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):
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);
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.
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).
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?
(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.”
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:
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
David Lametti has previously been lobbied at least once by SNC-Lavalin.
Jody Wilson Raybould opposed allowing SNC-Lavalin access to a DPA (deferred prosecution agreement), as she felt it was inappropriate.
JWR is replaced by David Lametti, a law professor from McGill University, currently on leave.
4 days after announcing that Lavalin will be reconsidered for the DPA, McGill receives a $200M “gift” from John McCall MacBain.
John McCall MacBain sits on the Trudeau Foundation, as does Jacques Bougie (also on the Board of Directors for SNC-Lavalin).
McCall MacBain has also been investigated for illegal donations to Justin Trudeau.
Perhaps I’m missing something, but it looks pretty corrupt to me.
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
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).
Period for providing return
(2) A quarterly return shall be provided within 30 days after the end of the period to which it relates.
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 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.
(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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
This is a fairly new site, however, it has some interesting content on it. Well researched, it will give some alternative views on how we are really being controlled.
Go check out “Uppity Peasants“.
2. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for the Sustainable Consumption Institute & Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, The University of Manchester, Denmark Road Building, M13 9PL, Manchester, United Kingdom. CLICK HERE, for Clayton Christiansen and “Disruptive Innovation”. CLICK HERE, for SCI Collective Action & Social Movements. CLICK HERE, for SCI Social Inequality. CLICK HERE, for Multi-Level Perspective on Sustainability. CLICK HERE, for a Wiki explanation of disruptive innovation. CLICK HERE, for removing the innovator’s dilemma.
CLICK HERE, for the Climate Change Scam Part I. CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord. CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference. CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax. CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Funding.
3. Quotes From The Geels Article
Disruption and low-carbon system transformation: Progress and new challenges in socio-technical transitions research and the Multi-Level Perspective
This will be elaborated on, but is about subverted the status quo, or “disruption”. Worth pointing out, that although these types of articles are published and marketed as “science”, they are anything but.
As this title would suggest, the article is extremely political. The concern is not about science itself, but how to “sell” the science. And the agenda here is searching for political methods of implementing the transition to a Carbon free
This paper ﬁrstly assesses the usefulness of Christensen’s disruptive innovation framework for low-carbon system change, identifying three conceptual limitations with regard to the unit of analysis (products rather than systems), limited multi-dimensionality, and a simplistic (‘point source’) conception of change. Secondly, it shows that the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) oﬀers a more comprehensive framework on all three dimensions. Thirdly, it reviews progress in socio-technical transition research and the MLP on these three dimensions and identiﬁes new challenges, including ‘whole system’ reconﬁguration, multi-dimensional struggles, bi-directional niche-regime interactions, and an alignment conception of change. To address these challenges, transition research should further deepen and broaden its engagement with the social scienceseconomy.
The usefulness of Christiansen’s disruptive innovation framework? While used in a business sense, it appears to be a way for entrepreneurs to get into a market or business. However, in this context it is used as disrupting an environmental policy.
It is mildly (or downright) creepy that the author, Frank Geels, openly suggests that research should broaden its engagement with social sciences. In plain English, this means merging, where scientific research is viewed through a “social” lens.
Christensen  made important contributions to the long-standing debate in innovation management about new entrants, incumbents and industry structures. He argued that disruptive innovations enable new entrants to ‘attack from below’ and overthrow incumbent ﬁrms. Christensen thus has a particular understanding of disruption, focused mainly on the competitive eﬀects of innovations on existing ﬁrms and industry structures. His framework was not developed to address systemic eﬀects or broader transformations, so my comments below are not about the intrinsic merits of the framework, but about their usefulness for low-carbon transitions.
Christensen’s disruptive innovation framework oﬀers several useful insights for low-carbon transitions (although similar ideas can also be found elsewhere). First, it suggests that incumbent ﬁrms tend to focus their innovation eﬀorts on sustaining technologies (which improve performance along established criteria), while new entrants tend to develop disruptive technologies (which oﬀer diﬀerent value propositions). Second, it proposes that disruptive technologies emerge in small peripheral niches, where early adopters are attracted by the technology’s new functionalities. Third, incumbent ﬁrms may initially overlook or under-estimate disruptive technologies (because of established beliefs) or are not interested in them, because the limited return on-investments associated with small markets do not ﬁt with existing business models. Fourth, price/performance improvements may enable disruptive technologies to enter larger markets, out-compete existing technologies and overthrow incumbent ﬁrms
Worth pointing out right away, Geels has no interest in the “intrinsic merits” of the disruptive innovation framework that Christiansen talks about. Rather, he focuses on applying that technique to reducing/eliminating Carbon emissions from society.
Christiansen’s idea could be applied fairly practically to business, where new players want to establish themselves. However, Geels “weaponizes” this idea and wants to apply it with the climate-change agenda.
Geels also makes it obvious that overthrowing incumbents is a priority. Again, Christiansen’s writings were meant with the business approach, and trying to start your own, but Geels “repurposes” it.
While Christensen’s framework focuses on technical and business dimensions, the MLP also accommodates consumption, cultural, and socio-political dimensions. Although co-evolution has always been a core concept in the MLP, this is even more important for low-carbon transitions, which are goal-oriented or ‘purposive’ in the sense of addressing the problem of climate change. This makes them diﬀerent from historical transitions which were largely ‘emergent’, with entrepreneurs exploiting the commercial opportunities oﬀered by new technology
. Because climate protection is a public good, private actors (e.g. ﬁrms, consumers) have limited incentives to address it owing to free rider problems and prisoner’s dilemmas. This means that public policy must play a central role in supporting the emergence and deployment of low-carbon innovations and changing the economic frame conditions (via taxes, subsidies, regulations, standards) that incentivize ﬁrms, consumers and other actors. However, substantial policy changes involve political struggles and public debate because: “[w]hatever can be done through the State will depend upon generating widespread political support from citizens within the context of democratic rights and freedoms” (: 91).
