The Canadian Government announced on August 5th that a national ban on the importation of handguns would take effect on the 19th, which is two weeks away. The full video is available from CPAC’s website.
There would supposedly be a small number of exceptions for the importation ban. However, it’s fair to assume that the retailers would no longer have access to new ones.
According to Ottawa, Bill C-21 would have 3 main effects:
National handgun “freeze”, meaning no more purchases, sales, or transfers
Red and yellow flag laws, to make seizures of firearms easier
“New tools” which apparently include stiffer sentences and new wiretapping powers
As with everything, the devil is in the details. For example, what new wiretapping powers would the police receive? They’re already allowed to apply for warrants to monitor suspected criminal activities.
Also, given this Administration’s pattern of reducing penalties for criminal offences, it seems unlikely that any changes here will be a deterrent against committing firearm offences.
Bill C-21 would be the so-called freeze on handgun movements, but apparently, the Federal Government doesn’t really want to wait for that. Banning imports would effectively shut down the market immediately. It’s troubling to see the democratic process subverted by just making an order.
Bill C-21 was introduced in the previous session, and died when the 2021 election was called. However, it’s been brought back, with some changes.
If handguns cannot be imported, sold, transferred, or gifted, how long until they are subjected to a mandatory buyback? After all, that’s what happening with what the Government calls “assault style” weapons.
On a more light hearted note today: it’s time to troll and trigger some people. The 4th anniversary since the PPC’s launch is fast approaching.
The “People’s Party” name and its communist implications are actually quite appropriate. There’s nothing about this organization that’s member controlled, or grassroots. There’s no democracy whatsoever, but then again, there’s really not a party.
One can speculate about Bernier’s motivations, but it’s been clear for a long time that this was never meant to be any sort of long lasting organization. It lacks even a basic structure.
This “party” was announced in the summer of 2018, and since then:
-No leadership race
-No votes on internal positions
-No policy votes
-No other governing documents
Just a bit of advice: you probably shouldn’t say that drafting a constitution isn’t as difficult as negotiating Brexit. Sharon will take that as grounds to block you.
While lack of time may have been quasi valid for the 2019 race, it isn’t anymore. There’s simply no reason no to have proper structure in place by now. It’s also worth noting that this “party” can simply be shut down at any time, for no reason, without notice of any kind of mandate. It’s not like there’s a constitution to protect members.
The closest thing to a leadership race was an online “review” in late 2021. However, that’s not the same as holding a real contest. Also, it’s interesting to note there were allegedly some 27,000 members at the some. In 2019, there were over 41,000. Guess the numbers plummeted after the 2018 free passes expired.
As for the rant in the video, this is some crackhead logic at its finest. The idea seems to be that this party shouldn’t bother with a constitution because some other party has corrupt processes. Even if it’s true Scheer rigged the 2017 race (who knows?) that’s not a reason not to implement better safeguards here.
It’s sad because a lot of good people do get caught up in this. However, a hard reality check is required at some point.
Cultists have yet to offer any reasonable explanation why there’s no governing documents. Detractors (often CPC supporters) can’t really back up the “vote split” argument. The differences between CPC and LPC are cosmetic, so it doesn’t really matter who wins.
Also, should the “freedom movement” be led by a man who openly says that he recommends vaxxing his own father? Perhaps this isn’t controlled, but it does show cluelessness.
It’s been said that Liberals and Conservatives are 2 wings of the same bird. While true, that misses the bigger picture. Birds have legs, a tail, and a head, correct?
Have you heard about the World Circular Economy Forum? If not, let’s take a look at what’s going on over here. This is a collection of people who devise ways to make the economy function in a waste free world.
At first, this organization seems to present as a large scale recycling scheme, devoted to reducing garbage and pollution. While there is truth in that, it appears the goals are much larger.
The first forum took place in 2017, and the most recent one was hosted in 2021. That said, 2017 is an interesting year, since that’s when the Canadian budget started pumping money into alternative protein sources.
It’s a bit amusing that this group goes out of its way to have a name as close as possible to the World Economic Forum. Did they thing no one would notice? Or that no one would care? Anyhow, let’s see who’s supposedly running this thing.
