierre Beaudoin holds dual roles: one as the Chairman of Bombardier, another as a Director of Power Corporation, owned by the Desmarais family. The conflict of interest here cannot be understated.

Andre Desmarais and Paul Desmarais Jr. are the sons of Paul Desmarais Sr. They control Power Corporation now. Helene Desmarais is Paul Jr.’s wife, and is the Chair of the Montreal Economic Institute. Side Note: Andre Desmarais is ex-PM Chretien’s son-in-law. He married Frances Chretien. Other side note: Peter MacKay used to date Sophie Desmarais.

Let’s take a look at someone Helene Desmarais has been donating to, and the riding associations she has been donating to. Bear in mind, she has donated 5 times to riding associations (according to Elections Canada records), once to Laurier Saint-Marie, and 4 times to Beauce.

Date Amount $ Received
2008 Sep 30 $500 Maxime Bernier
2011 Mar 14 $923 Beauce Riding Ass’n
2012 Apr 09 $901 Beauce Riding Ass’n
2014 Mar 19 $1000 Beauce Riding Ass’n
2015 Feb 20 $5000 Beauce Riding Ass’n
2016 Oct 13 $1000 Maxime Bernier

Explaining the Bombardier bailout (when Maxime Bernier was Industry Minister) isn’t difficult. Let’s connect the dots here:

Bombardier Chairman, Pierre Beaudoin works for ==>
Paul Desmarais Jr, who’s married to ==>
Helene Desmarais, who runs the ==>
Montreal Economic Institute, which employed ==>
Maxime Bernier, who became the ==>
Industry Minister, who has power to ==>
Hand out taxpayer money

Here’s an even simpler connection:
Pierre Beaudoin ==> Desmarais Family ==> Bernier

Of course, that is just one bailout that Bombardier has received over the years. Because of the Beaudoin/Desmarais connection, and Desmarais owning so many politicians, the bailout money keeps coming in.

10. Bombardier Exec Pocket Bailout Money

Total compensation for the Montreal-based manufacturer’s top five executives and board chairman Pierre Beaudoin was US$32.6 million in 2016, up from US$21.9 million the year before, according to a proxy circular ahead of Bombardier’s annual meeting on May 11

CEO Alain Bellemare received US$9.5 million, up from US$6.4 million in 2015, including US$5.2 million in share and option-based awards and a US$1 million salary. His annual bonus almost doubled to US$2.36 million.

Beaudoin’s total compensation increased to US$5.25 million from US$3.85 million a year earlier.

Global News reported that Bombardier in 2017 will be getting a $372 million “loan” package. Interesting how the executives who run Bombardier into the ground get larger bonuses. Beaudoin himself will be getting an extra $10 million, about a 50% increase. Not bad for being such a screwup.

11. Political Connections = Bailouts

Pierre Beaudoin and Anthony Graham are both Directors at Power Corporation (owned by the Desmarais family), and govern Bombardier. This is a huge conflict of interest.

Bombardier has spent significant time and money lobbying politicians. Pierre Beaudoin has taken it upon himself to do some of the lobbying personally. Beaudoin also has a lengthy track record for donating to both major parties — meaning he gets access regardless of who wins.

These bailouts are little more than political money laundering. Taxpayer funds go to Bombardier, and executives use part of it to increase their bonuses.

All of this needs to stop.

Canadian HoC Foreign Affairs Committee Endorses UN Parliament In 1993, And Again In 2007

(Canada’s House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee approved the idea of a UN Parliament in 1993, and again in 2007)

1. Important Links


CLICK HERE, for Wikipedia listings on topic.
CLICK HERE, for archive of 1993, 8th Report, Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade, House of Commons, Parliament of Canada, Spring 1993, chaired by Hon. Jon Bosley. (archive)
CLICK HERE, for February 1996 for UN Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2007 FAC Standing Report, Democratic Development.
CLICK HERE, for “conservative” Senator Douglas Roche.

CLICK HERE, for the actual link to the proposal.
CLICK HERE, for supposed research data.
CLICK HERE, for Canadian politicians who support this.

CLICK HERE, for First UNPA Int’l Meeting, 2007
CLICK HERE, for Second UNPA Int’l Meeting, 2008
CLICK HERE, for Third UNPA Int’l Meeting, 2009.
CLICK HERE, for Fourth UNPA Int’l Meeting, 2010.
CLICK HERE, for Fifth UNPA Int’l Meeting, 2013.

2. Context For This Article

While the story of the United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) is still in the news, it is still a theory, at least for now.

However, Canada’s globalist politicians have been at it since well before 2007. In fact, Brian Mulroney’s Government originally approved the idea in 1993.

Why should Canadians care? Well, if you think getting fair and adequate representation from Ottawa is difficult, try getting it from a global government.

3. Timeline For UN Parliament

  • Spring 1993 – CDA HoC Foreign Affairs Comm endorses UNPA
  • July 1993 – Brian Mulroney replaced by Campbell as PM
  • October 1993 – Jean Chretien elected as PM
  • 1996 – Support in Chretien’s Gov’t for UNPA
  • 2002 – Sen. Douglas Roche endorses UNPA
  • January 2006 – Harper replaces Martin as PM
  • July 2007 – CDA HoC Foreign Affairs Comm endorses UNPA
  • August 2007 – Bernier replaces MacKay as FA Minister
  • November 2007 – First UNPA Int’l Meeting, Switzerland
  • November 2008 – Second UNPA Int’l Meeting, Belgium
  • October 2009 – Third UNPA International Meeting, USA
  • July 2010 – Trudeau endorses UNPA as an MP
  • October 2010 – Fourth UNPA Int’l Meeting, Argentina
  • October 2013 – Fifth UNPA Int’l Meeting, Belgium
  • September 2015 – Harper signs Agenda 2030
  • October 2015 – Trudeau replaces Harper as PM
  • 4. Quotes From 1993 Standing Comm Report

    The decline in Canadian support for things international – and the decline is palpable – is explained more by loss of self-confidence among Canadians than by lack of caring. There is no more important task before us than to recover some of that confidence and no more important means of doing so than through the empowerment of the United Nations. People must see that the centre can hold and that they have a role to play in making it so.

    By way of building the public and political constituency for the United Nations, the Committee recommends that Canada support the development of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (21) and that we offer to host the preparatory meeting of the Assembly in the Parliament Buildings as the centrepiece in our celebration of the 50th anniversary of the United Nations in 1995. We would further recommend that the Government work closely with the national organizing committee for the 50th anniversary and encourage the active participation of non-governmental organizations in the planning and holding of the Assembly.

    In closing this long letter the Committee wishes to commend the Government for being one of the few that has contributed energetically to keeping An Agenda for Peace alive. But alive is not good enough. Much more needs to be done. The proposals of the Secretary General should be the beginning of a vital international process of reform and renewal of the United Nations system. Canada should work hard to help make it so. The Committee intends to keep the empowerment of the UN high on its agenda and to hold additional hearings in the new session of Parliament. We would ask that the Minister respond in writing to this letter by early May.

    This is what it sounds like. The Mulroney Government, which calls itself “conservative”, has the Foreign Affairs Committee approve in principle participation in a United Nations Parliament.

    Note: Mulroney had a huge majority at that time, so there was no real need to get opposition approval on this. So no one can say he was pressured into doing it.

    5. Approval Of UNPA In 1996

    In recent years the demands on the United Nations have increased. In response, the organization has been given more autonomous powers and responsibilities. At the same time, it is necessary that the UN maintain support for its actions and decisions of the world’s citizens and governments. Creation of a UN Parliamentary Assembly is a vital first step in this process of democratizing the United Nations and ensuring its legitimacy in the eyes of world public opinion.

    The European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), demonstrate the important contributions that supranational parliamentary bodies can make to the work of international institutions. The history of both of these supranational parliaments also demonstrates the important, indeed essential, role in their creation to be undertaken by committed national parliamentarians.

    Under Andrº Ouellet, Canadian foreign policy was distinguished primarily by its emphasis on international trade issues. Trade promotion overshadowed some other progressive initiatives taken by Canada, notably Canada’s work at the UN on creation of an International Criminal Court, and the Canadian peacekeeping proposal (entitled Toward a Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations) which was presented at last Fall’s session of the UN General Assembly.

    As Foreign Affairs critic when the Liberals were in opposition, Lloyd Axworthy was a strong proponent of arms control and human rights issues and is a strong advocate of improved multilateral institutions. Many analysts expect that under Mr. Axworthy these international law and ‘world order’ issues will become a greater priority.

    In the Spring of 1993, the House of Commons Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade (SCEAIT) brought forward a report on Canada’s role in the United Nations. One of the Committee’s three recommendations called for Canada to support creation of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA), and for Canada to host the preparatory meeting of the Assembly in the Canadian Parliament Buildings. Following release of the SCEAIT Report, an ad hoc committee of parliamentarians and non-governmental representatives was established to build political support for a UNPA. Lloyd Axworthy was among a handful of Liberals who participated in the ad hoc Committee’s two meetings. Unfortunately, very little was accomplished before the 1993 general election was called and the 1993 session of the House of Commons ended.

    The New Liberal Chretien Government shares the globalist appetite and ideas that the previous Mulroney Government did. More support for creating of the actual world government.

    6. Senator Douglas Roche & UNPA, 2002

    The arguments below contain these assumptions in their essence. However, it is understood (perhaps reluctantly) that world federalism and the end of the state system is not in the mainstream political agenda for a contemporary UN. The objectives of UN reform and addressing issues of international governance are reasonable and feasible in contemporary politics. Implications for a Kantian vision of world federalism can be bruited, but at this point not much more.1 A UNPA would not be a world parliament, although some supporters and detractors of a UNPA think of it as a step towards a form of world government or global federalism.

    World government is not a necessary criterion in discussing a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly. World government is not the case here. What is at issue is governance, by which is commonly understood to be the regulation of an increasingly complex and interconnected world comprising States, societies, corporations, individuals and epistemic communities.

    The question of a UNPA, then, becomes one relating to a UNPA within the UN system and a UNPA within both the growing interconnectedness of trans-national politics and existing networks of global governance. Governance, transparency, democracy, diplomacy and international norms of behaviour – how states behave when their affairs are so intertwined – these are the issues in the background when discussing the formation of a UNPA.4 Specifically discussed below are those aspects of these phenomena that today seem to drive the argument for a UNPA.

    Some nice double speak here. Senator Roche is trying to argue that a United Nations Parliament would not actually amount to a world government. Okay.

    7. Quotes From 2007 Standing Comm Report

    [W]e need democracy as a basis of a safer world, we need democracy as the basis for a just system of international relations …
    Her Excellency Nino Burjandze, Speaker of the Parliament of Georgia

    The Committee has already made reference in previous chapters to Canada’s welcomed multilateralist approach to democratic development and to its valued contribution to multilateral bodies. We believe that should be continued, and enhanced where most effective, as part of the evaluation of all Canadian support for international democratic development that we have recommended.
    The Committee observes as well that international organizations are increasingly expanding their work into all areas of democratic development and governance. For example, in our meeting at the Commonwealth Secretariat, its Secretary General told the Committee that the Secretariat is trying to work both at the cultural level and with parliaments and political parties on understanding the role of the opposition and on introducing accountability measures. Mr. Christopher Child, Advisor and Head of the Democracy Section, commented that “we’d like to do much more party training.” Strengthening party systems has also become an important area of work for the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Systems (IDEA). The role of political parties in democracy-building was the subject of the Council of Europe Forum for the Future of Democracy which took place in Moscow in October 2006 with the involvement of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly to which Canada sends observers.

    The World Bank, to which Canada is an important contributor through the Department of Finance, is not allowed by its Charter to take into account the nature of the political regime, hence its role in “political development is obviously constrained,” as Sanjay Pradhan, Sector Director in the Public Sector Governance Unit told the Committee in Washington, D.C. However, within a broader conception of good governance that is linked to democratic development: “We are doing a lot in terms of accountability of the state to its citizens.” So the Bank works on things that might be considered “building blocks” of democracy. Mr. Pradhan distributed a paper “How Ongoing Operations of the World Bank Currently Strengthen Participation and Accountability,” which lists six major program areas for Bank interventions. One of these includes “parliamentary capacity development.”

    Mr. Steen Lau Jorgensen, Director of the Bank’s Sustainable Development Network, elaborated that the Bank has programs directly involving local communities in development decisions, thereby increasing the effectiveness of projects. In the Bank’s experience, more open countries do much better in achieving their development goals. The Bank therefore has an interest in building the capacity of civil society and it now even gets close to election-related processes, as in Ivory Coast where it is helping with the compiling of a national registration list. In this case, the Bank is working with the EU and the UN and through the country’s prime minister’s office. Registration is not just about elections but about establishing citizen’s eligibility for social services.

    As Mr. Jorgensen put it, there has been a “fundamental change in mindset” towards seeing poor people as citizens having rights and responsibilities. The Bank’s consequent shift away from major infrastructure projects since the late 1980s has been approved by its Board. The Bank sees this as linked to development effectiveness, which incorporates a good governance and anti-corruption agenda. For example, in the public procurement process, the Bank has established oversight through a “Procurement Watch” mechanism, and it now has a “zero tolerance” policy on corruption in World Bank-supported projects. Mention was also made of a “Global Integrity Alliance” as part of an anti-corruption strategy involving leaders in the recipient countries.