Again, Geels hijacking a legitimate business concept, but using it for his enviro agenda.
How to implement this? Taxes, subsidies, regulations, standards for businesses and consumers. Use these to regulate and influence behaviour.
Geels rightly says that widespread political support will be needed. But he frames the climate change scam as a way to protect rights and freedoms. Nice bait-and-switch.
Conceptually, this means that we should analyse socio-technical transitions as multi-dimensional struggles between niche-innovations and existing regimes. These struggles include: economic competition between old and new technologies; business struggles between new entrants and incumbents; political struggles over adjustments in regulations, standards, subsidies and taxes; discursive struggles over problem framings and social acceptance; and struggles between new user practices and mainstream ones.
Despite Geels’ article being published in the Journal, “ENERGY RESEARCH AND SOCIAL SCIENCE”, this anything but scientific. If anything, it seems analogous to the “lawfare” that Islamic groups perpetuate on democratic societies.
While Geels promotes economic competition, this is anything but a fair competition. He also calls for:
Political struggles over regulations
Discursive struggles over problem framings & social acceptance
Struggles between new and mainstream user practices
There is nothing scientific here. This is a call for using “political” manoeuvering for achieving social goals.
The importance of public engagement, social acceptance and political feasibility is often overlooked in technocratic government strategies and model-based scenarios, which focus on techno-economic dimensions to identify least-cost pathways . In the UK, which is characterized by closed policy networks and top-down policy style, this neglect has led to many problems, which are undermining the low carbon transition.
• Onshore wind experienced local protests and permit problems, leading to negative public discourses and a political backlash, culminating in a post-2020 moratorium.
• Shale gas experienced public controversies after it was pushed through without suﬃcient consultation.
• Energy-saving measures in homes were scrapped in 2015, after the Green Deal ﬂagship policy(introduced in2013) spectacularly failed, because it was overly complicated and poorly designed, leading to limited uptake.
• The 2006 zero-carbon homes target, which stipulated that all new homes should be carbon-neutral by 2016, was scrapped in 2015, because of resistance by major housebuilders and limited consumer interest.
• The smart meter roll-out is experiencing delays, because of controversies over standards, privacy concerns, and distribution of beneﬁts (between energy companies and consumers).
While these points are in fact true, Geels suggests that problems could have been avoided if there was sufficient public consultation. This is wishful thinking.
These points raise many legitimate concerns with the eco-agenda. Yet Geels shrugs them off as the result of not engaging the public enough.
Christensen and other innovation management scholars typically adopt a ‘point source’ approach to disruption, in which innovators pioneer new technologies, conquer the world, and cause social change. Existing contexts are typically seen as ‘barriers’ to be overcome. This ‘bottom-up’ emphasis also permeates the Strategic Niche Management and Technological Innovation System literatures. While this kind of change pattern does sometimes occur, the MLP was speciﬁcally developed to also accommodate broader patterns, in which niche-innovations diﬀuse because they align with ongoing processes at landscape- or regime-levels .
The MLP thus draws on history and sociology of technology, where processual, contextual explanations are common. Mokyr , for instance, emphasizes that “The new invention has to be born into a socially sympathetic environment” (p. 292) and that “Macro-inventions are seeds sown by individual inventors in a social soil. (.) But the environment into which these seeds are sown is, of course, the main determinant of whether they will sprout” (p. 299). So, if radical innovations face mis-matches with economic, socio-cultural or political contexts, they may remain stuck in peripheral niches, hidden ‘below the surface’.
Since low-carbon transitions are problem-oriented, transition scholars should not only analyse innovation dynamics, but also ‘issue dynamics’ because increasing socio-political concerns about climate change can lead to changes in regime-level institutions and selection environments. Societal problems or ‘issues’ have their own dynamics in terms of problem deﬁnition and socio-political mobilization as conceptualized, for instance, in the issue lifecycle literature [59,50]. Low carbon transitions require stronger ‘solution’ and problem dynamics, and their successful alignment, which is not an easy process, as the examples below show.
These passages go into marketing strategies, and ways to “frame an argument”. Notice not once does Geels suggest doing more research, or checking the reliability of existing data. Instead, this is a push for emotional manipulation and shameless advertising.
Invention has to be born into a socially sympathetic environment. Science be damned.
There are also positive developments, however, that provide windows of opportunity. Coal is losing legitimacy in parts of the world, because it is increasingly framed as dirty, unhealthy and old-fashioned, and because oil and gas companies are distancing themselves from coal, leading to cracks in the previously ‘closed front’ of fossil fuel industries. The UK has committed to phasing out coal-ﬁred power plants by 2025 and several other countries (Netherlands, France, Canada, Finland, Austria) also move in this direction, providing space for low-carbon alternatives, including renewables.
I would actually agree that coal being phased out would benefit society. However, Geels makes it a “marketing” issue rather than a scientific one. Coal is “increasingly framed” as dirty. Notice that the actual science, such as from this site, are very rarely described.
Following chemical reactions takes place in the combustion of coal with the release of heat:
C + O2 = CO2 + 8084 Kcal/ Kg of carbon (33940 KJ/Kg)
S + O2 = SO2 + 2224 Kcal/Kg of sulfur (9141 KJ/Kg)
2 H2 + O2 = 2 H2O + 28922 Kcal/Kg of hydrogen (142670 KJ/Kg)
2C + O2 = 2CO + 2430 Kcal/Kg of carbon (10120 KJ/Kg)
4. Geels’ Conclusions
The paper has also identiﬁed several research challenges, where the transitions community could fruitfully do more work. First, we should broaden our analytical attention from singular niche-innovations (which permeate the literature) to ‘whole system’ change. This may involve changes in conceptual imagery (from ‘point source’ disruption to gradual system reconﬁguration) and broader research designs, which analyze multiple niche-innovations and their relations to ongoing dynamics in existing systems and regimes. That, in turn, may require more attention for change mechanisms like add-on, hybridisation, modular component substitution, knock-on eﬀects, innovation cascades, multi regime interaction.