African Circular Economy Alliance
Circular Economy Leadership Canada
City of Toronto
Ellen MacArthur Foundation
European Circular Economy Stakeholders Platform
International Chamber of Commerce
Government of Canada
Government of the Netherlands
United Nations Environmental Program
Strangely, I don’t recall any public figures campaigning on becoming part of such an organization. Nor does there seem to have been anything in the way of media coverage. But at least we aren’t forced to help finance this “circular economy” fad, are we?
It turns out, that we will be. At least that’s what this 2021 report makes pretty clear. Like other eco initiatives, this will require lots of start-up money.
The current state of circular finance
Despite the lack of harmonized frameworks, taxonomies, and metrics, financial institutions are beginning to move forward with initiatives to advance circular finance solutions in various ways. Globally, some financial institutions have set multi-billion dollar targets for investing in circular deals. Large multilateral development banks are supporting financial institutions in developing structured frameworks to accommodate innovative financial solutions and advisory services. A report authored by Patrick Schröder and Jan Raes and published by Chatham House titled, “Financing an inclusive circular economy: De-risking investments for circular business models and the SDGs,” highlights the importance of public investment and stimulus packages to de-risk and incentivize financial investments in circular models.
In order to get this going, billions of dollars will need to be pumped into it. Note: this doesn’t refer to any accounting, just an idea in broad strokes. The report continues:
[Page 8] Circular economy opportunities and priorities are increasingly intersecting with broader ESG considerations such as biodiversity, equity, diversity and inclusion, and climate action goals, although the intersections are not yet well understood. Investment in circular business strategies and operations can result in significant positive social, environmental, and economic benefits. Circular businesses are creating more resilient green jobs and skills that will be needed in a low-carbon future. For instance, the Share, Reuse, Repair Initiative’s Just Circular Recovery and Transition project brings together circular innovators and community organizations to advance employment opportunities within marginalized communities. Additionally, circular businesses are prompting consumers to have conversations around lighter living and to make more sustainable choices.
A study by the Ellen McArthur Foundation shows that 45% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are associated with products and food. Achieving net-zero commitments will require reducing embodied carbon through circular strategies, such as designing for reuse and remanufacturing, product-as-a-service models, and advanced recycling. For instance, the Ellen McArthur foundation estimates that remanufacturing and reusing an engine reduces carbon intensity by 85%
This also ties in with the idea of “alternative” protein sources and eating bugs. After all, if traditional food sources are considered to not be environmentally friendly, they need to be phased out.
It turns out that taxpayer dollars are being used for the “circular economy” initiative, even if they aren’t being directly given to this organization. Here are some of those grants:
And in a turn of events, Canadian taxpayers is also giving large amounts of money directly to the World Economic Forum. In fact, there is a lot they are forced to finance.
Accelerating Sustainability Events Management Inc
Jul 28, 2021
Carboncure Technologies Inc
Jan 8, 2021
City Of Guelph
Mar 13, 2020
Collège D’Enseignement Général Et Professionnel
Feb 6, 2020
Conference Board Of Canada
Mar 31, 2021
Council Of The Great Lakes Region
Mar 18, 2020
Distillerie Maison Alfred Inc.
Dec 5, 2021
Gabriola Island Recycling Organization
Mar 24, 2022
Global Centre For Indigenomics
Oct 27, 2021
Mar 15, 2022
Leading Change For Young Professionals
Jul 28, 2021
Natural Step (Canada) Inc.
Feb 21, 2019
Ontario Genomics Institute
Oct 1, 2021
Leadership Coalition, Natural Step Canada Inc
Mar 18, 2020
Pivot Furniture Technologies Inc.
Feb 1, 2019
Pivot Furniture Technologies Inc.
Sep 16, 2021
Rethink Resource Inc.
May 31, 2021
Rethink Resource Inc.
May 31, 2021
Tgm Tours Inc.
Jan 25, 2021
University Of British Columbia
Mar 18, 2022
World Economic Forum
Dec 23, 2014
World Economic Forum
Sep 29, 2015
World Economic Forum
Dec 14, 2015
World Economic Forum
Dec 3, 2018
World Economic Forum
Apr 25, 2019
World Economic Forum
Jan 17, 2020
World Economic Forum
Mar 16, 2020
The University of British Columbia is a registered charity, so it already receives a favourable tax rate on its income.
