Digital Citizen Contribution Program & The Paris Call

It’s no secret that very little (if anything) the Canadian Government does actually originates organically from within this country. Typically, some international body or N.G.O. is responsible for setting it in motion. And efforts to combat misinformation online are no exception.

Activities like the Digital Citizen Initiative and Digital Citizen Contribution Program understandably raise questions. In a free and open society, should the Government be attempting to influence and manipulate public opinion on important topics? Why are we paying for this? And does this sort of thing end up doing an end run around democracy? (Not that we really have one)

Is advancing international cyber norms something Ottawa should be involved with? (See original)

All of that said, a more basic question needs to be asked:

Who’s really behind it?

Turns out that this stems from a 2018 agreement that received little coverage in the mainstream press. Here is how it’s explained on the Paris Call website.

In 2018, French President Emmanuel Macron launched the Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace with the goal of addressing new cyberspace threats that could endanger citizens and infrastructure. The Paris Call invites all cyberspace actors to work together and encourages states to cooperate internationally with private sector partners, the world of research, and civil society organizations.

Supporters of the Paris Call commit to working together to adopt responsible behaviour and secure cyberspace, based on a set of nine common principles. These principles act as a non-binding declaration and set a precedent as the largest-ever multi-stakeholder cybersecurity agreement in modern history.

Today, over 95 governments, nearly 350 international organizations, as well as more than 600 private sector entities have endorsed the Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau publicly pledged Canada’s support for the Paris Call in November 2018.

The media grants to “safeguard democracy” are somewhat known in media and political circles. But what isn’t discussed is the international agreement done to make this happen.

Now, were any referendums or election campaigns ever held on joining some initiative like this? No. And it raises the question of who exactly will be setting the standards, enforcing the standards, and what kind of private information that will be shared.

Of course, Microsoft is involved in this project, because, why not?

As with all (or at least, most) agreements, this is considered non-binding. However, Government treats it as if it were a legitimate obligation. Now, what are the ideas behind this?

9 Principles of the Paris Call:

  • Protect individuals and infrastructure
  • Protect the Internet
  • Defend electoral processes
  • Defend intellectual property
  • Non-proliferation
  • Lifecycle security & supply chain security
  • Cyber hygiene
  • No private hack back
  • International Norms

On their own, these principles seem harmless, and in fact beneficial. But with all things, the details of how it would be implemented are worth looking at.

The Paris Call is supported by some 400 N.G.O.s and 700 private corporations, at least, according to recent updates on the site. That of course raises the question of who’s just there in a symbolic capacity, and who was actually involved in drafting these documents. They emphasize multi-stakeholder participation at the U.N., without really specifying.

Here, the Government uses taxpayer money to “combat harmful disinformation“. Now, it doesn’t (yet) call for the banning of certain viewpoints, but it does mean subsidizing and financing favourable ones.

This has led to the Digital Democracy Project and the “Media Literacy Week“, among other initiatives. The Federal Government is using taxpayer money to domestically implement an international agreement for cyberspace security.

The Digital Citizen Contribution Program was an initiative to hand out fairly large sums of money to “media influencers” that could potentially sway public opinion on a number of different topics.

The amounts and recipients of earlier grants were previously covered here. That addressed the DCCP, but was not exhaustive of these programs.

This seems like rebranded efforts such as Internet Governance Forum and the Digital Cooperation. Both of which were heavily influenced by the United Nations.

Special Ukraine Crisis Call
In the light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, this special call is aimed to address the growing spread of harmful misinformation and disinformation. The special targeted call was launched to fund initiatives that help people identify misinformation and disinformation online.

Yes, the Feds actually had a program to contract out influential people that could manipulate public opinion on the Ukraine-Russia situation. Is war propaganda ethical at all?

It’s not a stretch to see politicians go to the next level, and start banning or restricting viewpoints that contradict official narratives. It’s been talked out before.

One final point: let’s not pretend that this is limited to Trudeau or the Liberals. Had Stephen Harper been re-elected in 2015, he surely would have signed onto it.

(8) Paris Call Advancing International Norms
(9) Paris Call Text

Danielle Smith Already Backpeddling On Protecting Medical Autonomy

This topic had been covered a few months ago, when the campaign had been ongoing. Unfortunately, none of the major issues from this article were addressed in any meaningful way.