    The role of a major international financial institution like the World Bank is noteworthy in another sense, since many believe that these powerful international organizations are not themselves sufficiently democratically accountable to the publics in the countries which make up their memberships. Several of the Committee’s witnesses addressed the issue of the need to advance democratization processes from the local and national levels of governance, to the dimension of global governance. For example, John Foster of the North-South Institute referred to the Finnish-supported “Helsinki Process” which produced a 2005 Report, Governing Globalization-Globalizing Governance, that made recommendations for democratizing oversight of the global economy and strengthening the role of parliamentarians and civil society in that regard. He also made reference to the work of the Forum International de Montreal — which gets most of its funding from non-Canadian sources — and to the Spanish-based “World Forum of Civil Society Networks and its Campaign for an In-Depth Reform of the System of International Institutions…”

    The presentation to the Committee by the World Federalist Movement — Canada also devoted a lot of attention to advancing democratization at the level of international institutions, in particular in the context of United Nations reforms. Indeed it noted that this Committee in 1993 had supported the concept of a parliamentary assembly at the UN, and it went on to state:
    In April 2007, the Committee for a democratic UN (an NGO organizing network working with parliamentarians) will present publicly the “International Appeal for the Establishment of a United National Parliamentary Assembly, at press conferences around the world. Following the Appeal launch in April, an international parliamentary conference is planned for October 2007 in Geneva.

    The World Federalist representatives urged the Committee to give favourable consideration to this international appeal. We note as well that the European Parliament has supported the establishment of UN Parliamentary Assembly as part of overall UN reform, most recently in a resolution of June 9, 2005.

    In terms of working through international organizations, the biggest of all is of course the UN system. Most of the UN funding related to democratic development and governance goes through the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). Indeed, when the Committee met with the UNDP’s Pippa Norris, Director of the Democratic Governance Group, Bureau of Development Policy, and other senior staff (many of them Canadians) at the UN in New York, it was noted that this group is the largest within the UNDP.

    Ms. Norris shared with the Committee the group’s Strategic Plan, 2008-2011, and explained that its mandate in the area of democratic governance comes from various UN sources including the Millennium Declaration and a General Assembly resolution in 2000, the 2002 statement Democratic Governance Practice in UNDP, and a recent high-level panel report Delivering As One. Documents provided to the Committee included the UNDP’s Global Programme on Parliamentary Strengthening, on Support for Arab Parliaments, on Strengthening the Role of Parliaments in Reconstruction and the Prevention of Conflicts, and the annual report of its Democratic Governance Thematic Trust Fund. There was also a briefing note on CIDA-UNDP collaboration in Afghanistan. On gender issues, the Committee was told that an international knowledge network on women and politics was to be launched in February 2007, centred on an on-line tool to help education in this area. In addition, the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) does a lot of work on civic education for women. On electoral assistance, it was noted that collaboration between Elections Canada and UNDP goes back as far as Cambodia in 1993. However, another Canadian staff member Elissar Sarrouh (Policy Advisor, Public Administration Reform) — who formerly worked at the Parliamentary Centre — added that Elections Canada is always short of resources. So when countries express interest in having Canadian expertise, sometimes the resources are not there.

    On the UN’s work on election processes, the Committee also met with Craig Jenness (again, a Canadian), Director of the Electoral Assistance Division within the Department for Political Affairs, who explained that this takes the form both of direct electoral support, and work on electoral best practices. Rather than election observation, the UN focuses either on providing assistance to electoral offices in host countries, or on assisting with electoral operations as part of peacekeeping missions in places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Haiti. The budget is relatively small, with a dozen people at headquarters, although a large roster of people — including many Canadians — work around the world. Also, there is a small trust fund to allow the quick deployment of people when necessary to places like Nepal. Some 102 UN member states — and four non-member states have requested electoral assistance since 1992, and over 30 countries are now receiving or have requested such assistance — most of them in Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

    One important reason UN help is requested is that this helps legitimate the result and get it accepted — for example, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The UN does not work with countries unless asked by the host government or there is a Security Council mandate. The UN tries to not run elections themselves, but to assist the host government in setting up the necessary structures to do so. In post-conflict situations, a problem that often comes up is that everyone wants to win an election, but it is often difficult to convince the losers that there is a real role for oppositions. According to Mr. Jenness, “parliamentarians can help” with that since they can talk to colleagues in other countries on a peer-to-peer basis.

    Before turning to UN’s innovation of a “Democracy Fund” in 2005, and Canada’s potential role in that, it is important to recognize that notwithstanding all of this work, many questions still surround the UN’s involvement in democratic development, as well as that of international organizations such as the Community of Democracies or alternatives, which can be more explicit than the UN about their pro-democracy aims since their memberships are limited to at least nominally democratic states.

    In observing that “the UN has often been in a situation where it has been an advocate of democracy”, Jane Boulden, Canada Research Chair in International Relations and Security Studies at the Royal Military College of Canada, told the Committee:
    There are a number of member states that are not happy about the fact that the UN should play a role in advocating democracy, even when it comes to post-conflict situations where parties have agreed to democracy as part of the peace agreement.
    This relates partly to the ongoing questions about sovereignty. With the responsibility to protect, for example, there’s been an increasing acceptance that sovereignty is not sacrosanct, and for those who are resistant to these ideas, the idea that democratization or democracy is an important universal value is seen as yet another hook that western states can use as a criterion for intervention in states.

    If democracy is to be put forward as a universal value, we need to be able to make that case more effectively than we are now. That’s a factor the United Nations is grappling with, but I think it goes across the board for states as well. On this point, the questions of perceptions relate as well to the image or the perception in a number of states that the UN engages in a number of double standards. Why do we, through the United Nations, react to some conflicts and by extension then deal with some post-conflict scenarios with resources and commitment, and not others? When we feed that into the broader question about whether democracy is a western value or not, you can see how the whole package becomes an issue.

    Scepticism about UN multilateralism combined with the need to engage the United States multilaterally has led to various alternatives being suggested. For example, two prominent U.S. scholars have recently made a detailed proposal for the establishment of a 60-member “Concert of Democracies.”

    Yet to get around the fact that the UN includes many non-democracies, there has already been the creation of the Community of Democracies in 2000, with Canada as a founding member, and which met for the first time at the UN in 2004 as a UN “Democracy Caucus”. The Committee was told during our New York meetings in February 2007 that the 100-member “Caucus” is currently chaired by Mali, which is also an active member of the Group of New and Restored Democracies. His Excellency, Cheick Sidi Diarra, Ambassador and Permament Representative to the UN of Mali, was among a group of UN ambassadors and permanent representatives with whom the Committee met. We have already referred in Chapter 4 to Canada’s participation in the Community of Democracies (CD). One of our Canadian witnesses, Jeffrey Kopstein argued that, given the UN’s weaknesses and limitations, the CD should be bolstered. In Washington, where we met with Richard Rowson, President of the CD’s Council, Theodore Piccone, Director of the Democracy Coalition Project (and representative of the Club of Madrid in Washington) argued that “Canada should be a member of the [CD] Convening Group,” and that notwithstanding our multi-lateralist reputation, Canada “has been mostly at the margins in this regard.”
    Others were less convinced of the CD’s effectiveness. Richard Haas, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, told the Committee that the CD defines its democracy membership criteria too broadly and is too large to be a meaningful actor. Thomas Melia, Deputy Director of Freedom House told the Committee in Washington that the Convening Group of the CD represents in part the strategic interests of the member governments. For example, Morocco is a member although it does not meet the democracy criteria. Mr. Melia also had some cautionary words on trying for global coordination, stating that “a lot of effort can be diverted into coordination.” Instead he saw the need for “complementarity,” and “the way to pursue that is to build one’s niche.”
    Gareth Evans, President of the International Crisis Group, has also cautioned:

    Don’t pin too many hopes on Democracy Caucuses and similar grand international strategies. While in principle an attractive idea, there are simply too many institutional and interest differences between democratic countries for a united front to be sustained on anything very much, and it is not at all clear that the tentative moves to create such mechanisms have so far placed any useful pressure on non-democracies, or generated any net positive returns.

    At the same time, Mr. Evans, who remains a strong believer in a strengthened and reformed UN system, points out that individual democratic countries, notably those with great-power interests such as the U.S., are often not the best placed to promote democratic development. Even if, as several U.S. witnesses told the Committee, Canada is sometimes able to do things that the U.S. cannot, Canada cannot go it alone in this field either. Mr. Evans argues that: “One way to have an impact without such visible badging [association with Western big-power interests] is working through collaboration with multilateral coordinating mechanisms in the UN and elsewhere — the new UN Democracy Fund now getting off the ground will hopefully prove of real utility in this respect.”

    The Committee shares that hope. Indeed, there is no substitute for action by the UN, for all its faults, since it is the only truly global body. We, too, want to see it reformed and made into a more credible instrument for advancing democratic development. With respect to the UN Democracy Fund (UNDEF) set up as a result of the September 2005 UN Summit, it is supported through voluntary donations not assessed contributions. The largest donor by far is the U.S., and the second largest donor has been India, the world’s most populous democracy, with a contribution of US$10 million. That amount was matched by Japan in early March 2007, adding to UNDEF’s funding capacity of about US$ 65 million, and making it the Fund’s 28th donor country. So far Canada is not among these.

    When the Committee met with UNDEF representatives, Acting Executive Director Magdy Martinez-Soliman and Senior programme Officer Randi Davis (a Canadian) in New York in February 2007, Mr. Martinez-Soliman observed that the Fund is the first UN organization to use the word “democracy” in its title.377 Moreover, parliaments have been one of the better allies of the new fund; UNDEF staff having met with delegations from India, the United Kingdom, the European Union, the United States and others, now including Canada. The visit of the Committee was prominently noted on UNDEF’s web site (http://www.un.org/democracyfund/). It was made clear to the Committee that Canada’s involvement would be welcomed, especially as Canada’s democracy is looked upon favourably by many countries in the world.

    The idea for UNDEF was explained as a U.S. initiative proposed as part of the UN reform debate along with priorities such as human rights, management reform and a Peacebuilding Commission. (The Committee also met separately with Canadian Carolyn McAskie, UN Assistant Secretary-General in charge of the Peacebuilding Support Office.379) UNDEF currently works mostly through civil society organizations as well as partnerships with other UN organizations, including peacekeeping missions. Its first funding tranche in August 2006 involved some 70 NGOs, including in Canada the Parliamentary Centre and a journalists group in Toronto. Importantly, UNDEF funding also comes from the South; it is not in the “import-export” business in terms of democracy, and does not offer a democratic model for others to copy. Significantly, too, UNDEF does not require host government permission when it decides on funding projects. It operates with the support and legitimization of the Secretary-General and the states that make up its board, composed of the six largest contributors. UNDEF is also one of the earliest examples of the “One UN” model proposed by the report of a recent High Level UN Panel on Coherence, Delivering as One,380 that was also referred to in the Committee’s meeting at the UNDP.

    UNDEF is still a fledgling organization with only six staff (as of February 2007), and has just starting work on the ground, although it already has some 125 projects in 110 states and territories. Its regional priority is Africa (37% of project funding), followed by least developed countries outside of Africa. Project decisions are made on the basis of detailed proposals after consultation with the UN’s Department of Political Affairs and other UN organizations active in each country, following which a short list is made and presented to the board, which makes an even shorter list for presentation to the Secretary-General. With no formal advertising, UNDEF received over 1,300 applications in its first two weeks of operation — although about 700 of these did not meet its criteria. (Even when UNDEF did not fund projects, however, it has shared its database of proposals with other UN bodies, so these projects may get funding from elsewhere.)

    The UNDEF governance structure is bi-level: one composed of UN member states, and one of NGOs, respecting geographic balance, and with an advisory board that includes international democracy experts such as Guillermo O’Donnell cited by the Committee in Chapter 1. Asked why UNDEF has accepted funding from states such as Qatar that are not fully democratic, Mr. Martinez-Soliman responded that UNDEF does not judge the degree to which its donors are democratic, but poses the larger questions of: Do the citizens within a state think it is democratic, and do other states think so?

    Mr. Martinez-Soliman added that UNDEF has about 15 projects that work directly with political parties in countries such as Bolivia, Serbia and Peru. There are obviously sensitivities involved in such work. Observing that some countries have tightened their legislation on the transfer of foreign money to NGOs, in order to prevent these countries from shutting the door, UNDEF specifies that NGOs must be recognized either nationally or internationally. UNDEF also works in partnership with global and regional interparliamentary forums — for example, the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), particularly on the issue of support for increasing the number of women parliamentarians, and including the Assemblée parlementaire de la francophonie.

    The Committee was told, by our Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations John McNee, that Canada’s official position on UNDEF remains one of “wait and see.” We agree that UNDEF is a work in progress. But at the same time, it is part of UN reform and a global UN effort to take democratic development seriously. Surely that goal merits Canadian support. We note as well that among UNDEF’s donors are five of Canada’s G7 partners and its Commonwealth partner, Australia. Accordingly, we believe that Canada should consider whether to become a UNDEF donor.

    Finally, there is a recurring theme that has struck the Committee during its meetings with international organizations supported by Canada that are involved in democratic development: namely, the impressive number of Canadians who are working in these organizations, often at senior levels. This is a great pool of expertise and experience upon which to draw. While some of these Canadians may be attracted back to Canada by the new Canada foundation for international democratic development that we proposed in Recommendation 12, it is also a good to have Canadians in positions of influence inside the multilateral organizations that Canada funds.

    The Committee believes that a greater effort should be made to tap into the knowledge accumulated by Canadians working in multilateral organizations. This could enrich Canada’s own approach to democratic development as it is elaborated through an enlarged Democracy Council and through the independent Canada foundation that we have proposed.

    The Foreign Affairs Committee of Stephen Harper’s Government also approved the idea of participating in a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly in July 2007. It seems that all of these successive administrations are globalists.

    8. Recommendations From 2007 Report

    Recommendation 19
    The independent evaluation of all Canadian support for democratic development that we have recommended should also assess the effectiveness of multilateral channels to which Canada provides funding. That evaluation should guide appropriate funding levels.