It’s also worth mentioning that both Carboncure Technologies Inc. and the Conference Board Of Canada were receiving CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, over the last few years. This is run by the C.R.A. and is used to help pay employees’ wages.
“We’re collectively committing to support the U.N. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12 on responsible consumption and production, and to substantially reduce waste, in all of its forms, by 2030.”
In other words, it’s helping to implement parts of Agenda 2030. The organization just needs large amounts of financial assistance (continuously) to make this happen.
Goal #2 in the U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda is ending hunger in all its forms. One of the methods pushed is phasing out traditional agriculture with alternative protein sources, such as bugs.
Goal #13 in the UNSDA is preventing climate change. There is actually considerable overlap with #2. By stating that certain agricultural practices cause these changes, it provides a further excuse to further shut down farms.
Goal #12 ties in to both #2 and #13. This calls for creating “sustainable food and consumption patterns”. By saying that current models do not suffice in feeding everyone, while asserting they cause climate change, this goal is able to solve the other two. It’s another instance of causing the problem, getting a reaction, then proposing a solution.
A cynic may wonder just how literally the term “circular economy” is meant to be taken. After all, there are efforts to get people in the West eating bugs. After humans are dead and buried, presumably they’ll be eaten by bugs themselves.
Today’s topic concerns Danielle Smith, running to become Premier of Alberta. She used to be the head of the Wildrose Party in that Province.
Why go after someone who claims to be fighting for freedom, at least in Alberta? Because there are critical topics that are going unsaid.
In fairness, ideas like setting up a Provincial police force (like the O.P.P.), and doing local tax collection are interesting.
While Smith’s campaign seems to be starting well, there are plenty of red flags. Specifically, there are concerns that she doesn’t appear to be addressing. Her rise also seems controlled and inorganic, much like that of Poilievre.
Of course, if these things were properly addressed, than an apology is warranted. But they don’t seem to have been.
For starters, Smith (and all Western “conservatives”) claim to want to rebuild the oil & gas sector. However, they ignore the fact that Agendas 21 and 2030 make it clear these industries are to be killed off. These were signed by Mulroney and Harper respectively.
Smith is running for the leadership of the United Conservative Party, which Jason Kenney is leaving. In launching her campaign, she goes on about how Alberta needs to be protected from Trudeau. Of course, this applies to Ottawa more generally.
What makes this ring hollow is that the UCP received the wage subsidy, CEWS, for at least a portion of the last 2 years. It’s pretty hard to be against the Trudeau regime when his programs are paying your organization’s bills.
While Jason Kenney claimed to be resisting tyranny in Ottawa, his party was sucking at the teet of Federal bailout programs.
It’s a great talking point to be challenging Trudeau on “vaccinations” for certain things, but it completely glosses over the fact that Kenney brought in a Provincial system in late 2021, despite repeatedly promising not to. Smith is also running to head the party that was too spineless to stop Kenney, Hinshaw and Shandro.
Of course, the UCP is hardly alone in being bought off. The Alberta Liberals also got the subsidies, as did the Federal Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP. Watch the original video, or the remake for a look at the rot in our system.
There’s also no mention about the rampant pharma lobbying trying to influence policies in Alberta. Yes, it happens everywhere, but it’s not exactly a secret.
If Smith was serious about freedom and sovereignty for Alberta, she could always have thrown Kenney under the bus for his World Economic Forum connection. Either she doesn’t know about it, or just chose not to do so.
For obvious reasons, anyone tied to that organization can never be trusted to put their constituents first.
Alberta Health Services is a registered charity, according to the Canada Revenue Agency. Although 2017/2018 seems to be an anomaly, A.H.S. takes close to $1 billion/year from non-Governmental sources. It would be nice to know who these are.
Not only are private organizations allowed to donate, and potentially influence policy, taxpayers are forced to subsidize those donations. Tax credits amount to approximately 40% – 50% of the contributions.
Worth mentioning: this site has asked the C.R.A. several times for donor information. However, those requests were refused, citing privacy protections.
Pretty hard to do a proper job of criticizing A.H.S. while leaving this out.