Second, we should better understand regime developments. Existing regimes can provide formidable barriers for low-carbon transitions. Incumbent actors can resist, delay or derail low-carbon transitions, but they can also accelerate them if they reorient their strategies and resources towards niche-innovations. The analysis of niche-to-regime dynamics (as in the niche empowerment literature) should thus be complemented with regime-to-niche dynamics, including incumbent resistance or reorientation. Additionally, we need more nuanced conceptualizations and assessments of degrees of lock-in, tensions, cracks, and destabilisation.
Third, we need greater acknowledgement that socio-technical systems are a special unit of analysis, which spans the social sciences and can be studied through diﬀerent lenses and at diﬀerent levels. The recent trend towards deepening our understanding of particular dimensions and societal groups is tremendously fruitful, because disciplinary theories oﬀer more speciﬁc causal mechanisms. But, as a community, we should complement this with broad analyses of co-evolution, alignment, multi-dimensionality and ‘whole systems’.
This all sounds elegant, but read between the lines. It is about influencing public perception. Whenever academics, lawyers or politicians seem to make things confusing we need to ask: are they trying to obscure their goals?
5. More About Frank W. Geels
Selected publications of Geels
If you would like a broader cross section of Geels’ work, perhaps these publications will be of interest.
Geels, F.W., Berkhout, F. and Van Vuuren, D., 2016, Bridging analytical approaches for low-carbon transitions, Nature Climate Change, 6(6), 576-583
Geels, F.W., Kern, F., Fuchs, G., Hinderer, N., Kungl, G., Mylan, J., Neukirch, M., Wassermann, S., 2016, The enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: A reformulated typology and a comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon electricity transitions (19902014), Research Policy, 45(4), 896-913
Turnheim, B., Berkhout, F., Geels, F.W., Hof, A., McMeekin, A., Nykvist, B., Van Vuuren, D., 2015, Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: Bridging analytical approaches to address governance challenges, Global Environmental Change, 35, 239–253
Penna, C.C.R. and Geels, F.W., 2015, ‘Climate change and the slow reorientation of the American car industry (1979-2011): An application and extension of the Dialectic Issue LifeCycle (DILC) model’, Research Policy, 44(5), 1029-1048
Geels, F.W., 2014, ‘Regime resistance against low-carbon energy transitions: Introducing politics and power in the multi-level perspective’, Theory, Culture & Society, 31(5), 21-40
Geels, F.W., 2013, ‘The impact of the financial-economic crisis on sustainability transitions: Financial investment, governance and public discourse’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 6, 67-95
Geels, F.W., 2012, ‘A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: Introducing the multi-level perspective into transport studies’, Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 471-482
Geels, F.W., Kemp, R., Dudley, G. and Lyons, G. (eds.), 2012, Automobility in Transition? A Socio Technical Analysis of Sustainable Transport, New York: Routledge
Verbong, G.P.J. and Geels, F.W., 2010, ‘Exploring sustainability transitions in the electricity sector with socio-technical pathways’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(8), 12141221 Verbong, G.P.J. and Geels, F.W., 2007, ‘The ongoing energy transition: Lessons from a sociotechnical, multi-level analysis of the Dutch electricity system (1960-2004)’, Energy Policy, 35(2), 1025-1037
Geels, F.W., 2002, ‘Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study’, Research Policy, 31(8/9), 1257-1274
Frank Geels publicly available CV
• Ph.D., Science, Technology and Innovation Studies, Twente University of Technology (Jan. 1998- July 2002), Netherlands. Supervisors: Arie Rip and Johan Schot. Title PhD thesis: Understanding the Dynamics of Technological Transitions: A co-evolutionary and socio-technical analysis.
• Masters degree in Philosophy of Science, Technology and Society, Twente University of Technology (1991-1996)
• Bachelor degree in Chemical Engineering, Twente University of Technology (1989-1991)
For what it’s worth, his formal education is pretty impressive. Where I lose respect is when he deviates from scientific argument in favour of political discourse. What could be very interesting work is corrupted be having an agenda.
His undergraduate degree is chemical engineering, which again, is very respectable. However, his Masters and PhD show a deviation from science and research.
While there are many other such authors, Frank W. Geels is a good case of what happens when political agendas and manoeuvering creep into science.
A morbidly fascinating topic. Check out some of his other publications.
CLICK HERE, for an interesting article from Canadian Dimension. CLICK HERE, for an article from www.globalresearch.ca. CLICK HERE, for a failed Court bid to reform the banking process in Canada CLICK HERE, for amended Statement of Claim. CLICK HERE, for the Bank of Canada Act, 1985 version.
2. Some Background
The Bank of Canada Act was passed in 1934. It allowed the Canadian Government to borrow from its own central bank, in a sense, to “borrow from itself”. However, things drastically changed in 1974. Pierre Trudeau changed it so that Canada would now be borrowing from “private banks”, and racking up debt and interest charges in the meantime.
From the Global Research article:
Between 1939 and 1974, the government actually did borrow from its own central bank. That made its debt effectively interest-free, since the government owned the bank and got the benefit of the interest. According to figures supplied by Jack Biddell, a former government accountant, the federal debt remained very low, relatively flat, and quite sustainable during those years. (See his chart below.) The government successfully funded major public projects simply on the credit of the nation, including the production of aircraft during and after World War II, education benefits for returning soldiers, family allowances, old age pensions, the Trans-Canada Highway, the St. Lawrence Seaway project, and universal health care for all Canadians.
