Category: Voting Process

Posted on

Ilhan Omar Calls Out AIPAC Influence In US Politics, But Omits Something

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for AIPAC main page.
CLICK HERE, for J-Street.
CLICK HERE, for Israeli-American Coalition For Action.
CLICK HERE, for Zionist Organization of America.
CLICK HERE, for Republican Jewish Coalition.
CLICK HERE, for Christians United For Israel.
CLICK HERE, for Jewish Institute for National Security of America.
CLICK HERE, for American Jewish Committee.
CLICK HERE, for Alliance for Israeli Advocacy.
CLICK HERE, for military support for Israel.
CLICK HERE, for House Resolution 1837.
CLICK HERE, for anti-BDS (ban, divest, sanction) laws which prohibit companies from “not” doing business with Israel.
CLICK HERE, for Kentucky being 26th State with anti-BDS laws.
CLICK HERE, for 2019 Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act.
CLICK HERE, for top campaign contributions by Congressperson.
CLICK HERE, for various lobbying groups.

A while back, Muslim (and Democrat) representative Ilhan Omar made comments about the impact about the Israeli lobby in American politics. She also suggested that members of Congress were in essence being bought off. This brought about rounds of criticism, and claims that the Muslim woman is an anti-Semite.

Omar faced a public backlash for suggesting that the US Congress was in the pocket of AIPAC, and that it was “all about the Benjamins” (which of course is a reference to money).

Here’s the thing, though: while Omar’s comments were intentionally inflammatory (and likely aided by her Islamic beliefs), they are not unfounded. It is truthful that AIPAC and other such lobbying firms do play a huge role in paying off contributing to political campaigns.

It is also true that the United States spends heavily on the military defense of Israel, and has anti-BDS (ban, divest, sanction) laws. These aid Israel both militarily and economically. Money well spent.

2. Contribution By Organization

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

This is the source (for 2018)

3. Highest Paid Puppets

Name Party State Amount for 2018
Robert Menendez Dem NJ $548,507
Ted Cruz Repub TX $352,894
Sherrod Brown Dem OH $230,342
Tammy Baldwin Dem WI $229,896
Beto O’Rourke Dem TX $226,690

These are just 5 of the Senators and Congresspeople who are being bribed receiving campaign contributions from the Israeli lobby. Going through the list of donations, it appears that almost all members of Congress are on the take.

Kentucky joins 25 other US states that have enacted similar anti-BDS laws or executive orders.

Montana, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Michigan, Texas, Nevada, Kansas, Louisiana and Wisconsin have all passed bills fighting BDS.
The BDS movement promotes financial, academic and cultural boycotts of Israel, ostensibly as a nonviolent protest against the so-called “Israeli occupation.” Critics say its activities are a modern form of anti-Semitism and that its true objective is to destroy the State of Israel.

26 states have anti-BDS laws against Israel. There are no other laws in the US that protect anyone.

4. Strengthening US Security In ME Act

SEC. 111. Findings.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) In February 1987, the United States granted Israel major non-NATO ally status.

(2) On August 16, 2007, the United States and Israel signed a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding on United States military assistance to Israel. The total assistance over the course of this understanding would equal $30 billion

(3) On July 27, 2012, the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012 (Public Law 112–150; 22 U.S.C. 8601 et seq.) declared it to be the policy of the United States “to help the Government of Israel preserve its qualitative military edge amid rapid and uncertain regional political transformation” and stated the sense of Congress that the United States Government should “provide the Government of Israel defense articles and defense services through such mechanisms as appropriate, to include air refueling tankers, missile defense capabilities, and specialized munitions”.

(4) On December 19, 2014, President Barack Obama signed into law the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–296) which stated the sense of Congress that Israel is a major strategic partner of the United States and declared it to be the policy of the United States “to continue to provide Israel with robust security assistance, including for the procurement of the Iron Dome Missile Defense System”.

(5) Section 1679 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92; 129 Stat. 1135) authorized funds to be appropriated for Israeli cooperative missile defense program codevelopment and coproduction, including funds to be provided to the Government of Israel to procure the David’s Sling weapon system as well as the Arrow 3 Upper Tier Interceptor Program.

(6) On September 14, 2016, the United States and Israel signed a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding reaffirming the importance of continuing annual United States military assistance to Israel and cooperative missile defense programs in a way that enhances Israel’s security and strengthens the bilateral relationship between the two countries.

(7) The 2016 Memorandum of Understanding reflected United States support of Foreign Military Financing (FMF) grant assistance to Israel over the 10-year period beginning in fiscal year 2019 and ending in fiscal year 2028. FMF grant assistance would be at a level of $3,300,000,000 annually, totaling $33 billion, the largest single pledge of military assistance ever and a reiteration of the seven-decade, unshakeable, bipartisan commitment of the United States to Israel’s security.