Smith made headlines throughout the country recently, openly admitting that the “unvaccinated” were in fact a group that was openly discriminated against. It was refreshing to finally hear someone say this.

While this was welcomed, already, cracks were beginning to form in the persona Smith presented. This had been covered before as well. Although she presented as outraged in her remarks, Smith came across more as if she were reading a script that had been rehearsed.

However, she backpeddled the next day on that. As soon as other groups start whining about oppression, she caved in on what appeared to be a principled stance. Of course, there were the larger issues that remain unspoken.

  • Canada being a signatory to the World Health Constitution destroys any real sovereignty
  • Public Health Agency of Canada a defacto branch of W.H.O.
  • Bill C-12, 2005 Quarantine Act written by W.H.O., not elected M.P.s
  • Quarantine Act is national implementation of Int’l Health Regulations, 3rd Ed.
  • Alberta Public Health Act is local implementation of Quarantine Act

While professing her desire to protect Albertans from Government overreach, Smith says nothing about the structure in place that will make this next to impossible. She either omits (or is unaware) that both Jason Kennery and Rachel Notley are promoted by the World Economic Forum.

Additionally, Smith downplays just how rampant the deception of this “pandemic” has really been. She plays along with the narrative that there really is a virus, and that there was just overreaction.

What kind of party will she be leading anyway? The U.C.P., United Conservative Party, was either too weak — or complicit — to stop Jason Kenney, Tyler Shandro and Deena Hinshaw from imposing “medical” tyranny in the first place. Incidently, she hasn’t called for imprisoning them, either. Innocent people were fined and/or jailed for simply trying to live their lives.

There’s never been any sort of apology for accepting the CEWS money, from the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy program. The U.C.P. got paid the bailout money, and touted the narrative that there was a global pandemic. Of course, they aren’t alone.

Smith suggests amending the Human Rights Act as a means to ensure there wouldn’t be discrimination against people in these circumstances again. As with many things, the devil’s in the details, and it’s unclear how this would be done. These “Codes” are commonly used as weapons for fringe minority groups to flex their muscles. Rarely, is it used to actually protect rights.

When Smith made this announcement, she was denounced for it. This was for suggesting that this group was the most seriously targetted. The entire backlash comes across as a dog-and-pony show.

Makes one wonder if she was serious about that Alberta Sovereignty Act being proposed, or whether that was just a stunt to get elected.


Ottawa To Ban Handgun Imports August 19th Using Regulatory Measure

The Canadian Government announced on August 5th that a national ban on the importation of handguns would take effect on the 19th, which is two weeks away. The full video is available from CPAC’s website.

There would supposedly be a small number of exceptions for the importation ban. However, it’s fair to assume that the retailers would no longer have access to new ones.

According to Ottawa, Bill C-21 would have 3 main effects:

  • National handgun “freeze”, meaning no more purchases, sales, or transfers
  • Red and yellow flag laws, to make seizures of firearms easier
  • “New tools” which apparently include stiffer sentences and new wiretapping powers

As with everything, the devil is in the details. For example, what new wiretapping powers would the police receive? They’re already allowed to apply for warrants to monitor suspected criminal activities.

Also, given this Administration’s pattern of reducing penalties for criminal offences, it seems unlikely that any changes here will be a deterrent against committing firearm offences.

Bill C-21 would be the so-called freeze on handgun movements, but apparently, the Federal Government doesn’t really want to wait for that. Banning imports would effectively shut down the market immediately. It’s troubling to see the democratic process subverted by just making an order.

Bill C-21 was introduced in the previous session, and died when the 2021 election was called. However, it’s been brought back, with some changes.

If handguns cannot be imported, sold, transferred, or gifted, how long until they are subjected to a mandatory buyback? After all, that’s what happening with what the Government calls “assault style” weapons.


4 Years Later, No Constitution, Votes Or Governing Documents

On a more light hearted note today: it’s time to troll and trigger some people. The 4th anniversary since the PPC’s launch is fast approaching.

The “People’s Party” name and its communist implications are actually quite appropriate. There’s nothing about this organization that’s member controlled, or grassroots. There’s no democracy whatsoever, but then again, there’s really not a party.

One can speculate about Bernier’s motivations, but it’s been clear for a long time that this was never meant to be any sort of long lasting organization. It lacks even a basic structure.