    Recommendation 20
    Recognizing that the future challenges of democratization processes involve governance at the level of international organizations, as well as in national and local settings, the Canada foundation for international democratic development should include these dimensions within its mandate, and should consider related proposals for support from Canadian non-governmental bodies and civil-society groups working in this area.

    Recommendation 21
    As part of the essential role of a reformed and strengthened United Nations in global democratic development, the Parliament of Canada should give favourable consideration to the establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly.

    Recommendation 22
    In light of the establishment of the United Nations Democracy Fund (UNDEF) as part of UN reform proposals in 2005, Canada should consider whether to become a donor to UNDEF.

    Recommendation 23
    Taking into account the expertise and experience on democratic development that has been accumulated by Canadians working in this field through multilateral organizations, Canada should make an effort to tap into this pool of knowledge in furthering its own approach to democratic development.

    Exactly what it sounds like: create and participate in a United Nations Parliament.

    9. Trudeau Endorses UN Parliament

    Our current Prime Minister endorsed the concept back in 2010. It seems doubtful that he has changed his mind since.

    Interestingly, Green Party leader Elizabeth May (who also sits on the Trudeau Foundation) has endorsed this as well.

    10. CDA Globalist Gov’ts All In Support

    Successive Canadian Governments all support being part of a UN Parliament if it ever became a reality. Canada is pretty screwed.

    Bit Of History: Peter MacKay Shanks David Orchard In 2003 PC Leadership Race

    (Peter Mackay pledges – in writing – no merger with Alliance if he wins)

    (Peter MacKay sticking the knife in again?)

    1. Important Links

    CLICK HERE, for the Peter McKay/David Orchard alliance.
    CLICK HERE, for CBC article on the broken deal.
    CLICK HERE, for ONSC denying Orchard’s application in full.
    CLICK HERE, for an ONSC judge refusing costs for defamation.
    CLICK HERE, for Orchard’s ON Court of Appeal Factum.
    CLICK HERE, for ONCA dismissing appeal/cross appeal/motion.
    CLICK HERE, for Stevens v. CPC, Federal Court of Canada.
    CLICK HERE, for Stevens v. CPC, Federal Court of Appeal.

    CLICK HERE, for a May 2019 article on replacing Scheer (before election).
    CLICK HERE, for MacKay commenting on Scheer’s 2019 loss.

    2. Context For This Article

    In 2003, the current Conservative Party of Canada did not exist. Instead, there was the Alliance Party, led by Stephen Harper, and the Progressive Conservative Party, undergoing a leadership race.

    Two candidates in that race, David Orchard and Peter Mackay, struck a deal: Orchard would support MacKay’s leadership bid in return for a written pledge not to pursue a merger or deal with the Alliance. At that time, a merger had been seriously considered, as a way to form a united alternative to the Liberal Party. But MacKay promised — in writing — not to pursue this if he was supported for leader of the Progressive Conservative leadership.

    The deal went ahead as planned (so it seemed), and MacKay became leader of the party. However, it appeared he had no intention of honouring his deal. Almost immediately, he pursued merger talks with the Alliance. The eventually merged, and the new party formed government from 2006 until 2015. MacKay’s deceptive and underhanded tactics had won in the long term.

    Fast forward more than a decade from 2003, and another controversy. See section #9 for more on that.

    3. Text Of McKay/Orchard Deal

    May 31, 2003 Agreement between Peter MacKay and David Orchard
    1) No merger, joint candidates w[ith] Alliance. Maintain 301.
    2) Review of FTA/NAFTA – blue ribbon commission with D[avid] O[rchard] w[ith] choice of chair w[ith] P[eter] M[acKay’s] agreement. Rest of members to be jointly agreed upon.
    3) Clean up of head office including change of national director in consultation (timing w[ithin] reasonable period in future, pre-election) and some of DO’s people working at head office.
    4) Commitment to making environmental protection front and center incl[uding] sustainable agriculture, forestry, reducing pollution through rail.
    [Signed by Peter MacKay and David Orchard]

    Looks pretty straightforward.
    No merger. Fix our party instead.

    4. ON Court Challenge By Orchard, Others

    Administrative law — Voluntary association — Political parties — Political parties registered under Canada Elections Act — Leaders of Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance reaching agreement for merger of political parties — Common law principles regarding unregulated voluntary associations did not apply to political parties registered under Canada Elections Act — Canada Elections Act governing merger of registered political parties — Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9.

    On October 15, 2003, Peter MacKay, leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada (“PC Party”), reached an agreement in principle with Steven [page278] Harper, leader of the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance (“Alliance”), for the establishment of the “Conservative Party of Canada”. PC Party members who were opposed to the agreement applied to the court for several declarations. The premise of these declarations was that the PC Party could not be dissolved or merged with another political party except with the unanimous consent of all its members. The applicants also sought a permanent injunction to prevent anyone from dealing with the party’s assets.

    [4] The applicants are PC Party members who are opposed to the merger of the party with the Alliance. They request that the court make a number of declarations, which are all premised on their view that the PC Party cannot be dissolved or merged with another political party, except with the unanimous consent of all of its members. They also seek a permanent injunction to prevent anyone from otherwise dealing with the party’s assets.

    [5] I note that several items of the relief set out in the Notice of Application are not pursued before me. Paragraph 1(j) requested a declaration that Mr. MacKay is in breach of his written agreement, dated June 1, 2003, with Mr. Orchard, and sought consequential relief. The request for this relief was withdrawn on the consent of counsel prior to the date set for the hearing. Paragraph 1(e) sought a declaration that the procedures set by the Management Committee of the PC Party for the special meeting scheduled for December 6, 2003 are contrary to the Party’s Constitution and by-laws. Counsel for the applicants indicated they [page280] were not seeking such relief and informed the court the applicants were making no attack on the specific procedures adopted by the Party respecting the special meeting. Counsel also informed the court that the applicants were not requesting the court to deal with the relief sought in para. 1(g) which sought a declaration that the Constitution of the PC Party prohibited its leader from agreeing with the leader of another political party that the PC Party will not nominate candidates in every federal constituency in Canada.

    [6] Traditionally, the courts have been reluctant to get involved in supervising the internal affairs of voluntary associations. However, courts do recognize that membership in a voluntary association can give individuals important social rights that are worthy of some protection. Members may request the courts to require that the organization carry out its affairs honestly, in good faith and in accordance with its governing rules.

    [7] In this case we are dealing with a political party. The social interest of members in ensuring that the organization’s affairs are conducted in accordance with its governing Constitution is apparent. Citizens exercise important rights in participating in political activity through membership in political parties. However, the court must be careful not to intrude into the political realm. There were submissions and evidence in this case that I considered to be political rhetoric. I have disregarded all such evidence and submissions.

    [13] I am satisfied that the situation is sufficiently developed to give rise to an actual dispute between the parties. Both sides have important interests at stake. The leadership of the PC Party has embarked on a path to merge the party. The applicants are opposed to the course of action being taken. Counsel for both sides indicated to the court that it would be of assistance to have a decision before the vote is taken tomorrow. Given their national significance, there is good reason to determine the questions raised by this actual dispute, and I am satisfied that the court’s decision will be of practical effect in resolving the dispute.

    [14] I have concluded that this dispute does not fall within the ambit of the internal dispute resolution in Article 13 of the PC Party’s Constitution. I regard the internal process as intended to deal with questions about whether the ongoing affairs of the party are being conducted in compliance with its Constitution and by-laws. This dispute arises in extraordinary circumstances not contemplated by its Constitution, concerns its continued existence, and as will be seen, is in large measure about the proper interpretation and effect of a public statute. In deciding not to defer to the internal arbitration process, I paid no heed to the applicants’ arguments that that process was flawed by relationship and institutional bias. I regard the applicant’s apprehension of bias to be without merit.

    [40] In expressing this view, I should not be taken to be declaring the law. In this proceeding I was asked to make declarations that the PC Party cannot merge, transfer its assets, or dissolve without the unanimous consent of every one of its individual members. I have decided, based on the view I take of the law, that it is not appropriate to make such declarations.

    [41] A further comment must be made about para. 1(h) of the application. Paragraph 1(h) seeks “a declaration that the resolution [before the December 6 special meeting] does not constitute the resolution required pursuant to s. 400(2)(b) of the Canada Elections Act in order for the PC Party to merge with another registered party under the Act”. Whether the resolution being acted upon tomorrow, or any other resolution, satisfies the requirements of the Act must, in the first instance, be decided by the Chief Electoral Officer. I refuse the relief requested in para. 1(h) on that basis.

    [42] The application is dismissed in its entirety. Counsel may make an appointment through my secretary to address costs.
    Application dismissed.

    In short the Court ruled that the matter should be decided internally. The parties have governing documents (such as constitutions) which set out terms for various issues, including mergers.

    One way to look at this would be the “sort out your own business” line of reasoning prevailed. And while members of an organization should expect leaders to behave in a good faith manner, the Court apparently isn’t always the place to demand such a resolution.

    While the Judge “could” have intervened, the decision was made not to.

    See the next section for the Elections Act (400-403)

    5. Canada Elections Act

    [34] I set out the provisions in full, underlining the particular phrases that I find helpful in interpreting the provisions. I discuss some of the particular phrases below.

    400(1) Two or more registered parties may, at any time other than during the period beginning 30 days before the issue of a writ for an election and ending on polling day, apply to the Chief Electoral Officer to become a single registered party resulting from their merger.
    (2) An application to merge two or more registered parties must
    (a) be certified by the leaders of the merging parties;
    (b) be accompanied by a resolution from each of the merging parties approving the proposed merger; and
    (c) contain the information required from a party to be registered, except for the information referred to in paragraph 366(2)(i).

    401(1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall amend the registry of parties by replacing the names of the merging parties with the name of the merged party if
    (a) the application for the merger was not made in the period referred to in subsection 400(1); and
    (b) the Chief Electoral Officer is satisfied that
    (i) the merged party is eligible for registration as a political party under this Act, and
    (ii) the merging parties have discharged their obligations under this Act, including their obligations to report on their financial transactions and their election expenses and to maintain valid and up-to-date information concerning their registration.
    (2) The Chief Electoral Officer shall notify the officers of the merging parties in writing whether the registry of parties is to be amended under subsection (1).
    (3) If the Chief Electoral Officer amends the registry of parties, he or she shall cause to be published in the Canada Gazette a notice that the names of the merging parties have been replaced in the registry with the name of the merged party.

    402(1) A merger of registered parties takes effect on the day on which the Chief Electoral Officer amends the registry of parties under subsection 401(1).
    (2) On the merger of two or more registered parties,
    (a) the merged party is the successor of each merging party;
    (b) the merged party becomes a registered party;
    (c) the assets of each merging party belong to the merged party;
    (d) the merged party is responsible for the liabilities of each merging party; [page287]
    (e) the merged party is responsible for the obligations of each merging party to report on its financial transactions and election expenses for any period before the merger took effect;

    (f) the merged party replaces a merging party in any proceedings, whether civil, penal or administrative, by or against the merging party; and
    (g) any decision of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature involving a merging party may be enforced by or against the merged party.

    403. Within six months after a merger
    (a) each of the merging parties shall provide the Chief Electoral Officer with the documents referred to in subsection 424(1) for
    (i) the portion of its current fiscal period that ends on the day before the day on which the merger takes effect, and
    (ii) any earlier fiscal period for which those documents have not been provided; and
    (b) the merged party shall provide the Chief Electoral Officer with
    (i) a statement, prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, of its assets and liabilities, including any surplus or deficit, at the date of the merger,
    (ii) an auditor’s report, submitted to the chief agent of the merged party, as to whether the statement presents fairly and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles the information on which it was based, and
    (iii) a declaration in the prescribed form by the chief agent of the merged party concerning the statement.

    These sections of the Canada Elections Act are cited in both the Provincial and Federal Court rulings. As such, we should know what they actually say. In short, they quite clearly allow for party mergers. Broken promises and backroom deals don’t actually appear anywhere in the text.

    6. ON Court Of Appeal (Orchard et al.)

    [17] As a preliminary matter, the respondent moves to quash the appeal as now being moot. It argues that there is no longer a live issue affecting the rights of the parties because the merger has happened and the Conservative Party has been registered by the Chief Electoral Officer in place of the PC Party and the Alliance Party.

    [18] In my view, the motion must be dismissed. There remains the same real legal issue between the parties that existed before December 6, 2003, namely, whether the PC Party can be dissolved or merged with another political party without the unanimous consent of all of its members. The only difference is that if [page134] they are successful, the appellants must now seek a remedial order undoing what has happened rather than an order to prevent it from occurring. The respondent has not shown that this would be impossible. The underlying legal issues still have an effect on the rights of the parties and hence mootness does not apply.

    [19] On the appeal itself, the appellants’ fundamental contention is that the common law requires the PC Party to obtain the unanimous consent of all of its members to merge with the Alliance Party. In making this argument they place significant reliance on Astgen.

    [45] By the terms of the constitution this decision is final and binding. Having had the opportunity to participate in that process the appellants are bound to accept it as final and binding, subject to judicial review which they have not sought. This is a corollary to the obligation of an organization like a trade union to give notice of an arbitration to a member whose rights will be affected because the decision of the arbitration board is final and binding. See, for example, Hoogendoorn v. Greening Metal Products and Screening Equipment Co. (1967), 1967 CanLII 20 (SCC), [1968] S.C.R. 30, 65 D.L.R. (2d) 641. It is not open to the appellants to seek a determination by the court that the resolution is of no legal effect because the PC Party failed to comply with the procedures required by its constitution. In this circumstance, that is a matter for the Arbitration Committee.

    [46] In summary, therefore, the appellants’ arguments on appeal must be rejected.

    [47] The respondent has cross-appealed from the decision of the application judge to award no costs because of the public importance of the issues raised. We did not call on the appellants to respond to the cross-appeal. In our view, it was an entirely appropriate exercise of discretion by the judge of first instance.