(8) The Memorandum of Understanding also reflected United States support for funding for cooperative programs to develop, produce, and procure missile, rocket, and projectile defense capabilities over a 10-year period beginning in fiscal year 2019 and ending in fiscal year 2028 at a level of $500 million per year, totaling $5 billion.

Here is the source.

5. Thoughts On Omar’s Comments

  1. Are there many Jewish organizations who lobby the US Congress? YES
  2. Does AIPAC spend a lot of money lobbying? YES
  3. Does AIPAC “own” the US Congress? YES
  4. Does Israel benefit militarily from this? YES
  5. Does Israel benefit economically from the anti-BDS laws? YES
  6. Does Ilhan Omar get a free pass? NOT QUITE

Ilhan Omar doesn’t get a free pass on her comments about AIPAC and Israel for one simple reason: hypocrisy.

While she accurately and truthfully calls out Jewish influence, she intentionally omits ISLAMIC influence and lobbying efforts.

Yes, it was a bit misleading to leave this bit out of the title, but it’s the form of “lying by omission” that Ilhan Omar would probably approve of.

6. Islamic Influence

CLICK HERE, for the Council on American Islamic Relations.
CLICK HERE, for the Islamic Society of North America.
CLICK HERE, for Islamic Relief USA (terrorism supporter)
CLICK HERE, for the Middle East Policy Council.
CLICK HERE, for Muslim Public Affairs Council.
CLICK HERE, for Muslims for Progressive values.
CLICK HERE, for American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
CLICK HERE, for Islamic Networks Group.
CLICK HERE, for Muslim Legal Fund of America.

7. Paid Saudi Lobbyists

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

Source is here.

This is just a list of lobbyists that are on Saudi Arabia’s payroll. Note: that for both Jewish and Islamic lobbyists, there are likely many, MANY more than what are covered here.

But the point in adding this, is that Ilhan Omar is being completely hypocritical to call out Jewish influence in American politics, without at all mentioning the Islamic influence. Some moral consistency would be nice here.

There are also endless demands for accommodation made by Muslims:

  1. Demanding accommodation for Islamic symbols
  2. Demanding removal of OTHER religious symbols
  3. Halal meat only
  4. Prayer rooms built in schools
  5. Build foot wash stations
  6. Paid time off to pray
  7. Sharia compliant swim times
  8. Religious accommodation with uniforms
  9. Refusing to say Merry Christmas
  10. Repeated attempts to ban criticism of Islam

And this is to say nothing of Islamic terrorism, which exists everywhere.

It would be nice if Ilhan Omar would call out bothJewish and Islamic lobbying efforts. But that will never happen.

If nothing else, that this point away from it. Don’t give Ilhan Omar flak for the TRUTH she spoke about AIPAC and such lobbyist groups. Instead, give her flak for the OMISSIONS she made in leaving out the Islamic lobby.

Posted on

UN High Level Panel On Global Sustainability – Jordan Peterson Co-Authors

Jordan Peterson contributed to the U.N. Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Sustainable Development. This certainly raises a lot of questions.

1. Free Speech Hypocrisy

2. Important Links

(1) Peterson deplatforms Faith Goldy at free speech event
(2) Peterson’s free speech cognitive dissonance
(3) Peterson Threatens To Sue A Critic
(4) Peterson files frivolous lawsuit against Laurier University
(5) http://archive.ipu.org/splz-e/rio+20/rpt-panel.pdf
(6) Sustainable Development Agenda Unformatted Final Text
(7) https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/untaskteam_undf/HLP%20P2015%20Report.pdf
(8) HLP P2015 Report Sustainable Development Agenda
(9) https://www.un.org/sg/sites/www.un.org.sg/files/documents/management/PRpost2015.pdf
(10) High Level Panel Rpost 2015
(11) https://uscib.org/docs/GSPReportOverview_A4%20size.pdf
(12) Resilient People Resilient Planet GSP Report Overview
(13) https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/722600?ln=en#record-files-collapse-header
(14) High Level Panel On Sustainable Development Peterson Named
(15) https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/about/
(16) Peterson Confirms UN Involvement (See 1:09)
(17) Peterson Again Confirms UNSDA Involvement With Publication
(18) https://nationalpost.com/news/world/jordan-petersons-popular-12-rules-book-banned-by-new-zealand-booksellers-because-of-christchurch-mosque-massacre
(19) https://hlpf.un.org/

Note: At the risk of this looking like a hit-piece, the right in Canada should be very wary about embracing this “free speech” warrior as one of their own.

And what did this work ultimately contribute to?