This is the main takeaway here: Borrowing from your own central bank effectively makes the loans interest free, since you are borrowing from yourself as opposing to borrowing from someone else.
From the Canadian Dimension article:
The critical point is that between 1939 and 1974 the federal government borrowed extensively from its own central bank. That made its debt effectively interest-free, since the government owned the bank and got the benefit of any interest. As such Canada emerged from World War II and from all the extensive infrastructure and other expenditures with very little debt. But following 1974 came a dramatic change.
Reiterating the point, that Canada was borrowing from itself until 1974.
In 1930, Canada’s national debt was about $2 billion. In $1974, it was about $20 billion. A decade after changes to the Act, the debt was about $160, or 8 times higher.
Worth noting, that Brian Mulroney, who was PM from 1984 until 1993 added over $300 billion to the national debt.
4. Fighting Back: Committee on Monetary & Economic Reform
Supreme Court of Canada Dismisses Constitutional Bank of Canada Case, Claiming It Is a Political Matter
We believe that the case has ample legal merit, and should have proceeded to trial. It is not uncommon for the Supreme Court to refuse leave on a given issue multiple times, finally to grant leave, hear the appeal and the case then succeeds. The Supreme Court controls its own agenda, both in its timing and on the merits of issues it will or will not hear. (Annually, fewer than 8–10% of all cases filed are granted permission and heard at the Supreme Court of Canada.)
It should be noted that throughout this arduous and expensive legal process, the substance of this lawsuit initiated in the public interest has not been addressed. The matters raised by the lawsuit are summarized in the original news release (pdf) issued on December 19, 2011.)
A 5 1/2 year legal fight to restore the original central banking. Even more frustrating is that the Courts have never really addressed the issues which led to the challenge in the first place.
The Supreme Court says it is a “political matter”, but no politicians in Canada have the willpower to address it, never mind fix it. Even “socialist” and “populist” politicians seem unwilling to take it on.
5. Who Are These People?
About BIS – overview
Our mission is to serve central banks in their pursuit of monetary and financial stability, to foster international cooperation in those areas and to act as a bank for central banks.
Established in 1930, the BIS is owned by 60 central banks, representing countries from around the world that together account for about 95% of world GDP. Its head office is in Basel, Switzerland and it has two representative offices: in Hong Kong SAR and in Mexico City.
We pursue our mission by:
fostering discussion and facilitating collaboration among central banks
supporting dialogue with other authorities that are responsible for promoting financial stability
carrying out research and policy analysis on issues of relevance for monetary and financial stability
acting as a prime counterparty for central banks in their financial transactions
serving as an agent or trustee in connection with international financial operations
As part of our work in the area of monetary and financial stability, we regularly publish related analyses and international banking and financial statistics that underpin policymaking, academic research and public debate.
With regard to our banking activities, our customers are central banks and international organisations. We do not accept deposits from, or provide financial services to, private individuals or corporate entities.
Supposedly, the Bank for International Settlements is “owned” by 60 central banks. It then facilitates discussions between those 60 banks. In short, it is a global collusion to fix monetary policies.
Interesting that the “central banks” are supposed to be owned by their respective nations, yet, BIS recommends borrowing from “private” bankers. Almost as if it wasn’t acting in the nations’ self interests.
6. Not in Canada’s Interests
This should be obvious, but borrowing from private banks is not in Canada’s best interests, nor any nations. This is bankrupting our nation, to enrich global bankers.
Restore the 1934 Bank of Canada Act, and let us take back control over our own finances.
Curious, even when national and provincial debts are in the news so much, no one asks the obvious question. Why are we jacking up our debt by borrowing from private banks?
Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.
All personal court appearances are under “BLOG”
Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.
Below is a “cut-and-paste” of what was sent to the Federal Court of Canada (Case: T-476-19). Pardon any formatting issues that may arise in converting this.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
Part II: Facts
Part III: Law and Cases
Part IV: Order Sought
Part V: Authorities Cited
Part I: Issues
(1) Four issues for the Federal Court to consider:
(a) Does the Applicant have a legitimate ground to bring application?
(b) Does the Federal Court have jurisdiction to hear the matter?
(c) Would the proposed UN Parliament, if it ever became a reality, violate constitutional rights? With its “legally binding decisions”?
(d) Does the Respondent have a legitimate right to sign on to such an agreement without the consent of the public?
(2) Applicant submits the answers as follows: (1) YES; (2) YES; (3) YES; (4) NO.
Part II: Facts
(3)The Applicant is a Canadian citizen. She is seeking an injunction against Canada participating in such a UN Parliament/World Government (UNPA) if ever being enacted.
(4) Although such a World Government/UN Parliament is not yet a reality, dozens of current Members of Parliament and Senators have endorsed the idea in writing. This includes the Prime Minister. This has been formally discussed since 2007, and informally
for long before that. The UNPA explicitly states it want to make “legally binding decisions”.
(5) The Respondent makes a “straw-man argument” claiming that endorsements are not violations of a person’s rights. While this is true, they should be seen as intent and interest to do so. No one ever claimed endorsements alone were violations.
(6) In the motion, the Government raised a “justification” defense, (prerogative power). As such, it is reasonable to also ask for a writ of quo warranto, to demand a full and complete defense be raised as to the legality and constitutionality of such an action
(7) It is submitted that she has public-interest standing, aka “the Standing trilogy”: Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada, Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeil, and Minister of Justice v. Borowski. The trilogy was summarized as follows in Canadian Council of
Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration):
(8) Public-interest standing is also available in non-constitutional cases, as the Court found in Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance)
(9) The Federal Court has jurisdiction under 18(1) of the Federal Courts Act to issue an injunction or writ of quo warranto. Furthermore, the Federal Court (under Rule 25) has original jurisdiction if no other court is designated as such. Since no person can be named (under 302 of Federal Court Rules), the Attorney General of Canada shall be named.