    [48] As to the costs of the proceedings in this court, success has been divided. The appellants failed on the appeal. The respondent failed to establish mootness and failed on the cross-appeal. Together with the public importance of the questions raised, this makes it appropriate to order that there be no costs in this court. [page141]

    [49] I would therefore dismiss the motion to quash and the appeal and the cross-appeal. No costs in this court.

    Among other things, the Court of Appeals states that relief should have come in the form of an application for judicial review challenging the Elections Commission.

    Beyond that, the Appeals Panel sidesteps the underhanded nature of MacKay’s duplicity. Instead, they point out that the Canada Elections Act explicitly allows for mergers except in very limited cases. Unanimity from all participants is not required.

    To sum up, there is nothing new to add here, so appeal dismissed.

    7. Stevens v. CPC (Federal Court)

    This was not the only case that was launched. There was an Application for Judicial Review started in Federal Court to contest the ruling that allowed the merger.

    [76] The Applicant argued that the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed the opinion of the application judge that section 401(1)(b)(ii) of the Act vests the CEO not the Court, with the mandate of determining if the merger application met the statutory requirements. However, he also submits that the Court of Appeal recognized that section 400(2)(b) of the Act implicitly requires that a merger resolution be passed in accordance with the constitution of a merging party.

    [77] Accordingly, the Applicant argues that this holding supports his contention that the CEO erred in law by rejecting the constitution of the PC Party as being relevant to his decision. The Applicant repeats and relies upon his earlier submissions that the constitution of that party specifically prohibits the merger application that was made.

    [78] Further, the Applicant says that the judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal does not address the argument that the common law rights of voluntary associations include the right to be heard when such association is a political party that is at risk of dissolution.

    ii) The Respondent

    [79] The Respondent disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision and argues that the Court rejected the arguments that the merger of the PC Party and the Alliance Party attracted application of the common law rule that the unanimous consent of each party member was required for the merger of those parties. Further, the Respondent submits that the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the Act did not require unanimous consent for such merger.

    [80] In conclusion, the Respondent relies on the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal as supporting its view that the decision of the CEO to amend the registry of parties on December 7, 2003, was correct.


    p style=”padding: 2px 6px 4px 6px; color: #555555; background-color: #eeeeee; border: #dddddd 2px solid;”>

    [114] A waiting period of sixty days applies when a political party initially applies for registration. In my view, it is reasonable that a waiting period, albeit a reduced one, will also apply when two registered parties apply for merger.

    [115] It follows, then, that in my opinion, the CEO erred by amending the registry of parties on the same day that the merger application was made and without waiting for thirty days, to ensure that no election writ would be issued, thereby activating the commencement of the prohibited period.

    [116] As noted earlier, the Applicant seeks an order quashing the decision of the CEO and reinstating the PC Party on the registry of parties. Alternatively, the Applicant seeks an order setting aside the decision of December 7, 2003 and referring the matter back to the CEO.

    [117] In my opinion, the remedies sought by the Applicant should not be granted. Pursuant to section 18.1(3) of the Federal Courts Act, supra, the Court has discretion in the matter of granting relief upon an application for judicial review. On occasion, relief has been denied and in this regard, I refer to Mobil Oil Canada Ltd. v. Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, 1994 CanLII 114 (SCC), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 202.

    [118] In the present case, I take judicial notice of the fact that no writ for an election was issued in the thirty days following December 7, 2003. In the result, the CEO’s action in immediately amending the registry of parties, although contrary to my interpretation of the Act, had no material effect. In the exercise of my discretion, I decline to grant the relief sought.

    [119] The application for judicial review is dismissed. However, the Applicant has raised a valid point and is entitled to his assessed costs under Column III.

                                             <center>  ORDER</center>

    The application for judicial review is dismissed, the Applicant to have his assessed costs under Column III

    Much the same as with the Ontario Courts. The Court declines to intervene, and rules the merger allowed under the Canada Elections Act.

    8. Stevens v. CPC (Federal Court of Appeal)

    [49]I therefore find that the only interpretation that would give a concrete meaning to the texts in question is the one that requires the Chief Electoral Officer to let 30 days expire once the merger application is received before accepting it. If this was not Parliament’s intention, it is free to correct our vision with a more specific legislative text.

    Exercising discretionary power for judicial review
    [50]Justice Heneghan refused to grant the relief sought despite the fact that the Chief Electoral Officer, by not waiting 30 days before making his decision, violated the Canada Elections Act. Taking judicial notice of the fact that no writ ordering an election was issued in the 30 days following the merger application, she found, at paragraph 118 of her reasons:
    In the result, the CEO’s action in immediately amending the registry of parties, although contrary to my interpretation of the Act, had no material effect. In the exercise of my discretion, I decline to grant the relief sought.

    [51]Justice Heneghan, in my opinion, judiciously exercised the discretion inherent to the power for judicial review. The existence of this discretion is based both on the text of subsection 18.1(3) [as enacted by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 5; 2002, c. 8, s. 27] of the Federal Courts Act [R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7 , s. 1 (as am. by S.C. 2002, c. 8, s. 14)] under which the “Federal Court may” [emphasis added] quash the decision of a federal board, commission or tribunal, and on the principles associated with traditional prerogative writs. In this regard, it would be appropriate to return to this long excerpt from Justice Hugessen’s reasons in Schaaf v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, 1984 CanLII 3622 (FCA), [1984] 2 F.C. 334 (C.A.), at pages 342-344, which summarize the basis of this discretion best, with the adaptations required by the new, more explicit formulation of section 18 [as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 4; 2002, c. 8, s. 26]:

    In my view, nothing in the words used makes them other than attributive of jurisdiction. They create the power in the Court to set aside decisions which offend in one of the stated ways but do not impose a duty to do so in every case.

    More of the same. The Federal Court can use discretion and choose not to intervene.

    9. Current CPC Leadership Antics

    This is the follow-up to Section #2. Andrew Scheer becomes leader of the Conservative Party of Canada in May 2017, is a surprise (and contested) 13th ballot over Maxime Bernier. However, it soon becomes clear that many people did not want this, and Scheer is undermined within his own party.

    Bernier leaves in August 2018 to start his own party, the bizarrely named “People’s Party of Canada”. He claims that the CPC is no longer conservative, and that he will form an alternative. He also starts adopting populist rhetoric, something he previously hadn’t shown. Interestingly, Bernier spends more time attacking Scheer than the Liberal Party, which is currently in government.

    Curiously, the People’s Party is missing a lot:
    (a) Bernier has never called a leadership campaign
    (b) No policies have ever been voted on
    (c) There is no party constitution
    (d) There are no by-laws, or other governing documents
    (e) There is no national council, or senior board
    (f) The platform was recycled from Bernier’s 2016/17 leadership run

    Critics claim it is a “temporary” party meant to keep the Conservatives from winning, and to get Scheer ejected. Strangely enough, Peter MacKay’s name gets floated as a possible successor should Scheer not become Prime Minister.

    Ultimately, Justin Trudeau did win again, but this time a minority. Despite winning the popular vote and increasing the seat total, Scheer was pressured to resign from the CPC leadership.

    Could MacKay be at it again? Is this another scheme to undermine the will of conservative party members and select the party’s leader? Was the PPC just a psy-op to get rid of Scheer and install another leader instead?

    10. Politics Is Rotten To The Core

    This current fiasco has relevance to the 2003 one for a simple reason: some of the same people are involved in both. Now, could Peter MacKay be up to his old tricks of deceit and backstabbing? Choosing who becomes leader?

    Actually governing people always seems to take a backseat to the infighting, pettiness, and selfishness of the politicians involved. Public servants appear to be anything but.

    Giving your word, even in writing, seems to mean little. Alliances will always give way to self interest.

    Solutions #8: Ending (Political) Corporate Welfare

    1. Important Links

    CLICK HERE, for BC political contributions, tax rebates.
    CLICK HERE, for BC banning corporate donations.
    CLICK HERE, for Alberta political donations, rebates
    CLICK HERE, for Saskatchewan political donations and tax rebates.
    CLICK HERE, for Winnipeg proposal to ban political tax breaks.
    CLICK HERE, for ending the “per-vote” subsidy.

    2. Context For The Article

    It has been in the news a lot lately: the idea of scrapping corporate welfare. This notion is based on the simple concept that taxpayers shouldn’t have to subsidize businesses which privatize the profits.

    While this is certainly valid, let’s expand that idea. Why are taxpayers forced to subsidize the voting preferences of people who donate to political candidates or parties? If a person wishes to support their local candidates, that is their choice. But how come the public has to provide tax breaks?

    Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
    Your donation should come from your wallet.
    Practice what you preach.

    And no, this article is not directed at any one party or politician. “ALL” parties and candidates should be forced to be self-sufficient. Stop reaching into the public purse to finance your campaigns.

    3. Proposal In Winnipeg

    Mayor Brian Bowman wants to end the practice of rebating Winnipeg election-campaign donations in a move one critic describes as a means of providing another advantage to incumbent candidates.

    Bowman said in a notice of motion the city could save $700,000 by eliminating the rebates, stating “it is undesirable to fund election campaign expenses” and candidates should “solicit financial support from donors based on the strength of their platform rather than relying on taxpayer funds.

    To be fair, there is some valid criticism that this will favour incumbents who are effectively able to campaign while under the pretext of doing their jobs.

    However, taxpayers shouldn’t be forced help finance voting preferences. People who wish to make donations are free to do, but should use their own money. If a party platform is so unappealing that it needs taxpayer money to encourage donations, then it probably isn’t a very good one.

    4. Ending The Per-Vote Subsidy

    The NDP still hasn’t adapted to losing access to the per-vote party subsidy cancelled by the Harper government, the party’s treasurer said at the NDP convention in Ottawa Friday.

    The federal Conservatives had phased out the per-vote subsidy by 2015, which was a party financing policy brought about in the Chretien-era that paid out public funds to parties based on their share of the popular vote.

    Party Treasurer Tania Jarzebiak said the party plans to step up its fundraising with a “big push” on monthly giving and will invest more into its fundraising capacity, and has “ambitious plans” to reach an annual revenue target of $10.5 million.

    Stephen Harper was criticized for this move, claiming it was designed to bankrupt smaller parties. It’s probably true, that the move ultimately benefitted the Conservative Party.

    However, he should have ended all subsidies and tax breaks, not just pick and choose. If he truly cared about public money then those tax rebates would have been scrapped as well.

    5. British Columbia

    The credit is calculated as the lesser of:
    1) The total of:
    -75% of contributions up to $100
    -50% of contributions between $100 and $550
    -33 1/3% of contributions in excess of $550
    2) $500

    In B.C. taxpayers are on the hook for up to $500 for each person who contributes to B.C. political parties in a given year.

    6. Alberta

    According to Elections Alberta, the public has to pay up to $1000 in tax refunds to subsidize the voting preferences of people contributing to Provincial Candidates.

    7. Saskatchewan

    Taxpayers in Saskatchewan may be stuck with having to subsidize up to $650 for a resident’s political preferences. Seems that money could be better spent elsewhere.

    8. Some Conclusions

    The above listings are just a few examples of laws which force the public to help fund the donation choices of politically active people.

    To be clear, I do not care whom you support, or what ideology the party or candidate is running on. The concern is that this subsidy amounts to corporate welfare, which we should not be paying. If the only way a person or party is able to finance a campaign is by bailouts with public money, then it probably isn’t very strong to begin with.

    One final note: the common practice of “advertising” using taxpayer money is also abhorrent. True, incumbents do have an advantage in their ability to make announcements and fund plans to boost their image. That is not to be condoned either.

    Replacement Migration In Canada Since 2004

    (From 2018 Report to Parliament)

    1. Important Links

    CLICK HERE, for the 2004 Report to Parliament.
    CLICK HERE, for the 2005 Report to Parliament.
    CLICK HERE, for the 2006 Report to Parliament.
    CLICK HERE, for the 2007 Report to Parliament.
    CLICK HERE, for the 2008 report to Parliament.
    CLICK HERE, for the 2009 Report to Parliament.
    CLICK HERE, for the 2010 Report to Parliament.
    CLICK HERE, for the 2011 Report to Parliament.
    CLICK HERE, for the 2012 Report to Parliament.
    CLICK HERE, for the 2013 Report to Parliament.
    CLICK HERE, for the 2014 Report to Parliament.
    CLICK HERE, for the 2015 Report to Parliament.
    CLICK HERE, for the 2016 Report to Parliament.
    CLICK HERE, for the 2017 Report to Parliament.
    CLICK HERE, for the 2018 Report to Parliament.

    CLICK HERE, for archived listings.

    CLICK HERE, for earlier piece on immigration rates in 2017.
    CLICK HERE, for CDN immigration at 1M/year.
    CLICK HERE, for more detail on replacement migration.

    2. Quote From 2007 Report (Page 3)

    Canada has one of the largest and best-known permanent immigration programs in the world, with approximately 250,000 new immigrants coming to this country each year. In addition to these newcomers, a further 200,000 temporary foreign workers and international students come to Canada to help respond to labour-market needs, support Canadian businesses and influence our culturally diverse communities.

    Balancing the economic, family-reunification and refugee components of our immigration program, Canada welcomed over 251,000 newcomers in 2006. In 2008, we expect to welcome somewhere in the range of 240,000 to 265,000 newcomers.

    This is important for a very simple reason: disclosure. We are told that the rate during this time has been about 250,000 people. But it’s not. The majority of so-called “temporary” worker and student positions want to remain in Canada. This results in a doubling of the actual immigration rate, if not more.