This “party” was announced in the summer of 2018, and since then:
-No leadership race
-No votes on internal positions
-No policy votes
-No constitution
-No other governing documents

Just a bit of advice: you probably shouldn’t say that drafting a constitution isn’t as difficult as negotiating Brexit. Sharon will take that as grounds to block you.

While lack of time may have been quasi valid for the 2019 race, it isn’t anymore. There’s simply no reason no to have proper structure in place by now. It’s also worth noting that this “party” can simply be shut down at any time, for no reason, without notice of any kind of mandate. It’s not like there’s a constitution to protect members.

The closest thing to a leadership race was an online “review” in late 2021. However, that’s not the same as holding a real contest. Also, it’s interesting to note there were allegedly some 27,000 members at the some. In 2019, there were over 41,000. Guess the numbers plummeted after the 2018 free passes expired.

Of course, it doesn’t help when dozens of the EDAs get shut down for not filing mandatory financial disclosures. There’s only so much good that “spin” can do.

As for the rant in the video, this is some crackhead logic at its finest. The idea seems to be that this party shouldn’t bother with a constitution because some other party has corrupt processes. Even if it’s true Scheer rigged the 2017 race (who knows?) that’s not a reason not to implement better safeguards here.

It’s sad because a lot of good people do get caught up in this. However, a hard reality check is required at some point.

Cultists have yet to offer any reasonable explanation why there’s no governing documents. Detractors (often CPC supporters) can’t really back up the “vote split” argument. The differences between CPC and LPC are cosmetic, so it doesn’t really matter who wins.

Also, should the “freedom movement” be led by a man who openly says that he recommends vaxxing his own father? Perhaps this isn’t controlled, but it does show cluelessness.

It’s been said that Liberals and Conservatives are 2 wings of the same bird. While true, that misses the bigger picture. Birds have legs, a tail, and a head, correct?

Anyhow, get out and vote harder!


World Circular Economy Forum, Related Groups

Have you heard about the World Circular Economy Forum? If not, let’s take a look at what’s going on over here. This is a collection of people who devise ways to make the economy function in a waste free world.

At first, this organization seems to present as a large scale recycling scheme, devoted to reducing garbage and pollution. While there is truth in that, it appears the goals are much larger.

The first forum took place in 2017, and the most recent one was hosted in 2021. That said, 2017 is an interesting year, since that’s when the Canadian budget started pumping money into alternative protein sources.

It’s a bit amusing that this group goes out of its way to have a name as close as possible to the World Economic Forum. Did they thing no one would notice? Or that no one would care? Anyhow, let’s see who’s supposedly running this thing.

Partners include:

  • African Circular Economy Alliance
  • Circular Economy Leadership Canada
  • City of Toronto
  • Ellen MacArthur Foundation
  • European Circular Economy Stakeholders Platform
  • European Union
  • Finnish Government
  • International Chamber of Commerce
  • Government of Canada
  • Government of the Netherlands
  • United Nations Environmental Program

Strangely, I don’t recall any public figures campaigning on becoming part of such an organization. Nor does there seem to have been anything in the way of media coverage. But at least we aren’t forced to help finance this “circular economy” fad, are we?

It turns out, that we will be. At least that’s what this 2021 report makes pretty clear. Like other eco initiatives, this will require lots of start-up money.

[Page 3]
The current state of circular finance
Despite the lack of harmonized frameworks, taxonomies, and metrics, financial institutions are beginning to move forward with initiatives to advance circular finance solutions in various ways. Globally, some financial institutions have set multi-billion dollar targets for investing in circular deals. Large multilateral development banks are supporting financial institutions in developing structured frameworks to accommodate innovative financial solutions and advisory services. A report authored by Patrick Schröder and Jan Raes and published by Chatham House titled, “Financing an inclusive circular economy: De-risking investments for circular business models and the SDGs,” highlights the importance of public investment and stimulus packages to de-risk and incentivize financial investments in circular models.