(10) The Federal Court also has jurisdiction (under Rule 18.4(2)), to treat the application as an action.
(11) The Federal Court has the powers (under 47(1) and 53(1) and (2) of Federal Courts Rules), to ask with a wide degree of discretion and to make orders it views as just.
(12) The Applicant raises several sections of the Constitution and Charter (2, 3, 32, 35, 38, 52, 91 and 92) as grounds for an injunction, or alternatively, a writ of quo warranto. Quite simply, these provisions are protection for myself and all Canadians.
(13) Our fundamental freedoms (section 2), and right to participate in our democracy (section 3), are rights Canadians take for granted. They must be protected. However, if Canada were to become part of a UN Parliament/World Government, how would we
ensure the protection of those rights? Could they not be watered down under a “global consensus”?
(14) Section 35 refers to protection of Aboriginal rights. Yes, “Canada” has ensured to protect them. But how would we do so if Canada ceases to be a nation, and became a province of the UN?
(15) Sections 91 and 92 lay out Federal v.s. Provincial jurisdictions. This is important as it holds our governments accountable. If governments do things which are in violation (Ultra vires), or against Canadians’ wishes, we can vote them out. We can hold our politicians accountable as a nation. How would we as part of the UN Parliament/World Government?
(16) Section 52 (paramountcy) gives Canadians protection as it ensures that the Canadian Constitution is supreme law. We will not be subjected to just any laws. And Section 38 (amending), ensures stability by requiring substantial consent in order to amend. This is
another safeguard for Canadians. Would these safeguards still exist under a UN Parliament/World Government?
(17) The Government claims that no argument was ever raised to support or justify the claims. This is disingenuous, since only the Notice of Application had been sent.
(18) The Government raises “prerogative power” as a justification to implement such a policy, calling it a “treaty”. It dismisses the need for the safeguards and protections listed above. Furthermore, the Government says that since such a UN Parliament/World
Government is not here yet, there is no need for the Court to entertain the matter.
(19) The Applicant submits that prerogative power does not apply here, and that there is a public interest concern in hearing the matter well in advance of any signing. This is especially true, with the “legally-binding decisions” format of it.
(20) As an analogous case, the Applicant suggests that the European Union (EU) and the British Exit from it (Brexit) should be considered.
Part III: Law and Cases
(21) The Applicant has standing to make just an application under the “Public-Interest Standing” doctrine.
Public interest standing
The Supreme Court of Canada developed the concept of public interest standing in three constitutional cases commonly called “the Standing trilogy”: Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada, Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeil, and Minister of Justice v. Borowski. The trilogy was summarized as follows in Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration):
It has been seen that when public interest standing is sought, consideration must be given to three aspects. First, is there a serious issue raised as to the invalidity of legislation in question? Second, has it been established that the plaintiff is directly affected by the legislation or if not does the plaintiff have a genuine interest in its validity? Third, is there another reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the court?
Public-interest standing is also available in non-constitutional cases, as the Court found in
Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance)
First, yes, there are serious issues raised as the invalidity (see below)
Second, yes, as a Canadian citizen, my rights would directly be influenced by the UNPA,
and certainly I have a genuine interest.
Third, no, there doesn’t seem to be another effective or reasonable way to bring the issue
before the court.
Substantial Consent required (section 38)
(22) This was decided regarding the issue of changing the Senate rules (Reference re Senate Reform,  1 SCR 704, 2014 SCC 32 (CanLII) (S38). The Court cited the amending procedure.
(a) The General Amending Procedure Section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides: 38. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by (a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and (b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces. (2) An amendment made under subsection (1) that derogates from the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province shall require a resolution supported by a majority of the members of each of the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies required under subsection (1). (3) An amendment referred to in subsection (2) shall not have effect in a province the legislative assembly of which has expressed its dissent thereto by resolution supported by a majority of its members prior to the issue of the proclamation to which the amendment relates unless that legislative assembly, subsequently, by resolution supported by a majority of its members, revokes its dissent and authorizes the amendment. (4) A resolution of dissent made for the purposes of subsection (3) may be revoked at any time before or after the issue of the proclamation to which it relates.
 The process set out in s. 38 is the general rule for amendments to the Constitution of Canada. It reflects the principle that substantial provincial consent must be obtained for constitutional change that engages provincial interests. Section 38 codifies what is colloquially referred to as the “7/50” procedure — amendments to the Constitution of Canada must be authorized by resolutions of the Senate, the House of Commons, and legislative assemblies of at least seven provinces whose population represents, in the aggregate, at least half of the current population of all the provinces. Additionally, it grants to the provinces the right to “opt out” of constitutional amendments that derogate from “the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province”.
(23) What this means is that to make a huge decision and alter the constitution, there must be substantial consent. This means at least 7 of 10 provinces, whose combined populations make up at least 50% of the population.
(24) While this is relevant to Senate reform (ie. Term limits and direct elections), it would certainly be more so in creating an extra layer of government, which would be able – in theory at least – to override Federal rulings.
The Constitution is Canada’s Supreme Law (Section 52)
(25) From (Sibbeston v. Canada (Attorney-General), 1988 CanLII 5673 (NWT CA))
They include the political reality that it is the people of Canada, expressing their political will through the joint constitutional authority of the Parliament of Canada and the elected legislative assemblies of the provinces, who are sovereign in the delineation of federal-provincial power-sharing under the Constitution of Canada. Beyond that no segment of the Constitution of Canada, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is paramount to other segments, or indeed the balance, of the Constitution. The Constitution “as a whole” is Canada’s supreme law.
 Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, provides: 52(1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect. (2) The Constitution of Canada includes (a) the Canada Act, 1982, including this Act; (b) the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule; and (c) any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b). (3) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada.
 Section 52 espouses the equality of its components including amendments. Charter scrutiny could not have been reserved by its drafters: Reference re an Act to Amend the Education Act (Ontario) (1987), 1987 CanLII 65 (SCC), 40 D.L.R. (4th) 18,  1 S.C.R. 1148, 77 N.R. 241.
 The Constitution Act, 1982, also provides: Application of Charter 32(1) This Charter applies (a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and (b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.
(26) Section 52 of the Constitution enshrines the Constitution as the Supreme law of Canada. Section 38 does have an “amending” process, though it is a high burden to meet. These protection are important, as they ensure that we, as Canadians will actually be
protected by the Constitution.
(27) If we became part of a UN Parliament, then how (or will) the Constitution be able to protect the rights of Canadians?
Restricting Fundamental Freedoms (Section 2)
(28) From Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General),  1 SCR 927, 1989 CanLII 87 (SCC)
C.The Second Step: Was the Purpose or Effect of the Government Action to Restrict Freedom of Expression? Having found that the plaintiff’s activity does fall within the scope of guaranteed free expression, it must next be determined whether the purpose or effect of the impugned governmental action was to control attempts to convey meaning through that activity. The importance of focussing at this stage on the purpose and effect of the legislation is nowhere more clearly stated than in R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., 1985 CanLII 69 (SCC),  1 S.C.R. 295, at pp. 331-32 where Dickson J. (as he then was), speaking for the majority, observed:
In my view, both purpose and effect are relevant in determining constitutionality; either an unconstitutional purpose or an unconstitutional effect can invalidate legislation. All legislation is animated by an object the legislature intends to achieve. This object is realized through the impact produced by the operation and application of the legislation. Purpose and effect respectively, in the sense of the legislation’s object and its ultimate impact, are clearly linked, if not indivisible. Intended and actual effects have often been looked to for guidance in assessing the legislation’s object and thus, its validity.
Moreover, consideration of the object of legislation is vital if rights are to be fully protected. The assessment by the courts of legislative purpose focuses scrutiny upon the aims and objectives of the legislature and ensures they are consonant with the guarantees enshrined in the Charter. The declaration that certain objects lie outside the legislature’s power checks governmental action at the first stage of unconstitutional conduct. Further, it will provide more ready and more vigorous protection of constitutional rights by obviating the individual litigant’s need to prove effects violative of Charter rights. It will also allow courts to dispose of cases where the object is clearly improper, without inquiring into the legislation’s actual impact.
(29) How can we ensure that Canadians’ fundamental freedoms are protected? Canada ensures its citizens some of the most expansive civil rights of any nation. But if Canada becomes just 1 of 193 member states, how can we guarantee those rights will be protected?
What safeguards will be put in place?
(30) Rather than shrugging it off as “covered by prerogative power”, the Government should be answering these vitally important questions.
Ensuring the Right to Participate in Democracy (Section 3)
(31) (Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General),  1 S.C.R. 912), this principle was affirmed conclusively.
27 An understanding of s. 3 that emphasizes the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process also is sensitive to the full range of reasons that individual participation in the electoral process is of such importance in a free and democratic society. As Dickson C.J. wrote in R. v. Oakes,  1 S.C.R. 103, at p. 136: The Court must be guided by the values and principles essential to a free and democratic society which I believe embody, to name but a few, respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, commitment to social justice and equality, accommodation of a wide variety of beliefs, respect for cultural and group identity, and faith in social and political institutions which enhance the participation of individuals and groups in society.
(32) The Court held that being able to participate in democratic process was worth protecting. How can we maintain this protection if Canada signed on to the proposed UN Parliament/World Government? If ensuring democratic involvement and meaningful participation is tricky now, how would this help things?
UN Parliament Would Trample on Indigenous Rights (Section 35)
(33) From the case: Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests),  3 SCR
511, 2004 SCC 73 (CanLII), the issue of duty to consult to brought up.
26 Honourable negotiation implies a duty to consult with Aboriginal claimants and conclude an honourable agreement reflecting the claimants’ inherent rights. But proving rights may take time, sometimes a very long time. In the meantime, how are the interests under discussion to be treated? Underlying this question is the need to reconcile prior Aboriginal occupation of the land with the reality of Crown sovereignty. Is the Crown, under the aegis of its asserted sovereignty, entitled to use the resources at issue as it chooses, pending proof and resolution of the Aboriginal claim? Or must it adjust its conduct to reflect the as yet unresolved rights claimed by the Aboriginal claimants?
27 The answer, once again, lies in the honour of the Crown. The Crown, acting honourably, cannot cavalierly run roughshod over Aboriginal interests where claims affecting these interests are being seriously pursued in the process of treaty negotiation and proof. It must respect these potential, but yet unproven, interests.
(34) This case referred to land use and resource development. However, the Court should not conclude that adding a level of government would be LESS important.
(35) The case of Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director),  3 SCR 550, 2004 SCC 74 (CanLII), should also be considered, and for much the same principle.
25 As discussed in Haida, what the honour of the Crown requires varies with the circumstances. It may require the Crown to consult with and accommodate Aboriginal peoples prior to taking decisions: R. v. Sparrow, 1990 CanLII 104 (SCC),  1 S.C.R. 1075, at p. 1119; R. v. Nikal, 1996 CanLII 245 (SCC),  1 S.C.R. 1013; R. v. Gladstone, 1996 CanLII 160 (SCC),  2 S.C.R. 723; Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1997 CanLII 302 (SCC),  3 S.C.R. 1010, at para. 168. The obligation to consult does not arise only upon proof of an Aboriginal claim, in order to justify infringement. That understanding of consultation would deny the significance of the historical roots of the honour of the Crown, and deprive it of its role in the reconciliation process. Although determining the required extent of consultation and accommodation before a final settlement is challenging, it is essential to the process mandated by s. 35(1). The duty to consult arises when a Crown actor has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of Aboriginal rights or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect them. This in turn may lead to a duty to change government plans or policy to accommodate Aboriginal concerns. Responsiveness is a key requirement of both consultation and accommodation.