    Live-in Caregiver Program The Live-in Caregiver Program allows Canadian families to hire temporary workers from abroad to provide live-in home care to a child, an elderly person or individuals with disabilities when there is a demonstrated shortage of workers already in Canada who are able to fill available positions. In 2013, 4,671 TFWs were admitted under this program. Caregivers first come to Canada on a temporary basis and become eligible to apply for permanent residence in Canada after working for two years as a live-in caregiver. In 2013, CIC admitted 8,797 live-in caregivers for permanent residence.

    Also worth noting in the 2014, live-in caregiver is a pathway to PR program.

    3. Information On “Diversity” Rates

    The diversity in data recording systems and legislation makes international migration statistics difficult to compare. However, if immigration is expressed in terms of a foreign-born population, Canada can be compared to the United States and Australia. In 2001, Australia’s foreign-born population was 4,482,000, or 23 percent of its total population. Canada’s was 5,448,485, or 18.4 percent of its total population. The United States had a foreign-born population of 31,811,000, but this high number represented only 11 percent of its total population

    The 2004 report claims that 18.4% of Canada’s population had been born outside of Canada.

    4. Countries Of Origin For PR

    So, where are people coming from? Let’s get a better grasp of the situation.

    (Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2004 Report)

    Rank Country Percent (%)
    #1 China 16.3
    #2 India 11.1
    #3 Pakistan 5.6
    #4 Philippines 5.4
    #5 S. Korea 3.2
    #6 U.S. 2.7
    #7 Iran 2.6
    #8 Romania 2.5
    #9 U.K. & Colonies 2.4
    #10 Sri Lanka 2.0

    (Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2007 Report)

    Rank Country Percent (%)
    #1 China 13.2
    #2 India 12.2
    #3 Philippines 7.0
    #4 Pakistan 4.9
    #5 U.S.A. 4.3
    #6 Iran 2.8
    #7 U.K. 2.6
    #8 S. Korea 2.5
    #9 Colombia 2.3
    #10 France 2.0

    (Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2010 Report)

    Rank Country Percent (%)
    #1 China 12
    #2 Philippines 11
    #3 India 10
    #4 U.S.A 4
    #5 U.K. & Colonies 4
    #6 France 3
    #7 Pakistan 2
    #8 Iran 2
    #9 S. Korea 2
    #10 Morocco 2

    (Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2013 Report)

    Rank Country Percent (%)
    #1 China 12.8
    #2 Philippines 12.7
    #3 India 11.2
    #4 Pakistan 3.9
    #5 U.S.A 3.7
    #6 France 3.2
    #7 Iran 2.5
    #8 U.K. & Colonies 2.5
    #9 Haiti 2.2
    #10 S. Korea 2.1

    (Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2016 Report)

    Rank Country Percent (%)
    #1 Philippines 18.7
    #2 India 14.5
    #3 China 7.2
    #4 Iran 4.3
    #5 Pakistan 4.2
    #6 Syria 3.6
    #7 U.S.A. 3.0
    #8 France 2.0
    #9 U.K. & Colonies 2.0
    #10 Nigeria 2.0

    Note: Just to clarify, the report year actually references the total entries made in the year prior. Example, 2015 report actually covers 2014 totals.

    5. “Official” Government Numbers

    Report Year Numbers
    2004 221,352
    2005 235,824
    2006 262,236
    2007 251,649
    2008 236,758
    2009 247,243
    2010 252,179
    2011 280,681
    2012 248,748
    2013 257,887
    2014 258,953
    2015 260,404
    2016 271,845
    2017 296,346
    2018 331,226

    Note: Just to clarify, the report year actually references the total entries made in the year prior. Example, 2015 report actually covers 2014 totals.

    6. “Temporary” Foreign Workers

    Report Year Numbers
    2004 82,151
    2005 90,668
    2006 99,146
    2007 112,658
    2008 165,198
    2009 192,519
    2010 178,478
    2011 182,276
    2012 190,842
    2013 213,573
    2014 221,310
    2015 95,086
    2016 73,016
    2017 78,402
    2018 78,788

    Note: Just to clarify, the report year actually references the total entries made in the year prior. Example, 2015 report actually covers 2014 totals.

    Note: For 2016-2018 there is a discrepancy between the reports and the 2018 charts. The 2018 chart is used as it is the latest, and likely most accurate.

    Temporary Foreign Workers spiked under the Conservatives. They sure seem to love their cheap foreign labour.

    7. Student Visas Issued

    Report Year Numbers
    2004 61,293
    2005 56,536
    2006 57,476
    2007 61,703
    2008 64,636
    2009 79,509
    2010 85,140
    2011 96,157
    2012 98,383
    2013 104,810
    2014 111,865
    2015 127,698
    2016 219,143
    2017 265,111
    2018 317,328

    Note: Just to clarify, the report year actually references the total entries made in the year prior. Example, 2015 report actually covers 2014 totals.

    8. International Mobility Program

    Report Year Numbers
    2004 included
    2005 included
    2006 included
    2007 included
    2008 included
    2009 included
    2010 included
    2011 included
    2012 included
    2013 included
    2014 included
    2015 197,924
    2016 175,967
    2017 207,829
    2018 224,033

    Note: Just to clarify, the report year actually references the total entries made in the year prior. Example, 2015 report actually covers 2014 totals.

    Split Up Of TFWP

    To offer greater clarity and transparency, the current TFWP is being reorganized and new International Mobility Programs (IMPs) are being created. The TFWP will now refer to those streams under which foreign workers enter Canada at the request of employers following approval through a new Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA). The new IMPs will incorporate those streams in which foreign nationals are not subject to an LMIA, and whose primary objective is to advance Canada’s broad economic and cultural national interest, rather than filling particular jobs. These reorganized programs will improve accountability, with Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) being the lead department for the TFWP, and Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) the lead department for the IMPs. In addition, ESDC will publicly post data on the number of positions for temporary foreign workers approved through the TFWP on a quarterly basis, and will post the names of corporations that receive permission to hire temporary foreign workers through LMIAs.

    Source is right here.

    In 2014, 95,086 individuals were admitted to Canada under the TFW Program and 197,924 under the International Mobility Program. In addition, 46,520 TFW Program and International Mobility Program work permit holders transitioned to permanent residence under an Economic Class program.

    In case anyone has any doubts, International Mobility Program “does” have a pathway to permanent residence.

    9. Total “Temporary” Categories

    Report Year Numbers
    2004 143,444
    2005 147,204
    2006 156,622
    2007 174,361
    2008 229,834
    2009 272,028
    2010 263,618
    2011 278,433
    2012 289,225
    2013 318,383
    2014 333,175
    2015 420,708
    2016 468,126
    2017 551,342
    2018 620,149

    DISCLAIMER: It is true that not all TFW, students and International Mobility Program participants will stay. Many will leave. But a lot will either transition into permanent resident, or find another way to stay in Canada.

    10. Stated V.S. Actual Intake

    Report Year Stated Imm Temporary Actual Imm
    2004 221,352 143,444 364,796
    2005 235,824 147,204 383,028
    2006 262,236 156,622 418,858
    2007 251,649 174,361 426,010
    2008 236,758 229,834 466,592
    2009 247,243 272,028 519,271
    2010 252,179 263,618 515,797
    2011 280,681 278,433 559,114
    2012 248,748 289,225 537,973
    2013 257,887 318,383 576,270
    2014 258,953 333,175 592,128
    2015 260,404 420,708 681,112
    2016 271,845 468,126 739,971
    2017 296,346 551,342 847,688
    2018 331,226 620,149 951,375

    Note: Just to clarify, the report year actually references the total entries made in the year prior. Example, 2015 report actually covers 2014 totals.

    Note: The International Mobility Program was operational prior to 2014, but was not specifically mentioned in the “temporary” category.

    11. CPC Supports Temps Becoming PR

    Official policy of the Conservative Party of Canada is to transition “temporary” workers into permanent residents wherever possible. Furthermore, party policy is to endorse CANZUK, the globalist free-movement agreement which will erase borders between as many as 50 nations.

    Currently, there are no specific policies to address immigration rates in 2019.

    12. PPC Doesn’t Address This

    Thing is: immigration was NEVER ~250,000/year when Harper was PM. With all of the “temporary” groups which lead to permanent resident status, it has always been double that. After 3 years of campaigning on Harper-level immigration, Bernier has decided to “reduce from 350K to 100-150K. But again, immigration levels aren’t 250-350K, so this pledge must be taken with an ounce of salt.

    13. Some Do Address True Rates

    (Stephen Garvey, of National Citizens Alliance, is willing to address the full scale of mass migration into Canada)

    Honourable mention to Rants Derek, Immigration Watch Canada, and Spencer Fernando. Faith Goldy, did address it, but the video has since been taken down.

    14. Final Thoughts

    This is an unpleasant subject to cover, but it has to be done. People need to know the full truth about the replacement agenda going on in Canada.

    Worth noting, that each of these reports to parliament includes a lengthy preamble about multiculturalism and diversity. However, it never talks about cohesiveness and a common culture. It is a common IDENTITY that bonds people (race, culture, ethnicity, language, religion, customs, heritage, etc….). Civic nationalism, or VALUES based societies, are doomed to crumble.

    While TFW were much higher under the CPC, the Liberals have decided to crank up the student visas and begin issuing more International Mobility Visas. Guess globalists have their preferences.

    Conservatism and Libertarianism are globalist ideologies. So arguing over who is the “real” conservative or libertarian serves no real purpose.

    It’s difficult to swallow that the aim of these policies is to break up the country along ethnic and cultural lines. But it’s the most logical explanation.

    The real immigration rates need to be discussed openly. It’s not 250,000 under Harper, and it’s not 350,000 under Trudeau. You are being lied to.

    Response From Elections Canada Questions

    Below is the response from July 5, 2019 email

    Thank you for your correspondence dated July 5, 2019, in which you seek clarification on four distinct federal election topics. Please note that we cannot provide legal advice regarding specific factual situations. We can, however, provide guidance with respect to general principles of the Canada Elections Act (Act), which may be of assistance with your enquiries.

    1. Voter Identification

    In 2007, Parliament imposed, for the first-time, voter identification requirements for electors voting at the polls, giving them three options (see s. 143 of the Act):

    1. provide one piece of identification issued by a Canadian government or agency (federal, provincial, or local) that includes their name, address, and photo (e.g. driver’s licence);

    2. provide two pieces of identification from a list authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada (CEO), both of which must include the elector’s name and at least one of which includes their address; or

    3. swear an oath or affirmation and be vouched for by another eligible elector with acceptable proof of identity and residence whose name appeared on the electoral list for that polling division and who had not previously either been vouched for or vouched for another elector in that election, prior to receiving a ballot.

    In 2014, Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, replaced the vouching process (the third option above) with a new attestation process. Through attestation, an elector could provide two pieces of identification, each of which established the elector’s name, and have someone attest to their residence on oath in writing. The attestor’s name had to appear on the list of electors for the same polling division. The attestor had to know the elector personally, know that the elector resides in the polling division and be able to prove his or her own identity and residence without attestation. The attestor could not attest to the residence of another person. Both the elector and the attestor had to receive oral advice from the person who administered their oath of the penalty that may be imposed for contravention of the attestation rules.

    Bill C-76, the Elections Modernization Act, which came into force on June 13, 2019, reinstated vouching as a way for an elector who has no identification to prove identity and address. The person being vouched for does not require a piece of identification, however the elector vouching for them does. The elector must solemnly declare in writing that he or she resides at the address at which he or she claims to reside, ii) is at least 18 years old or will be on polling day, iii) is a Canadian citizen and iv) has not previously voted in the election. Anyone vouching for the elector must sign a written solemn declaration providing that i) they know the elector; ii) the elector resides in the polling division; iii) to the best of their knowledge the elector has not previously voted at the election; iv) the voucher is a Canadian citizen when the other elector votes; v) the voucher has not vouched for the residence of another elector at the election (an exception applies in institutions where seniors or persons with a disability reside); vi) their own residence has not been vouched for by another elector at the election. Warnings must still be provided to both the voucher and the person being vouched for as to the potential penal consequences for making a false declaration, voting or attempting to vote at an election knowing they are not qualified, or committing a vouching offence, although these warnings can now be provided in writing, and do not have to be read out at the polls.

    2. Vote by Canadian citizens residing outside Canada

    On January 11, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Frank v. Canada (Attorney General) that a Canadian elector, living abroad, who has previously resided in Canada, is entitled to vote by special ballot in federal elections regardless of how long they have been living abroad (see ss. 220-230 of the Act).

    Elections Canada maintains a register of electors who are residing outside Canada. Electors may register by sending Elections Canada an Application for Registration and Special Ballot form.
    The elector’s completed application must be received by Elections Canada in Ottawa no later than 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time, on the Tuesday before polling day. The application may be sent by fax and be accompanied by a photocopy of proof of identity (a copy – of pages 2 and 3 – of a Canadian passport, a birth or baptismal certificate attesting that the elector was born in Canada, or a Canadian citizenship certificate or card).

    Once the elector’s application is approved, Elections Canada sends a voting kit to the elector. The elector then completes the ballot and inserts it into a series of envelopes in accordance with the instructions provided and ensures that Elections Canada receives it no later than 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time, on polling day in order to be counted. On one of these envelopes, the elector signs a declaration that states that the elector’s name is as shown on the envelope, and that he or she has not already voted and will not attempt to vote again in the election.

    3. Social Media

    You ask if the government should be looking into social media influence. This is an issue best addressed by Parliament’s legislative branch. Elections Canada is a neutral agent of Parliament that operates independently of the government. We invite you to write to your local Member of Parliament for further information on this matter.

    Please note that Parliament recently added new provisions to the Act that define online platforms and impose obligations on them with respect to digital ad registries. Elections Canada (EC) has recently issued an online guide entitled New Registry Requirements for Political Ads on Online Platforms to assist online platforms in complying with the new requirements. The Act also requires certain ads placed by parties, candidates and third parties to bear tag lines saying who placed the ad (s.320, 349.5, 352 and 429.3). This applies to social media ads.