In order to get this going, billions of dollars will need to be pumped into it. Note: this doesn’t refer to any accounting, just an idea in broad strokes. The report continues:

[Page 8]
Circular economy opportunities and priorities are increasingly intersecting with broader ESG considerations such as biodiversity, equity, diversity and inclusion, and climate action goals, although the intersections are not yet well understood. Investment in circular business strategies and operations can result in significant positive social, environmental, and economic benefits. Circular businesses are creating more resilient green jobs and skills that will be needed in a low-carbon future. For instance, the Share, Reuse, Repair Initiative’s Just Circular Recovery and Transition project brings together circular innovators and community organizations to advance employment opportunities within marginalized communities. Additionally, circular businesses are prompting consumers to have conversations around lighter living and to make more sustainable choices.

[Page 8]
A study by the Ellen McArthur Foundation shows that 45% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are associated with products and food. Achieving net-zero commitments will require reducing embodied carbon through circular strategies, such as designing for reuse and remanufacturing, product-as-a-service models, and advanced recycling. For instance, the Ellen McArthur foundation estimates that remanufacturing and reusing an engine reduces carbon intensity by 85%

This also ties in with the idea of “alternative” protein sources and eating bugs. After all, if traditional food sources are considered to not be environmentally friendly, they need to be phased out.

It turns out that taxpayer dollars are being used for the “circular economy” initiative, even if they aren’t being directly given to this organization. Here are some of those grants:

And in a turn of events, Canadian taxpayers is also giving large amounts of money directly to the World Economic Forum. In fact, there is a lot they are forced to finance.

Accelerating Sustainability Events Management Inc Jul 28, 2021 $175,000.00
Carboncure Technologies Inc Jan 8, 2021 $2,026,500.00
City Of Guelph Mar 13, 2020 $10,000,000.00
Collège D’Enseignement Général Et Professionnel Feb 6, 2020 $2,000,000.00
Conference Board Of Canada Mar 31, 2021 $390,000.00
Council Of The Great Lakes Region Mar 18, 2020 $553,000.00
Distillerie Maison Alfred Inc. Dec 5, 2021 $30,476.00
Gabriola Island Recycling Organization Mar 24, 2022 $98,000.00
Global Centre For Indigenomics Oct 27, 2021 $49,900.00
Keddie, Leanne Mar 15, 2022 $234,045.00
Leading Change For Young Professionals Jul 28, 2021 $299,875.00
Natural Step (Canada) Inc. Feb 21, 2019 $299,875.00
Ontario Genomics Institute Oct 1, 2021 $1,262,661.00
Leadership Coalition, Natural Step Canada Inc Mar 18, 2020 $175,000.00
Pivot Furniture Technologies Inc. Feb 1, 2019 $170,900.00
Pivot Furniture Technologies Inc. Sep 16, 2021 $460,000.00
Rethink Resource Inc. May 31, 2021 $30,000.00
Rethink Resource Inc. May 31, 2021 $50,000.00
Tgm Tours Inc. Jan 25, 2021 $143,000.00
University Of British Columbia Mar 18, 2022 $1,040,000.00
World Economic Forum Dec 23, 2014 $1,000,000.00
World Economic Forum Sep 29, 2015 $6,000,000.00
World Economic Forum Dec 14, 2015 $10,000,000.00
World Economic Forum Dec 3, 2018 $52,925.00
World Economic Forum Apr 25, 2019 $999,580.00
World Economic Forum Jan 17, 2020 $500,000.00
World Economic Forum Mar 16, 2020 $5,933,063.00

The University of British Columbia is a registered charity, so it already receives a favourable tax rate on its income.

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

It’s also worth mentioning that both Carboncure Technologies Inc. and the Conference Board Of Canada were receiving CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, over the last few years. This is run by the C.R.A. and is used to help pay employees’ wages.

There is a corresponding group here called Circular Economy Leadership Canada. Its partners include many well known chains. It states on its main page that:

“We’re collectively committing to support the U.N. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12 on responsible consumption and production, and to substantially reduce waste, in all of its forms, by 2030.”

In other words, it’s helping to implement parts of Agenda 2030. The organization just needs large amounts of financial assistance (continuously) to make this happen.

Goal #2 in the U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda is ending hunger in all its forms. One of the methods pushed is phasing out traditional agriculture with alternative protein sources, such as bugs.

Goal #13 in the UNSDA is preventing climate change. There is actually considerable overlap with #2. By stating that certain agricultural practices cause these changes, it provides a further excuse to further shut down farms.