(36) Managing these rights is tricky enough just within Canada. However, no Indigenous group ever signed onto the proposed UN Parliament/World-Government. So how could the Federal Government claim with any sincerity that there would no violations of the “duty to consult”?
(37) To repeat, although the UN Parliament is still just a proposal at this point, there are many serious and legitmate questions that need answering. Simply saying “prerogative power let’s us do it” shirks the Feds’ responsibilities.
(38) Also, the claim is made that the Executive Branch is allowed to sign treaties. However this would conflict with another treaty, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN DRIP).
Consider the 2000 Clarity Act and Reference Question
(39) The Applicant submits that the reference questions regarding Quebec separation would also apply to Canada being taken over by the United Nations Parliament/World Government
( Reference re Secession of Quebec,  2 SCR 217, 1998 CanLII 793 (SCC))
The Court in this Reference is required to consider whether Quebec has a right to unilateral secession. Arguments in support of the existence of such a right were primarily based on the principle of democracy. Democracy, however, means more than simple majority rule. Constitutional jurisprudence shows that democracy exists in the larger context of other constitutional values. Since Confederation, the people of the provinces and territories have created close ties of interdependence (economic, social, political and cultural) based on shared values that include federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and respect for minorities. A democratic decision of Quebecers in favour of secession would put those relationships at risk. The Constitution vouchsafes order and stability, and accordingly secession of a province “under the Constitution” could not be achieved unilaterally, that is, without principled negotiation with other participants in Confederation within the existing constitutional framework. Our democratic institutions necessarily accommodate a continuous process of discussion and evolution, which is reflected in the constitutional right of each participant in the federation to initiate constitutional change. This right implies a reciprocal duty on the other participants to engage in discussions to address any legitimate initiative to change the constitutional order. A clear majority vote in Quebec on a clear question in favour of secession would confer democratic legitimacy on the secession initiative which all of the other participants in Confederation would have to recognize.
(40) Yes these discussions do need to be had. However, to repeat, the Government of Canada says it is its right to unilaterally sign Canada over to the UN Parliament if it ever became operational. Surely there has to be something more than just that.
Consider Brexit as a Warning
(41) The European Union started in 1973 as a free trade zone between 6 countries (France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands).
(42) Today it is 28 members are controls nations: trade, immigration, budgeting, commerce, farm subsidies, borders and many other categories. It can also (in the cases of Hungary and Poland), strip member’s voting rights for not towing the line. All of this was accomplished with no democratic referendum. Today, the hierarchy of the EU are unelected bureaucrats accountable to no nations’ voters.
(43) In fact the only democratic referendum was in 2016, where the UK voted to leave, (Brexit). However, the EU acting in bad faith, and the UK Government’s complicity has led to delay after delay.
(44) It is not unreasonable for Canada to find itself in such a situation, where even if the majority voted to leave the UN Parliament, we would be prevented from doing so.
(45) The Applicant has public interest standing to raise such an application.
(46) In the event there are irregularities, the Court has wide discretion to order amendments to rectify them. Fixable errors should not be grounds for denying justice to self-represented litigants (Pintea v. Johns, SCC 2017).
(47) There is a legitmate public interest in preventing Canada from joining such a world government (injunction), or at least deciding on a minimum standard, or forcing the Government to explain itself (writ of quo warranto).
(48) Furthermore, there is a public interest in bringing the issue to the Court well ahead of any such signing.
(49) If Canada ever joined such a World Government, there are very legitimate questions and concerns about how the Constitutional protections listed above would be enforced.
(50) The Government of Canada cannot simply run roughshod over Canadians by calling this a “treaty” and signing away their Constitutional rights. There has to be some checks and balances. Additionally, it would conflict with other treaties signed with the NATION of Canada as a party.
(51) Endorsements are not violations of rights (nice strawman), but evidence of intent.
(52) Even if joining the UN Parliament/World Government were a treaty, would we not be violating “other” treaties, which were formed as the NATION of Canada?
(Mental Gymnastics At Play….. )
(53) If the Supreme Court (Harper Re: Senate Reform) stated that unanimous consent of all Provinces was needed to abolish the Senate, then how could the Government justifying effectively eliminating the Legislature altogether, via UN Parliament with 1 signature?
(54) If the Supreme Court (Re: Seccessation of Quebec) stated that a clear majority of the population needed to vote for it, via referendum, why wouldn’t the people of Canada be called on to make an even bigger decision, to dismantle Canada?
Part IV: Remedies/Order
(a) Dismiss the motion
(b) Allow the matter to proceed as a Claim, or as the Court deems appropriate
(c) Grant an injunction, or writ of quo warranto against the Government
(d) Establish a standard necessary for Canada to join such a World Government with
the following requirements:
(I) Approval from the Federal House of Commons
(II) Approval from the Canadian Senate
(III) Signature of the Prime Minister
(IV) Endorsement from the Governor General
(V) Consent from 7 of 10 Provinces with 50%+ of population
(VI) A national referendum, with 75%+ approval
And in all cases, the Applicant encourages guidance on the matter from the court
(E-Signature of Party)
(Applicant/Respondent in Motion)
May 2, 2019
Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.
All personal court appearances are under “BLOG”
Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.