    Bill C-76 also clarified and expanded existing provisions against some kinds of online impersonation, misleading publications as well as false statements about candidates (see ss. 91, 480.1 and 481).

    Elections Canada’s role is to ensure that Canadians have easy access to accurate information about the voting process, including where, when, and how to register and vote. We will be monitoring the social media environment to enable us to rapidly correct any inaccurate information about the voting process. We have created an online repository of all of our public communications, so that citizens and journalists can verify if information that appears to be coming from Elections Canada truly is.

    4. Cash-for-Access

    Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing), came into force on December 21, 2018. This bill introduces notice and reporting requirements for certain regulated fundraising events. The bill does not prohibit cash-for-access types of fundraisers, but it makes certain types of fundraisers subject to the scrutiny of the public or the media.

    First, the fundraising activity must be organized for the benefit of a party represented in the House of Commons, or one of its affiliated political entities. Second, the activity must be attended by a leader, a leadership contestant, or a cabinet minister. Third, it must be attended by at least one person who has contributed over $200, or who has paid an amount of more than $200 that includes a contribution to attend.

    If the fundraising event meets these conditions, two types of disclosure are required. First, notice of the event must be prominently posted on a party’s website for five days before it takes place. Second, a report must be provided by the party to the Chief Electoral Officer within 30 days of the fundraiser. During a general election, notice of fundraisers would not be required, and a single report for all fundraising events held during the election would be due within 60 days after polling day.

    For more on this topic, we invite you to view Elections Canada’s online Guideline on Regulated Fundraising Events.

    I trust that the above information is of assistance and thank you for your interest in the federal electoral process.

    For more information about the Canadian federal electoral system, visit our website at elections.ca or call 1-800-463-6868, toll-free in Canada and the United States. Our hours of operation are from Monday to Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time).

    Public Enquiries Unit
    Elections Canada

    SNC-Lavalin: Lobbying The Entire Legislature For Deferred Prosecution

    1. Important Links

    Previous Coverage:
    CLICK HERE, for deferred prosecution agreement, Bill C-74.
    CLICK HERE, for SNC Lavalin’s political connections.
    CLICK HERE, for David Lametti, the AG who freed SNC-Lavalin, in return for a $200M kickback to McGill University.

    CLICK HERE, for the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying in Canada.

    2. SNC-Lavalin Lobbied David Lametti Personally

    CLICK HERE, for the report associated with the meeting between David Lametti and SNC Lavalin.That’s right. On May 30, 2017, almost 2 years before becoming Attorney General of Canada, David Lametti met with SNC-Lavalin over exactly this issue. The company was looking to have the laws changed regarding so-called “white collar crime”.

    3. SNC-Lavalin Lobbied Gerald Butts

    CLICK HERE, for the report. On February 23, 2017, Trudeau’s Chief of Staff, Gerald Butts, met with SNC-Lavalin to discuss the possibility of a deferred prosecution agreement, which would have allowed SNC to keep getting Canadian Government contracts.

    4. SNC-Lavalin Lobbied Finance Minister Bill Morneau

    CLICK HERE, for the report. On October 16, 2018, SNC-Lavalin lobbied the sitting Finance Minister, Bill Morneau. One of the topics discussed was the creation of alternatives for white collar crime, or the DPA.

    5. Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick Lobbied

    CLICK HERE, for the report. Lavalin actually lobbied the Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick, in the hopes of getting the DPA.

    Also worth noting is that there is a HUGE conflict of interest here. Kevin Lynch, Chairman of SNC-Lavalin, among other roles, was Clerk of the Privy Council. He clearly still has access to the Council. (Taken from his BMO profile.)

    6. SNC-Lavalin Lobbied Group Of MPs

    CLICK HERE, for the report of the meeting. As before, one common item keeps coming up: changes to policies regarding white collar crime (a.k.a. the deferred prosecution agreement).

    One thing that needs to be mentioned: Peter Van Loan is a CONSERVATIVE Member of Parliament. So much for this being a Liberal-only problem.

    7. CONSERVATIVE Senator Larry Smith Lobbied

    CLICK HERE, for the report. Lavalin has actually taken to lobbying at least one Conservative Senator.

    8. List Of Public Figures Lobbied (DPA)

    (Source is here.)
    Dean Allison, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
    Omar Alghabra, Parliamentary Secretary | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
    Navdeep Bains, Minister | Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED)
    Simon Beauchemin, Advisor | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
    Stefanie Beck, Assistant Deputy Minister | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
    Karl Belanger, Chief of Staff | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
    Mathieu Belanger, Director of Policy | Infrastructure Canada (INFC)
    Susan Bincoletto, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Trade Commissioner | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
    Michael Binder, President and Chief Executive Officer | Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)
    Richard Botham, Assistant Deputy Minister | Finance Canada (FIN)
    Mathieu Bouchard, Senior Advisor | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
    Scott Brison, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
    Gianluca Cairo, Chief of Staff | Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED)
    Rebecca Caldwell, Chief of Staff | Status of Women Canada (SWC)
    Zoe Caron, Chief of Staff | Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)
    Celina Cesar-Chavannes, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
    Francois-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities | Infrastructure Canada (INFC)
    Jim Carr, Minister | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
    Ben Chin, Chief of Staff | Finance Canada (FIN)
    Brian Clow, Director | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
    Martin Crevier, Legislative Assistant to Peter Schiefke | House of Commons
    Roger Cuzner, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
    Kathleen Davis, Special Assistant | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
    Bernie Derible, Senior Policy Advisor | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
    Rebecca Dixon, Advisor | Senate of Canada
    Percy Downe, Senator | Senate of Canada
    Scott Driscoll, Vice President and Chief Compliance and Ethics | Export Development Canada (EDC)
    Pierre-Luc Dusseault, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
    Mark Eyking, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
    Greg Fergus, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
    Marc Fortin, Assistant Deputy Minister | Infrastructure Canada (INFC)
    Kelly Gillis, Deputy Minister | Infrastructure Canada (INFC)
    Mark Glauser, Director General | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
    Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
    Paul Halucha, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet | Privy Council Office (PCO)
    Tasha Hanes, Chief of Staff | Finance Canada (FIN)
    Jamie Innes, Director of Parliamentary Affairs | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
    Diamond Isinger, Special Assistant | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
    Phil Jennings, Associate Deputy Minister | Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)
    Stephen Kelly, Chief of Staff | Senate of Canada
    Jay Khosla, Assistant Deputy Minister | Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)
    Jean-Frederique Lafaille, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet | Privy Council Office (PCO)
    Paul Lefebvre, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources | Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)
    Andrew Leslie, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
    Gavin Liddy, Associate Deputy Minister | Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC)
    Stephen Lucas, Deputy Minister | Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC)
    Steve MacKinnon, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
    David Maloney, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
    Elder Marques, Senior Advisor | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
    Brian Masse, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
    Remi Masse, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
    John McCallum, Ambassador of Canada to the People’s Republic of China | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
    David McGovern, Associate Deputy Minister | Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED)
    Duane McMullen, Director General | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
    Michael McNair, Executive Director | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
    David McNaughton, Ambassador of Canada to the United States | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
    Marc Miller, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
    Grant Mitchell, Senator | Senate of Canada
    Martin Moen, Director General | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
    Renze Nauta, Director of Policy and Planning | House of Commons
    Kyle Nicholson, Special Assistant, Policy | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
    Julian Ovens, Chief of Staff | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
    Tracey Ramsey, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
    Phil Rheault, Senior Policy Advisor | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
    Paul Rochon, Deputy Minister | Finance Canada (FIN)
    Kim Rudd, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
    Tim Sargent, Deputy Minister | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
    Dev Saxena, Policy Advisor | Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED)
    Sandra Schwartz, Senior Policy Advisor | House of Commons
    Andrew Scheer, Leader of the Official Opposition | House of Commons
    Richard Sexton, President and CEO | Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL)
    Judy Sgro, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
    Miguel Simard, General Counsel | Export Development Canada (EDC)
    Jagmeet Singh, Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada | House of Commons
    Rick Stewart, Assistant Deputy Minister | Finance Canada (FIN)
    Catrina Tapley, Secretary to the Cabinet (Operations) | Privy Council Office (PCO)
    Owen Teo, Director of Policy | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
    Justin To, Director of Policy and Policy Advisor | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
    Chrystine Tremblay, Deputy Minister | Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)
    Shawn Tupper, Associate Deputy Minister | Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)
    David Usher, Ambassador of Canada to Argentina | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
    Michael Wernick, Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet | Privy Council Office (PCO)
    Steve Verheul, Assistant Deputy Minister | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
    Howard Wetston, Senator | Senate of Canada
    Yuen Pau Woo, Senator | Senate of Canada
    Ava Yaskiel, Associate Deputy Minister | Finance Canada (FIN)
    Martin Zablocki, President and CEO | Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC)

    I might have missed a few, but this is still pretty extensive.

    To reiterate, all of these meetings took place during the period when SNC-Lavalin was lobbying for a DPA.

    8. Opposition Leader Andrew Scheer Lobbied

    CLICK HERE, for report. On May 29, 2018, Andrew Scheer, Opposition Leader, and supposedly a “Conservative” was also lobbied by SNC-Lavalin. This could explain why he is so open to giving Lavalin the deferred prosecution, in spite of the corruption. He’s controlled as well.

    9. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh Lobbied By SNC

    CLICK HERE, for the report. Jagmeet Singh, yes the NDP leader, was “also” lobbied by SNC-Lavalin. One of the topics was “changes related to white collar crime”. Of course, this is a euphemism for the DPA (deferred prosecution agreement). Is the entire legislature in on this? Might be, from the number of Senators and MPs involved.

    10. Lobbyists Bruce Hartley & William Pristanski

    Also worth noting, SNC-Lavalin has two professional shills (I mean lobbyists), Bruce Hartley and William Pristanski. Both are lobbying specifically in relation to obtaining a DPA for SNC-Lavalin.

    11. Is This Why Opposition So Tepid?

    It seems that all parties are in on it.

    Is all the bickering in the House of Commons just for show? Does SNC-Lavalin have the entire legislature in their pockets?

    Attorney General David Lametti, SNC-Lavalin, McGill University & $200M Kickback

    (then Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for ISED, David Lametti, met with SNC Lavalin President Neil Bruce)

    (McGill University Law Professor, David Lametti, Who is on leave while he sits as the Attorney General of Canada)

    (February 13, 2019, McGill University is “gifted” $200M)

    (The $200M gift to McGill came from John McCall MacBain, European Climate Foundation founder, and Chairman of the Board of the Trudeau Foundation).

    1. Important Links

    CLICK HERE, for previous article on Bill C-74, deferred prosecution agreements, and anti-corruption laws.
    CLICK HERE, for previous article on who SNC Lavalin is connected to.

    CLICK HERE, for David Lametti’s McGill Law Faculty page.
    CLICK HERE, for the Canadian bar Association’s announcement of David Lametti becoming Attorney General on January 14, 2019.
    CLICK HERE, for McGill’s $200 million “gift”.
    CLICK HERE, for David Lametti saying no decision is ever final, and justifying decision to allow SNC-Lavalin access to the DPA.
    CLICK HERE, for JWR shuffled out as Attorney General.
    CLICK HERE, for Jody Wilson Raybould resigns from Cabinet.

    CLICK HERE, for John McCall MacBain is Chairman of Trudeau Foundation.
    CLICK HERE, for the McCall MacBain Foundation.
    CLICK HERE, for the European Climate Foundation.
    CLICK HERE, for the McCall MacBain $928,000 bribe to Trudeau.

    2. Timeline of SNC-Lavalin Events

    • May 30, 2017, SNC-Lavalin lobbies David Lametti
    • January 14, 2019, Jody Wilson Raybould removed as Attorney General
    • January 14, 2019, David Lametti becomes Attorney General
    • February 9, 2019, Lametti sees nothing wrong with SNC-Lavalin getting the deferred prosecution, to allow it to keep accepting Canadian Government contracts
    • February 12, 2019, JWR resigns from Cabinet altogether
    • February 13, 2019, McGill is gifted $200 million
    • March 3, 2019, Lametti says no decision (SNC implied) is ever final and can always be reviewed

    The implication is obvious here. Jody Wilson Raybould wasn’t willing to grant a deferred prosecution agreement to SNC-Lavalin. This would have allowed the company to still be granted Canadian contracts. So she was replaced by someone more “willing”.

    Note: See the first link for more information on the DPA, or deferred prosecution agreement. This was created by an amendment to bill C-74.

    3. Lametti Whitewashed Interference Scandal

    “Interference is perhaps the wrong word in that it implies something illegal is going on,” he said.

    Lametti, who became attorney general after Wilson-Raybould was removed from the post six weeks ago, acknowledged in the same interview he had not known when he took over the role and got briefed on the matters facing him that she had already made the decision not to offer a remediation agreement.

    Such a deal would have allowed SNC-Lavalin to admit wrongdoing and pay a fine, but avoid the ban on bidding for government contracts that comes with a conviction for the corruption and fraud charges it currently faces.

    “You do have an ongoing obligation as attorney general in terms of your relationship to prosecutions and the prosecution service to be open to new facts,” he said. “I can’t speak to the actual facts [of the SNC-Lavalin affair] but I know that in principle, an attorney general has to remain open so, in that sense, no decision is ever final.”

    (Source is here.)

    No interference. No pressure. Everything is just a point of view. The new Attorney General shrugs off very serious accusations of attempting to interfere with criminal prosecutions.

    4. John McCall MacBain Directly Connected To McGill U

    Taking a quick look at the McCall MacBain page, for “our people”, we quickly spot two items:

    John McCall MacBain not only has an undergraduate degree in economics from McGill, but he chairs the International Advisory Board as well.