In order for Alberta to have control over its affairs, it’s important to know what international agreements various Federal Governments have signed over the years. Smith doesn’t appear to have addressed any of this. As such, she’s in no position to offer such things, even if she were Premier.
In order to be part of the World Health Organization, it means adopting their Constitution, and ceding a large amount of sovereignty to an international body. No prominent politicians in Canada of any stripe have addressed this point. Are they all controlled?
Members of the United Nations may become Members of the Organization by signing or otherwise accepting this Constitution in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XIX and in accordance with their constitutional processes.
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt conventions or agreements with respect to any matter within the competence of the Organization. A two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly shall be required for the adoption of such conventions or agreements, which shall come into force for each Member when accepted by it in accordance with its constitutional processes.
Each Member undertakes that it will, within eighteen months after the adoption by the Health Assembly of a convention or agreement, take action relative to the acceptance of such convention or agreement. Each Member shall notify the Director-General of the action taken, and if it does not accept such convention or agreement within the time limit, it will furnish a statement of the reasons for non-acceptance. In case of acceptance, each Member agrees to make an annual report to the Director-General in accordance with Chapter XIV
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt regulations concerning:
(a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease;
(b) nomenclatures with respect to diseases, causes of death and public health practices;
(c) standards with respect to diagnostic procedures for international use;
(d) standards with respect to the safety, purity and potency of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce;
(e) advertising and labelling of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce.
Regulations adopted pursuant to Article 21 shall come into force for all Members after due notice has been given of their adoption by the Health Assembly except for such Members as may notify the Director-General of rejection or reservations within the period stated in the notice.
Being part of the World Health Organization means submitting to their rules and control. It’s laid out in their own constitution. To be clear, sovereignty will never be possible as long as Canada is part of this entity.
As has been outlined here before, the 2005 Quarantine Act, Bill C-12, was really just domestic implementation of the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations.
We’ve also gone heavily into the creation of PHAC, which is essentially just a branch of the World Health Organization. It was created at WHO’s instigation. The timeline is laid out, and worth a read.
Isolation, Quarantine and Special Measures
Isolation and quarantine
29(1) A medical officer of health who knows of or has reason to suspect the existence of a communicable disease or a public health emergency within the boundaries of the health region in which the medical officer of health has jurisdiction may initiate an investigation to determine whether any action is necessary to protect the public health.
(2) Where the investigation confirms the presence of a communicable disease, the medical officer of health
(a) shall carry out the measures that the medical officer of health is required by this Act and the regulations to carry out, and
(b) may do any or all of the following:
(i) take whatever steps the medical officer of health considers necessary
(A) to suppress the disease in those who may already have been infected with it,
(B) to protect those who have not already been exposed to the disease,
(C) to break the chain of transmission and prevent spread of the disease, and
(D) to remove the source of infection;
(ii) by order
(A) prohibit a person from attending a school,
(B) prohibit a person from engaging in the person’s occupation, or
(C) prohibit a person from having contact with other persons or any class of persons for any period and subject to any conditions that the medical officer of health considers appropriate, where the medical officer of health determines that the person’s engaging in that activity could transmit an infectious agent;
(iii) issue written orders for the decontamination or destruction of any bedding, clothing or other articles that
have been contaminated or that the medical officer of health reasonably suspects have been contaminated.
(2.1) Where the investigation confirms the existence of a public health emergency, the medical officer of health
(a) has all the same powers and duties in respect of the public health emergency as he or she has under subsection (2) in the case of a communicable disease, and
(b) may take whatever other steps are, in the medical officer of health’s opinion, necessary in order to lessen the impact of the public health emergency.
A serious candidate would vow to scrap the Alberta Public Health Act, or at least gut it. This legislation (and all Provinces have a similar version) are derived from the 2005 Quarantine Act, which itself came from WHO’s International Health Regulations.
It makes no sense to propose an Alberta Sovereignty Act, while leaving intact the legislation which signs away the Province’s control in the first place.
On November 30, 2020, Smith interviewed Kenney for the show she had at the time. The clip starts at about 28:30 in the full recording. Smith made it pretty clear she’s quite able to do research.