QUOTES FROM MOTION TO STRIKE
10. An endorsement to a proposed organization, like the UNPA, or even a decision to participate in the UNPA, is not a decision of a “federal board, commission or other tribunal” within the meaning of sections 2 and 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act. Accordingly, this application must fail.
14. There has been no decision of a federal board, commission or tribunal, therefore, this application is completely without merit. Regardless, Canada’s actions in signing or endorsing an international body do not give rise a decision that can be judicially reviewed.
15. This application bears some similarities to Turp v Canada (Justice).10 In that case, the Applicant filed an application for judicial review of Canada’s decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. The Federal Court held that in the absence of a Charter challenge, a decision pertaining to such matters is not justiciable.
16. The matter at bar is also distinguishable from Turp. The Government of Canada has taken no action to participate in the proposed UNPA, therefore, there is no decision to judicially review. In Turp there was a decision to withdraw from the Kyoto protocol.
17. Regardless, it is well-established that under the royal prerogative, the conduct of foreign affairs and international relations, including the decision to conclude or withdraw from a treaty, falls exclusively under the executive branch of government
18. In Turp c. Canada, the Federal Trial Court followed the Ontario Court of Appeal’s holding in Black v Canada that the exercise of the prerogative is justiciable only when the subject matter affects the rights or legitimate expectations of an individual.
19. Even if there was a “decision” in this matter, Canada is exercising its prerogative powers under foreign affairs when participating or endorsing any international body like the UNPA.
20. In the Applicant’s material, she enumerates seven grounds for her application:
a) First, that the proposed UNPA violates “Peace Order and Good Government” pursuant to section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867;
b) Second, that the UNPA violates section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982;
c) Third, that the UNPA violates sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867;
d) Fourth, that the UNPA requires a constitutional amendment, pursuant to section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982
e) Fifth, that the UNPA violates section 3 of the Charter;
f) Sixth, that the UNPA violates section 2 of the Charter;
g) Seventh, that the UNPA violates section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982
21. Although the Applicant has raised several constitutional issues, she has failed to articulate how endorsements of a proposed international body like the UNPA violates any of the ground listed. Likewise, she has failed to articulate how it affects her rights.
22. The UNPA does not affect the Applicant’s rights or legitimate expectations because it has no legal personhood, domestically or internationally, and therefore has no ability to affect the Applicant. The application is both premature and meritless.
23. In summary, there are obvious and fatal flaws with this application. Canada therefore requests that the application be dismissed on the basis that the application is so clearly improper as to be bereft of any possibility of success.
A number of problems cited:
Application for Judicial Review is wrong format
Endorsements are not sufficient
Matter brought to court prematurely
“Prerogative Power” allows such a “treaty”
Court has no basis to interfere
Admittedly, a lot to take on. But a response is coming.
Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.
All personal court appearances are under “BLOG”
Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.
WHAT WENDY MESLEY SHOULD HAVE ASKED
(1) The Name Sounds Communist
Would you please change it? It’s hard to take seriously.
(2) PPC Purging/EDAs
What happened with EDAs (particularly in BC)? Why were members removed?
(3) Lack of Transparency
Who are the people running the party at the higher levels? And please, no generic answer of “the people”.
(4) PPC Won’t Leave the UN
You say repeatedly “the UN is a useless joke”, wasteful and corrupt. Do you support leaving the UN altogether? If not, why not?
(5) PPC Will “Only Review” Foreign Aid
If the UN is wasteful and corrupt, why do foreign aid at all? Why not give directly to worthwhile cases if needed?
(6) PPC Will “Only Review” Equalization Formula
You claim that equalization is inter-provincial welfare. Okay, then why only “review” it? Why not phase it out entirely? Is it a strategy for not alienating QC/Maritime voters?
(7) PPC Supports Mass Migration
You claim current immigration levels are 310,000 which you would reduce to 250,000 (a 20% cut). But why is it that TFW and student visas are not mentioned, given they are both paths to citizenship? Isn’t the actual number more than double 310K? Wouldn’t your “reduction” be much less than 20%? And why do you cut off people who disagree with your numbers?
(8) Import Labour While Canadians Unemployed
You claim to support economic immigration. But given the tough job market, especially for youth and new graduates, doesn’t this just handicap Canadians by raising supply and forcing down wages?
And doesn’t the TFWP force Canadian taxpayers to subsidize foreign replacements for their jobs? Isn’t that corporate welfare?
(9) Civic Nationalism is Glorified Multiculturalism
I’ve been told that the PPC is a “civic nationalist” organization. Is this true, and how is it different from multiculturalism?
And what is the difference between “multiculturalism” and “extreme multiculturalism”? Other than a rejection of Sharia?
(10) Quebec Hypocrisy in Protecting Identity
Quebec has laws to protect its language and culture. The rest of Canada doesn’t. Do you support this double standard?
(11) Bernier Compares Himself to Macron
You said in an interview that Emmanuel Macron built a party in a year and became President of France. Does it concern you Macron is a Rothschild’s banker, fake populist, and promotes EU control of Europe?
(12) PPC’s new hero: Jordan Peterson
Given Jordan Peterson’s participation in writing the UN Secretary General’s High Level Report For Global Sustainability, (a.k.a. Agenda 2030) why do you support having him in your party? Does his “selective” support of free speech concern you?
(13) Complete Dismissal of Social Conservatives
Why does PPC refuse to address social issues? Do they not interest you?
(14) Political Islam
Given Islam’s stated goal of taking over the world, do you view “POLITICAL ISLAM” as a threat to Canada and the rest of the world? Why or why not?
(15) Hypocrisy in “Call-Out Culture”
You criticize Andrew Scheer for not standing for anything. Yet on social issues you also refuse to take a position. Why the double standard?
(16) What makes PPC a “populist” party?
Totally up to you ….
(17) Your Boss
Do you consider Stephen Harper to be a populist? Why or why not?