    Although McGill is a decent sized university, the obvious question must be asked: Does John McCall MacBain know David Lametti personally?

    5. Connections To Trudeau Foundation

    (Jacques Bougie, Member of the Governance and Ethics Committee for SNC Lavalin, also is part of the Trudeau Foundation)

    From the National Post article, of December 12, 2016:

    Last Monday, interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose wrote to the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner and to the lobbying commissioner, asking them to investigate Liberal fundraising practices — and in particular, whether people might be using donations to the charitable Trudeau Foundation to gain influence with the government.

    “Given that Prime Minister Trudeau is a former member of the Trudeau Foundation,” she wrote, “that his brother Alexandre Trudeau is a current member of the board of directors of the foundation, that the Minister of Industry appoints two directors of the Trudeau Foundation, and that the Foundation has two representatives of the Trudeau family, any efforts by Mr. Trudeau to use his position as Prime Minister to encourage donations may be a violation of the definition of a conflict of interest.”

    A National Post analysis of the Trudeau Foundation’s public disclosures has found that gifts to the foundation have increased significantly since Justin Trudeau’s April 2013 election as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. The amount of money contributed to the foundation by foreign donors has grown each year since Trudeau claimed the party’s leadership. Moreover, a significant proportion of the charity’s donors, directors and members have ties to companies and organizations that are actively lobbying the federal government.

    Whether or not the foundation violates conflict-of-interest laws, its operations represent another challenge to the high ethical standard Trudeau has established for his government. The Open and Accountable Government guide, codified after Trudeau became prime minister in October 2015, specifies that when fundraising or dealing with lobbyists, “Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries must avoid conflict of interest, the appearance of conflict of interest and situations that have the potential to involve conflicts of interest.”

    Would the Trudeau Government try to do an end run around Jody Wilson-Raybould’s refusal to grant SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement? Would replacing her with the more “easily swayed” David Lametti work? Was the “gift” to McGill University 4 days after the announcement really just a form of payment?

    It seems on the surface a conspiracy theory. However, given all the things the Trudeau Foundation has been involved with, it’s no much of a stretch.

    It wasn’t the Canadian Government that gave McGill University the $200 million. Instead, it was a member of the Trudeau Foundation, who has been illegally lobbying Justin Trudeau.

    That hardly makes it better.

    Also when searching, out came this little gem here:

    This is Philippe Couillard, the former Premier of Quebec. He has some very interesting connections:

    • Member of Privy Council
    • Teaching health care governance at McGill University
    • Long time Liberal
    • Member of Trudeau Foundation

    But hey, it’s probably all unrelated.

    6. Not Likely To Be Prosecuted

    Bribery of judicial officers, etc.
    119 (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years who
    (a) being the holder of a judicial office, or being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, directly or indirectly, corruptly accepts, obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for themselves or another person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by them in their official capacity, or
    (b) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives or offers to a person mentioned in paragraph (a), or to anyone for the benefit of that person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by that person in their official capacity.
    Marginal note: Consent of Attorney General(2) No proceedings against a person who holds a judicial office shall be instituted under this section without the consent in writing of the Attorney General of Canada.

    Considering that the sitting Attorney General is a full fledged PARTICIPANT in this corruption, it is extremely unlikely he will agree to a prosecution.

    This reeks of corruption, unfortunately, it’s kind of a rigged game.

    Theoretically, Lametti could be removed, and a new Attorney General could open up a case. That is also unlikely, since Trudeau would have to do it. Perhaps his successor will.

    7. Is This Flat Out Corruption?

    Consider the facts:

    1. SNC-Lavalin has at least two lobbyists: (a) Bruce Hartley; and (b) William Pristanski, who have been actively lobbying on SNC’s behalf in order to get a DPA for its criminal activity
    2. David Lametti has previously been lobbied at least once by SNC-Lavalin.
    3. Jody Wilson Raybould opposed allowing SNC-Lavalin access to a DPA (deferred prosecution agreement), as she felt it was inappropriate.
    4. JWR is replaced by David Lametti, a law professor from McGill University, currently on leave.
    5. 4 days after announcing that Lavalin will be reconsidered for the DPA, McGill receives a $200M “gift” from John McCall MacBain.
    6. John McCall MacBain sits on the Trudeau Foundation, as does Jacques Bougie (also on the Board of Directors for SNC-Lavalin).
    7. McCall MacBain has also been investigated for illegal donations to Justin Trudeau.

    Perhaps I’m missing something, but it looks pretty corrupt to me.

    Who Is Behind Our Leaders: Elections Canada & Other Information

    Note: After talking with Elections Canada, and discussing time limits to file, it seems fair that portions of this get changed. I had some incorrect information last time. Furthermore, it seems wrong to go harder on one side than another.

    1. Important Links

    CLICK HERE, to search donations to politicians and parties registered with Elections Canada
    CLICK HERE, for portions of Canada elections act.

    This piece focuses on who is behind the decisions.

    2. Disclosure Laws

    Quarterly returns
    433 (1) If a registered party’s candidates for the most recent general election received at that election at least 2% of the number of valid votes cast, or at least 5% of the number of valid votes cast in the electoral districts in which the registered party endorsed a candidate, the registered party’s chief agent shall, for each quarter — in respect of a fiscal period of the registered party — that follows that general election, beginning with the quarter that immediately follows that general election and ending with the quarter in which polling day at the next general election is held, provide the Chief Electoral Officer with a return that includes the information required under paragraphs 432(2)(a) to (d), (i) and (l).
    Marginal note:
    Period for providing return
    (2) A quarterly return shall be provided within 30 days after the end of the period to which it relates.

    Whereas others:

    Marginal note:
    Period for providing documents
    432(5) The documents referred to in subsection (1) shall be provided to the Chief Electoral Officer within six months after the end of the fiscal period.

    So there are different regulations depending on how established the party is.

    Elections Canada currently provides access to quarterly reports for 5 parties: CPC, LPC, NDP, GRN, and BQ.

    3. Current Fundraising Information?

    Search the Conservative Party of Canada for donations from January 1, 2019 to July 4, 2019 on Elections Canada registry. You will get 12,629 individual donations.

    Similarly, check the Liberal Party of Canada, and you will see 13,127 contributions for that same 6 month period.

    The New Democratic Party lists 3096 individual donations in those same 6 months.

    The Green Party of Canada lists 983 individual donations in the same 6 months (January to July 2019)

    The People’s Party of Canada has no registered donations at all.

    However, the People’s Party of Canada, despite being registered since January 2019, and boasting of enormous fundraising within hours of being able to issue tax receipts. If it can actually get the 2% threshold in the next election, quarterly reports will be required from then on.

    In fairness, there are different standards for smaller parties than big ones. Parties who have actually participated with some electoral success are subjected to shorter reporting times.

    4. Conservative Party Fundraising

    Worth a note that Canada’s most influential family is known to contribute the Conservative Party. The above are just a few of the donations.

    Arthur Porter has been a regular contributor to the Conservative Party. However, his controversial appointment to the SIRC quite understandably made headlines.

    These are from Frank Gustra, a partner of the American “charity”, the Clinton Foundation. Gustra has many questionable ties to the Clintons.

    The 2019 1st quarter report cites 8,010,860.61 in total revenue from 50,026 donors. Approximately $160/donation, although a lot of the names come up. However, there are a number of incidents which make the fundraising seem dodgy.

    Conservative scandals:
    CLICK HERE, for Senators Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, and Patrick Brazeau suspended over their own illegal spending. (Not fundraising, but still disgusting)
    CLICK HERE, for Dean Del Mastro, criminally charged over Elections Act breaches.
    CLICK HERE for Doug Ford’s $1250/plate cash-for-access got attention.
    CLICK HERE for Andrew Scheer’s cash-for-access.
    CLICK HERE, for Scheer’s hypocrisy on cash-for-access.
    CLICK HERE, for the allegedly rigged Conservative nomination in 2017.

    5. Liberal Party Fundraising

    France Chretien Desmarais, daughter of Jean Chretien, has been known to donate to the LPC. Also worth noting that both Trudeau Jr. and Sr., and Paul Martin all have connections to the Desmarais family.

    Paul Bronfman, who has suspected ties to the Liberal Party, is also a regular donor.

    In the first quarter of 2019, the Liberals took in $3,857,163.00 from 33,321 donors, or an average of $116/donation. But like the Conservatives, there are plenty of corrupt incidents with the Liberals. Here are just a few.

    Some Liberal Scandals:
    CLICK HERE for Trudeau’s cash for access scandal.
    CLICK HERE, for Joe Volpe taking donations from dead people.
    CLICK HERE, for Trudeau not fixing cash-for-access
    CLICK HERE, for Kathleen Wynne refusing to ban cash-for-access.
    CLICK HERE, for Trudeau getting an illegal vacation form Aga Khan.
    CLICK HERE, for illegal corporate donations to Liberals.
    CLICK HERE, for Trudeau charging charities $10-$20K per speech.
    CLICK HERE, collusion between Ontario Liberals and teachers’ union.

    And there’s this, which is arguably vote rigging.
    CLICK HERE, on Bill C-76. Among other things it is supposed to stop interference by preventing foreign media from influencing Canadians. It also makes it easier for foreigners to vote in Canadian elections by dropping photo ID requirements.

    6. NDP, Green Fundraising

    In the first quarter of 2019, the NDP took in 1,226,869 from 13,713 donors, or an average of $90/donation

    While there seems to be significantly less corruption in the NDP than the CPC or LPC, it is not without problems.
    CLICK HERE, for illegal union donations.

    In the first quarter of 2019, the Greens took in 783,278 from 9,786 people, or $80/donation

    Smaller parties, such as those receiving less than 2% in a general election, are required to file annual reports, which is much less of a burden than quarterly.

    7. People’s Party Fundraising

    Although it is denied that Bernier’s former employers are involved in the start-up of the new party, there are some interesting connections worth pointing out.

    CLICK HERE, for Charles Koch Foundation, Economic Freedom
    CLICK HERE, for the Atlas Network.
    CLICK HERE, for the Fraser Institute.
    CLICK HERE, for the Montreal Economic Institute.
    CLICK HERE, for MEI Board of Directors.
    CLICK HERE, for Maxime Bernier’s PPC profile page.
    CLICK HERE, for MEI policy “on prosperous tomorrow”.

    CLICK HERE, for the Institute of Humane Studies, which Charles Koch sits on the Board of Directors.
    CLICK HERE, for Michel Kelly Gagnon studies at Institute for Humane Studies.
    CLICK HERE, for CPC’s patronage appointment of Michel Kelly-Gagnon, a former co-worker of Maxime Bernier at MEI.

    (Charles Koch Foundation. It sponsors many things, including economic freedom and liberalized/free trade globally)

    (The Atlas Network, which has 13 partners across Canada)

    (6 of Atlas’ partners, which includes Fraser Institute, and Canadian Taxpayers Federation)

    (6 other Atlas partners, including Montreal Economic Institute. The 13th partner is World Taxpayer’s Federation)

    (Helene Desmarais is Chairwoman of the Montreal Economic Institute. Her husband is Paul Desmarais Jr., co-owner of Power Corp)

    (From Maxime Bernier’s Profile Page, MEI Executive VP)

    (Helene Desmarais donates to Bernier’s 2008 re-election, and to his 2017 race for CPC leadership)

    (PPC Spokesman Martin Masse also worked for MEI)

    (Board of Directors For Institute For Humane Societies)

    (Source: Atlas. MEI patronage appointment by new Industry Minister)

    The connections to Atlas and Koch are there, at least from his time immediately prior to politics. It will be interesting to see what those donation reports look like. It is also worth asking whose policies are promoted.

    8. Who Is Behind Them?

    It is difficult not to be jaded in this political system.

    There are donation limits, and those limits theoretically keep the game clean. However, there is an untold amount of cronyism, nepotism, and cash-for-access that thoroughly corrupts politics.

    Why obsess over election contributions? Quite simply, I want to see which “public figures” are bought and paid for, and by whom. Checking out their financials is a much better representation (in my opinion) than their actual platform and promises.

    How The Left Wages War On The American Republic

    (2016 election, Electoral College)

    (2016 election, by district)

    (Snopes: LA County as big as 35 individual states)

    Note: Each of the topics below could have been an article all by itself. However, in this instance, it is better to demonstrate the “pattern” and where it is all leading.

    An individual even could be seen as an anomaly. However, it is better to connect the dots and view it all in context.

    1. Important Links

    YouTuber Mr. Reagan, created this video, and this video, on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Justice Democrats. Well worth a watch.

    Previous Posts On This Site
    CLICK HERE, for Canada’s Bill C-76, vouch voting.
    CLICK HERE, for review on Canada’s Bill C-76.
    CLICK HERE, for voting eiligibility, Part I, crime & citizenship.
    CLICK HERE, for voting eligibility, Part II, identification.
    CLICK HERE, for suing for right to enter illegally.
    CLICK HERE, for Jewish and Islamic influence in US Congress.

    Other Resources
    CLICK HERE, for hypothetical: if only “x” voted
    CLICK HERE, for Snopes article on Los Angeles v.s. 35 States.
    CLICK HERE, for an article on bypassing the Electoral College
    CLICK HERE, for removing “citizenship” from the 2020 census.

    CLICK HERE, for NY giving driver’s licenses to illegals.
    CLICK HERE, for Wikipedia listings of illegals being allowed State driver’s licenses.
    CLICK HERE, for Florida banning sanctuary cities.
    CLICK HERE, for letting felons vote.