She also brought up the issue of 90% false positives for PCR testing (notwithstanding the fact that no virus exists). Even 18 months ago, she clearly knew that this “pandemic” was a scam. But that person seems to have vanished.
Much like Ron DeSantis of Florida, Smith will scream about bodily autonomy, all while ignoring or downplaying the obvious psy-op over the last few years. This was planned and deliberate, not just some collective incompetence.
A cynic would view all of this as a candidate dropped in to placate the masses. A more charitable interpretation would be a total lack of understanding of what’s going on.
Now, could Smith be a decent Premier? Maybe. However, she leaves out so much that it’s hard to see her as anything but another fake freedom fighter.
Motion M-44 has recently passed. The House of Commons voted to demand that the Trudeau Government come up with new ways to accelerate the transition of “temporary” foreign workers and international students into Permanent Residents.
The legislation was advanced by Liberal Randeep Sarai. This isn’t at all surprising, considering the largest group coming to Canada in recent years has been Indians.
The final vote was 324-0. This means each Member of Parliament who voted did so in favour of this Motion, regardless of partisan affiliation. Every single “Conservative” voted in favour of speeding up demographic replacement by supporting this.
It’s interesting that there’s no hurry by Federal politicians to get rid of masks or vaccine passports. However, all of Parliament agreed that there should be a plan within the next 4 months to expand and speed up pathways to creating more Permanent Residents.
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should develop and publicly release within 120 days following the adoption of this motion a comprehensive plan to expand the economic immigration stream to allow workers of all skill levels to meet the full range of labour needs and pathways to permanent residency for temporary foreign workers, including international students, with significant Canadian work experience in sectors with persistent labour shortages, and such plan should incorporate the following elements:
(a) amending eligibility criteria under economic immigration programs to give more weight to significant in-Canada work experience and expand the eligible occupational categories and work experience at various skills levels;
(b) examining evidence and data gathered from recent programs such as Temporary Resident to Permanent Resident Pathway, Atlantic Immigration Program (AIP), Rural and Northern Immigration Program (RNIP), and Agri-Food Pilot, and Provincial Nominee Process (PNP);
(c) incorporating data on labour market and skills shortages to align policy on immigrant-selection with persistent labour gaps;
(d) assessing ways to increase geographic distribution of immigration and encourage immigrant retention in smaller communities, as well as increase Francophone immigration outside Quebec;
(e) identifying mechanisms for ensuring flexibility in immigration-selection tools to react quicker to changes in labour market needs and regional economic priorities; and
(f) specifically considering occupations and essential sectors that are underrepresented in current economic immigration programs, such as health services, caregivers, agriculture, manufacturing, service industry, trades, and transportation.
What specific sectors will be targeted? Included are: health services, caregivers, agriculture, manufacturing, service industry, trades, and transportation. Of course, it’s much easier to support a family if they are living in a country with a much lower cost of living.
Sure, one could argue that it’s just to demand a plan. However, Trudeau is extremely accommodating when it comes to finding new ways to bring people into Canada.
Another development saw the Government extend the work visas for graduates get extended by 18 months. Now, students who complete a diploma or degree are typically eligible for a 3 year open work visa (via the Post Graduate Work Program). For those involved, it effectively makes those permits 4 1/2 years. It’s unclear if this is just a one-off.
In 2020, the Government quietly made changes to allow people on student visas to work an unlimited amount of hours — while still in school. This policy existed to ensure that students were in fact focused on studying, and not just using it as a backdoor work permit. See page 12 of 2021 Report. Guess we’ll see if it ever goes back.
It seems unlikely that the average Canadian has any idea just how many students and “temporary” workers come to Canada. This should demonstrate the trend, at least for recent years.
Stu = Student Visa
TFWP = Temporary Foreign Worker Program
IMP = International Mobility Program
Data for this table was compiled from the Annual Immigration Reports to Parliament, from 2004 through 2021. These cover the years 2003 to 2020. Keep in mind, this is just what’s on the books.
How many of them actually stay? It’s hard to say. Either the Government doesn’t keep data on this this, or they do, but just don’t make it easily available.
About the change from 2013 to 2014: the Harper Government got a lot of flack for flooding Canada with TFWs. The solution they came up with was not to reduce the number of them. Instead, they broke up the program into different areas to better conceal what was happening. This has been addressed elsewhere on this site.