Goal #12 ties in to both #2 and #13. This calls for creating “sustainable food and consumption patterns”. By saying that current models do not suffice in feeding everyone, while asserting they cause climate change, this goal is able to solve the other two. It’s another instance of causing the problem, getting a reaction, then proposing a solution.

A cynic may wonder just how literally the term “circular economy” is meant to be taken. After all, there are efforts to get people in the West eating bugs. After humans are dead and buried, presumably they’ll be eaten by bugs themselves.



What Danielle Smith Isn’t Telling Her Supporters

Today’s topic concerns Danielle Smith, running to become Premier of Alberta. She used to be the head of the Wildrose Party in that Province.

Why go after someone who claims to be fighting for freedom, at least in Alberta? Because there are critical topics that are going unsaid.

In fairness, ideas like setting up a Provincial police force (like the O.P.P.), and doing local tax collection are interesting.

While Smith’s campaign seems to be starting well, there are plenty of red flags. Specifically, there are concerns that she doesn’t appear to be addressing. Her rise also seems controlled and inorganic, much like that of Poilievre.

Of course, if these things were properly addressed, than an apology is warranted. But they don’t seem to have been.

For starters, Smith (and all Western “conservatives”) claim to want to rebuild the oil & gas sector. However, they ignore the fact that Agendas 21 and 2030 make it clear these industries are to be killed off. These were signed by Mulroney and Harper respectively.

Smith is running for the leadership of the United Conservative Party, which Jason Kenney is leaving. In launching her campaign, she goes on about how Alberta needs to be protected from Trudeau. Of course, this applies to Ottawa more generally.

What makes this ring hollow is that the UCP received the wage subsidy, CEWS, for at least a portion of the last 2 years. It’s pretty hard to be against the Trudeau regime when his programs are paying your organization’s bills.

While Jason Kenney claimed to be resisting tyranny in Ottawa, his party was sucking at the teet of Federal bailout programs.

It’s a great talking point to be challenging Trudeau on “vaccinations” for certain things, but it completely glosses over the fact that Kenney brought in a Provincial system in late 2021, despite repeatedly promising not to. Smith is also running to head the party that was too spineless to stop Kenney, Hinshaw and Shandro.

Of course, the UCP is hardly alone in being bought off. The Alberta Liberals also got the subsidies, as did the Federal Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP. Watch the original video, or the remake for a look at the rot in our system.

There’s also no mention about the rampant pharma lobbying trying to influence policies in Alberta. Yes, it happens everywhere, but it’s not exactly a secret.

If Smith was serious about freedom and sovereignty for Alberta, she could always have thrown Kenney under the bus for his World Economic Forum connection. Either she doesn’t know about it, or just chose not to do so.

For obvious reasons, anyone tied to that organization can never be trusted to put their constituents first.

March 2017 $14,325,881,000 $922,364,000 6.54%
March 2018 $13,780,984,000 0 0%
March 2019 $15,134,433,000 $948,317,000 6.27%
March 2020 $15,335,736,000 $971,471,000 6.33%
March 2021 $16,489,501,000 $767,768,000 4.66%

Alberta Health Services is a registered charity, according to the Canada Revenue Agency. Although 2017/2018 seems to be an anomaly, A.H.S. takes close to $1 billion/year from non-Governmental sources. It would be nice to know who these are.

Not only are private organizations allowed to donate, and potentially influence policy, taxpayers are forced to subsidize those donations. Tax credits amount to approximately 40% – 50% of the contributions.

Worth mentioning: this site has asked the C.R.A. several times for donor information. However, those requests were refused, citing privacy protections.

Pretty hard to do a proper job of criticizing A.H.S. while leaving this out.

In order for Alberta to have control over its affairs, it’s important to know what international agreements various Federal Governments have signed over the years. Smith doesn’t appear to have addressed any of this. As such, she’s in no position to offer such things, even if she were Premier.

Over a century ago, an International Public Health Office was created, which we became a part of. This was done without any democratic mandate of course.

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

In order to be part of the World Health Organization, it means adopting their Constitution, and ceding a large amount of sovereignty to an international body. No prominent politicians in Canada of any stripe have addressed this point. Are they all controlled?

Article 4
Members of the United Nations may become Members of the Organization by signing or otherwise accepting this Constitution in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XIX and in accordance with their constitutional processes.