    CLICK HERE, for a budget with no wall funding.
    CLICK HERE, for an Obama-donor judge blocking part of Trump’s border wall.
    CLICK HERE, for thehill.com article on lawsuit to force the US to allow illegal entry on a massive scale.
    CLICK HERE, for the UN deliberately undermining the US border, and US sovereignty.
    CLICK HERE, for a video by The Red Elephants on Ilhan Omar calling out AIPAC influence in US politics.
    CLICK HERE, for Saudi foreign influence.

    2. US Electoral College v.s. Canadian Parliament

    An important distinction here: Canada and the United States rely on different models to choose their leaders. Here is the difference in a nutshell.

    CANADA has a Parliamentary system. Canadians vote on their MPs (currently there are 338 Federal districts). The Party with the majority (170) of the seats, or at least a plurality (in minority parliaments), governs. The Prime Minister is the leader of the largest party. The Senate consists of 105 unelected members, chosen by various Prime Ministers. If a majority of members vote against a Government, it is considered defeated.

    THE UNITED STATES has a Congressional system. There is an “Electoral College”, gives each states so many of the 538 “votes”. The magic number to win is 270. Every decade, the maps are redrawn in accordance with the national census, giving growing states more votes, and other states less. Each state has its own rules for which Presidential Candidate gets the seats, but typically, the winner of the state gets them all. House of Representative Members, there are 435, are elected for 2 year terms. Each State has 2 Senators, which are elected for 6 year terms.

    The Electoral College may seem strange, but it has a purpose, to ensure that smaller states are not overwhelmed by larger states. To provide some balance. The US is a republic, not a democracy. It is this “Electoral College” that leftists seek to undermine.

    Why undermine it? Because it becomes an issue of popular vote v.s. electoral votes. In the 2016 election, Donald Trump won the Electoral College, and hence became President, despite have less overall votes. It is widely (and accurately) believed that the Electoral College tends to favour Republican Candidates, while the popular vote — due to those urban areas — tends to favour Democrats.

    3. States’ Resolutions to Bypass Electoral College

    As stated earlier, the Electoral College was meant to keep smaller States from becoming powerless compared to larger States. Extremely dense urban areas should not be able to wield such influence. However, a movement is underway for States to award their “votes” to the Candidate who wins the popular vote. This tactic will likely favour democrats.

    From the fivethirtyeight.com article:

    When Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016, it was the fourth time in American history — and the second time this century — that a candidate won the Electoral College but lost the popular vote. Now a group of voting-rights activists is working to prevent any future presidents from taking office the same way.

    The National Popular Vote initiative seeks to set up an interstate compact that would effectively do an end run around the Electoral College without actually abolishing it, which would require the lengthy, laborious process of building broad, bipartisan support to pass a constitutional amendment. The logic behind the compact is that the Constitution already gives states the power to award their electoral votes how they see fit, so each state that signs on to the compact agrees to award its electoral votes to whoever wins the national popular vote — not necessarily the candidate who wins that state. There’s just one catch: The agreement only goes into effect when the states who’ve joined are worth a total of 270 electoral votes — enough to deliver an automatic victory to the popular vote winner.

    Ultimately, the biggest challenge to the National Popular Vote agreement may be a legal one. Election-law expert Rick Hasen at the University of California, Irvine School of Law told FiveThirtyEight he expected there would be serious legal challenges to the compact if it crosses the 270-elector threshold. Opponents may brandish the part of the Constitution that says that interstate compacts require the consent of Congress, or they may argue that it runs afoul of the Voting Rights Act because it may diminish the clout of minority voters. And, of course, there is the fact that it circumvents what the founders intended — the Electoral College was designed to be an indirect method of electing the president. So even if organizers somehow get states worth 270 electoral votes to join the compact, expect it to face a long fight in the courts challenging whether it can actually take effect.

    There will certainly be a follow up article as this initiative progresses. But here is the takeaway:

    Instead of States awarding their “votes” to the Presidential Candidate who actually wins their state, these states would instead give their votes to whoever won the overall popular vote. The intent is that states that a Republican would win, award the votes to the Democratic popular vote winner.

    In short, this would do an end run around the Electoral College, and a significant check that has been in place for centuries.

    4. Trying To Defraud Federal Census

    There is actually a pending case before the Supreme Court on this issue. It is over whether or not “citizenship” should be on the census forms that are done every decade.

    The Constitution requires an accurate population count every decade to guide government decisions from political mapmaking to federal spending. Recently revealed documents show the Commerce Department added the citizenship query after a political strategist found evidence doing so would undercount the true population and result in political districts that benefit Republican interests. As The Seattle Times’ Gene Balk reported, a study estimates a national undercount of more than 4 million residents — more than 75,000 in Washington— if the question is asked.

    The above is an exerp from the Seattle Times, though there are many on the topic. The article is “partially” true in that the citizenship question will likely benefit Republican interests.

    But the real issue is WHY that is.

    As mentioned earlier, the States are each allotted so much of the 538 Electoral College votes, and those numbers shift with each census. But only citizens are allowed to vote in Federal elections, (although some municipal elections allow non-citizens).

    But omitting the citizenship question blurs the line between citizen and non-citizen. Therefore, residents who are not citizens — or even illegal immigrants — would be able to count themselves and artificially boost the State’s population. With the increased population, the State would get more Electoral College votes, and hence wield more power in Federal elections.

    5. Driver’s Licenses For Illegals, Auto Registration

    New York State gives illegal immigrants driver’s licences. So do California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Vermont, and Washington.

    That’s right. People who don’t have the legal right to be in the United States are allowed to legally obtain driver’s licenses.

    Why? Supporters claim that it raises public safety if illegals are properly licensed and have access to some form of identification. The issue that these people are in the country ILLEGALLY is irrelevant.

    Worth pointing out is that many States automatically upgrade their voting registry based on Department of Transportation records on driver’s licenses. What is the obvious conclusion?

    People who are in the country illegally, are LEGALLY issued licenses, and then become registered to vote. Despite (again) not being allowed in the country in the first place. A good way to pad the voter rolls with new Democrat voters.

    6. Sanctuary Cities

    The twin bills — SB 168 and HB 527 — both passed through their final committees this week. They would create rules relating to federal immigration enforcement by prohibiting “sanctuary” policies and requiring state and local law enforcement to comply with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The bills also would give whistle-blower status to officers who report citizenship violations by undocumented immigrants detained in local jails on unrelated charges.

    Under these bills, local law enforcement would be required to honor federal law enforcement’s request for an “immigration detainer,” meaning a request that another law enforcement agency detain a person based on probable cause to believe that the person is a “removable alien” under federal immigration law. The bill would essentially make the “request” a requirement.

    Thankfully, Florida is showing some sense, although other States not so much. There are sanctuary cities across the US, and California is a “sanctuary state”.

    But it is nice to see some pushback at least.

    7. Efforts To Get Felons Voting

    While this has a humanitarian spin on it, there is a more practical reason for letting ex-felons vote (and even letting people vote in prison). It is the idea that the votes will mostly benefit Democrats.

    Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders says that they should and that voting is “inherent to our democracy — yes, even for terrible people.” Many of his rivals for the 2020 nomination aren’t as sure, and at least one opposes the idea outright. Sanders himself acknowledged that he was essentially writing an attack ad for Republicans to use against him through his support for the issue.

    The question illustrates how Sanders continues to stand to the left of the other candidates as he endorses giving all prisoners, including those convicted of heinous crimes, the right to vote. Prodded by criminal justice activists, Democrats have largely embraced the politically safer cause of winning back access to the ballot box for felons who have served their time.

    8. Opposing Efforts To Build Border Wall

    A draft of the House Appropriations Committee’s fiscal 2020 Homeland Security spending bill does not provide any funding for additional Border Patrol Agents, Border Patrol checkpoints or border barriers — A decision that is sure to invite opposition from Republicans and President Donald Trump.

    The draft bill does not provide any funding for additional Border Patrol Agents, Border Patrol checkpoints, or border barriers, a move that is expected to get pushback from Republicans and President Donald Trump, who has reallocated funding from other departments to build a border wall

    Yes, the US Congress has been preventing much of this from getting done. This includes Republicans who supposedly back President Trump.

    Given the continued invasion that has gone on for decades, it “should” be a straightforward, bipartisan matter to fix the laws. It is hard to imagine any other answer than most Members of Congress don’t want a real solution to the border crisis.

    It’s almost as if Congress is being paid off not to close the border. See the video on this. And see the following tables.

    This was covered in an earlier piece, but worth reprinting. The US Congress is subjected to a lot of foreign influence and money. While it is illegal for Presidential Candidates to receive such funding, there is little stopping Members of Congress from doing so.

    American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) $3,518, 028
    Israeli-American Coalition For Action $550,000
    J-Street $400,000
    Zionist Organization of America $200,000
    Republican Jewish Coalition $130,000
    Christians United For Israeli Action Fund $120,000
    Jewish Institute For National American Security $90,000
    Jewish American Committee $74,000
    Alliance for Israeli Advocacy $60,000

    This is the source (for 2018)

    And no, that is not the end of it either.
    Consider there are Saudi (Islamic) organizations that lobby as well.

    Lobbying Firm Amount Donated
    Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP $220,770
    Boland & Madigan, Inc. $420,000
    Burson-Marsteller $3,619,286.85
    Cambridge Associates $8,505
    Cassidy & Associates $720,000
    DNX Partners, LLC $225,000
    Dutton & Dutton, PC $3,694,350
    Fleishman-Hillard $6,400,000
    Gallagher Group, LLC $612,337.37
    Iler Interests, LP $388,231.14
    Loeffler Tuggey Pauerstein Rosental, LLP $2,350,457.12
    Loeffler, Jonas & Tuggey, LLP $1,260,000
    MPD Consultants, LLP $1,447,267.13
    Powell Tate, Inc. $990,732.77

    Source is here.

    Could the reason Congress refuses to act be because of the Jewish and Islamic groups contributing to their campaigns? That is certainly part of it.

    9. Corruption In US Judiciary

    A federal judge who partially blocked President Trump’s plans to build a border wall along the United States-Mexico border previously donated almost $30,000 to former President Obama, other Democrats, and a political action committee.

    U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam, an Obama appointee confirmed in 2014, donated $6,900 to Barack Obama’s debut campaign for president and $14,500 to his reelection campaign, according to federal election records. The same records also indicate he contributed $4,500 to the Democratic National Committee in 2012 and, between 2012 and 2015, sent $3,100 to the Covington Burling LLP PAC, which supports candidates from both parties. His contributions totaled $29,000.

    Gilliam is one of three federal judges who have donated to Democratic candidates in the past and recently ruled against the Trump administration.

    U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos and U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, both Obama appointees, ruled to release Trump’s financial documents demanded by Democratic subpoenas as investigations into President Trump continue in the wake of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

    Unbelievable. Judges who donated to President Trump’s political opponents are issuing rulings against him.

    Even if these Judges “could” be unbiased here, the proper thing would have been to recuse themselves from their respective cases. It is a clear conflict of interest.

    If this border wall isn’t getting built, or if the Government is needlessly tied up, guess what happens? More illegals come in. Unscreened. Unvetted. Public funds used to accommodate. And once they are “settled” in the US, many will get driver’s licenses and be allowed to vote. The votes of genuine Americans will be offset by illegals.

    It would be nice to know who is bankrolling the Judges in such matters. It seems doubtful that this influence is purely ideological.

    And speaking of corruption in the courts, there is that little stunt in October 2018 where Liberals tried to sabotage the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. This happened with a far-fetched and wildly inconsistent claim of sexual assault from the 1980s.

    What easier way to influence the highest court than by preventing judge’s with “incorrect” views from taking the bench?

    10. Lawsuit To Allow Illegal Immigration

    This was reported in thehill.com, and previously covered on this site. Interesting how impoverished migrants fleeing persecution happen to have a team of lawyers ready to launch court challenges on their behalf.

    Trump’s professed and enacted policy towards thousands of caravanners seeking asylum in the United States is shockingly unconstitutional. President Trump continues to abuse the law, including constitutional rights, to deter Central Americans from exercising their lawful right to seek asylum in the United States, and the fact that innocent children are involved matters none to President Trump.

    On top of the above, Trump has repeatedly professed that the caravan people will not get into this county, and just as significant, Trump has taken meaningful steps to ensure the world that this is his policy position/initiative, meaningful steps such as deploying thousands of active military troops to the border, waiting on caravan persons to arrive. The legal problem with Trump’s plan to stop caravan persons from entering this country is that Plaintiffs are seeking asylum, and Trump simply cannot stop them from legally doing so by using military, or anyone.

    This would be funny, but is actually very serious. Lawyers are not just arguing that their clients have the right to seek asylum, but seek asylum specifically in the US. No other country, including multiple countries they passed through, will suffice.

    The action also refers to “thousands” of asylum seekers. It seems reasonable to conclude they don’t want any sort of limitation.

    And when thousands of unidentified people come marching to your border, what responsible President wouldn’t deploy the military to stop them?

    11. UN Backs Mass Illegal Entry Into US

    This was covered in another piece, but is worth repeating. The UN supports and condones, mass illegal entry into the US and other countries.

    The United Nations Migration Agency, IOM, is providing support and assistance to migrants crossing Central America in several self-styled caravans, while expressing concern over “the stress and demands” they are placing on host countries.

    All migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status – IOM Chief of Mission in Mexico

    Under the guise of “human rights”, the UN aids and abets this invasion across the US/Mexico border.

    12. War On The Well Being of US

    So how bad are the problems in the US

    • End run around Electoral College
    • Fraud in the US Census
    • Driver’s Licenses for illegals, voting rights
    • 20+ million illegals in US
    • Sanctuary cities
    • Opposition to much needed border wall
    • Pushing to let felons vote
    • Corruption within the courts
    • Lawsuit to legalize illegal immigration
    • Congress paid off by Islamic lobby
    • Congress paid off by Jewish lobby
    • United Nations pushing for open borders

    It is a war against the United States.
    May she remain free.