Simply beyond pumping up the people who are getting PR status, the Canadian Parliament has also been holding hearings since February on the topic of boosting the number of international students coming in the first place.
More people coming + more staying = faster rate of change
The lie has been heavily promoted that it’s only 300,000 or 400,000 people coming to Canada per year. It’s not. Whether it’s ignorance or malice, very few report the truth, including those in alternative media. Here’s a recent review of the numbers in Canada. It’s shocking, or at least it should be.
While politicians here facilitate open borders, it’s worth mentioning that over 4.2 million babies have been aborted since 1970. Then of course, they’re feminism and the globohomo agenda doing a number on birth rates. The solution then becomes to bring more people over, to compensate for a declining population.
Are things starting to make sense now?
A little self promotion: Borderless Canada is still available online. Learn about what’s been going on in this country. Virtually all issues can be directly tied to immigration and border security, and it’s not racist to discuss hard truths.
It’s a widely repeated mantra among many that “If you don’t vote, you don’t have the right to complain”. The logic seems to be that citizens aren’t allowed to criticize the state of affairs unless they cast a ballot for someone. Apparently, taking a principled stance in not supporting anyone is grounds to limit the ability to comment.
However, many of these same irate voters will express frustration and disillusionment with their choices within 6 months to 3 years. That said, it won’t stop people from endorsing the same people again and again. After all, the alternative is worse, right?
While this would certainly apply to Ontario — which has an election in June — the same principles are valid at all levels of Government.
This raises the interesting question: should people who voted for a dishonest and mediocre candidate have the right to complain afterwards?
Certainly, there will be claims that the voters had no idea that so-and-so would be so deceitful. Is that true though? Would a reasonable amount of due diligence have led to the conclusion that certain people can’t be trusted? Given that we are now in the internet era, it’s easier than ever to do background checks on the people running for office.
In fairness, the average person had no idea about this “pandemic” hoax that would be launched a few years ago. Still, this is a problem that goes much further back.
Take a look through any social media site. People will say they are voting for a person, not because they like or trust them, but because the alternative is worse. A great number also struggle to give any coherent reason as to why they are doing it. Using Ford as a specific example, Twitter is filled with people pledging to vote for the man who destroyed their Province — because Horwath and Del Duca would be much worse.
As lame a “journalist” as Brian Lilley is, he unfortunately sums up the right-wing quite well in Ontario, and Canada more broadly. Mindless sheep vote en masse for someone they KNOW will continue to wreck society. Ford brought in mask mandates, vaccine passports, issued stay-at-home orders, shut down entire sectors of business, ruined school for children, etc…. and he may very well get RE-ELECTED.
In the 2021 Federal election, millions voted for the Conservative Party of Canada. This came in spite of them being subsidized by Trudeau, and running on a PRO-vaccine passport agenda.
Support isn’t limited to real parties either. One would think that a “party” that doesn’t elect its leader, have a constitution, or vote on policies would be a cause for concern. After all, it’s been 4 years. Sadly, some simply cannot be reasoned with.
Take the U.K. as another example: Boris Johnson claimed (when running to replace Theresa May) that he would slash immigration to the “tens of thousands”. However, all it takes is a quick search to know that he supported amnesty for hundreds of thousands of illegals, while acting as Mayor of London.
In reality, it’s quite easy to check out candidates who are running for office. This is especially true if they’ve had a career in politics. Very few actually do it though.
Back to the premise of the article: if someone has no interest in performing any due diligence on the people who want to run their municipalities, provinces, or country, do they have the right to complain? Moreover, when the politician they helped install breaks all promises, are the voters not complicit in helping them?
If you vote for someone — while ignoring all of the warning signs — you are an accomplice to whatever destructive policies they may enact. As such, you don’t have the right to complain.
Here’s another unpopular opinion: universal voting is a bad idea. If someone can’t be bothered to do their homework on what they’re voting for, it’s detrimental to allow them access.
Update: As mentioned below, some countries, like Australia, make voting mandatory. With that in mind, it wouldn’t be fair to treat that the same way, if force is applied. The article was designed with Canada in mind, which doesn’t have such requirements.