Article 19
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt conventions or agreements with respect to any matter within the competence of the Organization. A two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly shall be required for the adoption of such conventions or agreements, which shall come into force for each Member when accepted by it in accordance with its constitutional processes.

Article 20
Each Member undertakes that it will, within eighteen months after the adoption by the Health Assembly of a convention or agreement, take action relative to the acceptance of such convention or agreement. Each Member shall notify the Director-General of the action taken, and if it does not accept such convention or agreement within the time limit, it will furnish a statement of the reasons for non-acceptance. In case of acceptance, each Member agrees to make an annual report to the Director-General in accordance with Chapter XIV

Article 21
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt regulations concerning:
(a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease;
(b) nomenclatures with respect to diseases, causes of death and public health practices;
(c) standards with respect to diagnostic procedures for international use;
(d) standards with respect to the safety, purity and potency of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce;
(e) advertising and labelling of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce.

Article 22
Regulations adopted pursuant to Article 21 shall come into force for all Members after due notice has been given of their adoption by the Health Assembly except for such Members as may notify the Director-General of rejection or reservations within the period stated in the notice.

Being part of the World Health Organization means submitting to their rules and control. It’s laid out in their own constitution. To be clear, sovereignty will never be possible as long as Canada is part of this entity.

As has been outlined here before, the 2005 Quarantine Act, Bill C-12, was really just domestic implementation of the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations.

We’ve also gone heavily into the creation of PHAC, which is essentially just a branch of the World Health Organization. It was created at WHO’s instigation. The timeline is laid out, and worth a read.

Isolation, Quarantine and Special Measures
Isolation and quarantine
29(1) A medical officer of health who knows of or has reason to suspect the existence of a communicable disease or a public health emergency within the boundaries of the health region in which the medical officer of health has jurisdiction may initiate an investigation to determine whether any action is necessary to protect the public health.
(2) Where the investigation confirms the presence of a communicable disease, the medical officer of health
(a) shall carry out the measures that the medical officer of health is required by this Act and the regulations to carry out, and
(b) may do any or all of the following:
(i) take whatever steps the medical officer of health considers necessary
(A) to suppress the disease in those who may already have been infected with it,
(B) to protect those who have not already been exposed to the disease,
(C) to break the chain of transmission and prevent spread of the disease, and
(D) to remove the source of infection;
(ii) by order
(A) prohibit a person from attending a school,
(B) prohibit a person from engaging in the person’s occupation, or
(C) prohibit a person from having contact with other persons or any class of persons for any period and subject to any conditions that the medical officer of health considers appropriate, where the medical officer of health determines that the person’s engaging in that activity could transmit an infectious agent;
(iii) issue written orders for the decontamination or destruction of any bedding, clothing or other articles that
have been contaminated or that the medical officer of health reasonably suspects have been contaminated.
(2.1) Where the investigation confirms the existence of a public health emergency, the medical officer of health
(a) has all the same powers and duties in respect of the public health emergency as he or she has under subsection (2) in the case of a communicable disease, and
(b) may take whatever other steps are, in the medical officer of health’s opinion, necessary in order to lessen the impact of the public health emergency.

A serious candidate would vow to scrap the Alberta Public Health Act, or at least gut it. This legislation (and all Provinces have a similar version) are derived from the 2005 Quarantine Act, which itself came from WHO’s International Health Regulations.

It makes no sense to propose an Alberta Sovereignty Act, while leaving intact the legislation which signs away the Province’s control in the first place.

On November 30, 2020, Smith interviewed Kenney for the show she had at the time. The clip starts at about 28:30 in the full recording. Smith made it pretty clear she’s quite able to do research.

She also brought up the issue of 90% false positives for PCR testing (notwithstanding the fact that no virus exists). Even 18 months ago, she clearly knew that this “pandemic” was a scam. But that person seems to have vanished.

Much like Ron DeSantis of Florida, Smith will scream about bodily autonomy, all while ignoring or downplaying the obvious psy-op over the last few years. This was planned and deliberate, not just some collective incompetence.

A cynic would view all of this as a candidate dropped in to placate the masses. A more charitable interpretation would be a total lack of understanding of what’s going on.

Now, could Smith be a decent Premier? Maybe. However, she leaves out so much that it’s hard to see her as anything but another fake freedom fighter.