3. UN Agenda 2030

Peterson’s Biography

Raised and toughened in the frigid wastelands of Northern Alberta, Dr. Peterson has flown a hammer-head roll in a carbon-fiber stuntplane, piloted a mahogany racing sailboat around Alcatraz Island, explored an Arizona meteorite crater with a group of astronauts, built a Native American Long-House on the upper floor of his Toronto home, and been inducted into a Pacific Kwakwaka’wakw family (see charlesjoseph.ca). He’s been a dishwasher, gas jockey, bartender, short-order cook, beekeeper, oil derrick bit re-tipper, plywood mill laborer and railway line worker. He’s taught mythology to physicians, lawyers, and businessmen; worked with Jim Balsillie, former CEO of Blackberry’s Research in Motion, on Resilient People, Resilient Planet, the report of the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Global Sustainability; helped his clinical clients manage the triumphs and catastrophes of life; served as an advisor to senior partners of major Canadian law firms; penned the forward for the 50th anniversary edition of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago; lectured to more than 250,000 people across North America, Europe and Australia in one of the most-well attended book tours ever mounted; and, for The Founder Institute, identified thousands of promising entrepreneurs, in 60 different countries.

So What’s In This Report?

Disclaimer: The members of the panel endorse the report and generally agree with its findings. The members think that the message of this report is very important. The recommendations and the vision represent the consensus the panel members reached, but not every view expressed in this report reflects the views of all individual panel members. panel members naturally have different perspectives on some issues. if each panel member had individually attempted to write this report, she or he might have used different terms to express similar points. The panel members look forward to the report stimulating wide public dialogue and strengthening the common endeavour to promote global sustainable development.

Let’s set this straight. The members, by and large, support the content of the report. Although there may be small discrepancies, on the whole they agree with the content.

The panel also wishes to thank the civil society organizations that shared their valuable ideas and views during a series of consultations coordinated by the United Nations Non-Governmental liaison service. The full list of contributors from civil society is available from www.un-ngls.org/gsp. furthermore, the panel interacted at various meetings with senior representatives of the following organizations: civicUs: World alliance for citizen participation, eTc Group, the Global campaign for climate action, the huairou commission, oxfam international, stakeholder forum, sustainUs and the World resources institute.

Interesting list of “organizations” that shared their views.

Priority Areas For action Include:


• delivering on the fundamentals of development: international commitments to eradicate poverty, promote human rights and human security and advance gender equality
• advancing education for sustainable development, including secondary and vocational education, and building of skills to help ensure that all of society can contribute to solutions that address today’s challenges and capitalize on opportunities
• creating employment opportunities, especially for women and youth, to drive green and sustainable growth
• enabling consumers to make sustainable choices and advance responsible behaviour individually and collectively
• Managing resources and enabling a twenty-first-century green revolution: agriculture, oceans and coastal systems, energy and technology, international cooperation
• building resilience through sound safety nets, disaster risk reduction and adaptation planning

1/ As with all UN causes, a virtue signal towards human rights and gender equality.

2/ Advancing education? Propaganda in the classrooms?

3/ Make work projects with age and gender quotas. Okay.

4/ Advance responsible behaviour? Will there be some sort of “social credit system”?

5/ Environmental systems to be managed globally

6/ Disaster reduction, as in climate change I assume

Policy Action Needed On

• incorporating social and environmental costs in regulating and pricing of goods and services, as well as addressing market failures
• creating an incentive road map that increasingly values long-term sustainable development in investment and financial transactions
• increasing finance for sustainable development, including public and private funding and partnerships to mobilize large volumes of new financing
• expanding how we measure progress in sustainable development by creating a sustainable development index or set of indicators

This is going to be a globalist money pit, with cash flooding from all over the world to achieve some vague goals. And regulating the costs of goods and services? How very Communistic of you.

(Page 50, Box 13): The Growing Use of Emissions Trading
“cap and trade” emissions trading systems allow environmental damage to be reflected in market prices. by capping emissions, they guarantee that the desired level of emission reduction is achieved; and by allowing trading, they give business the flexibility to find the cheapest solutions, while rewarding investment in low-carbon technologies and innovation.

This is the climate change scam on steroids. Carbon dioxide is not pollution, despite what the UN says. Under this scheme, “pollution” can be offset by buying credits, which of course does nothing to actually reduce emissions.

(Page 64): Institutionalised Governance
The present section examines aspects of governance and coherence for sustainable development at the national and global levels. it also pays special attention to holding all actors accountable for achieving sustainable development, and many of the recommendations put forward are designed to strengthen accountability at all decision making levels

This is taking the actual decision making ability away from the people who are elected by and accountable to their citizens.

(Page 30) Education
67. investing in education and training provides a direct channel to advancing the sustainable development agenda. it is widely recognized as a tremendously efficient means to promote individual empowerment and lift generations out of poverty, and it yields important development benefits for young people, particularly women.
.
68. primary education for all, in particular, is a precondition for sustainable development. despite real progress, we are still not on track to achieving Millennium development Goal 2 by ensuring that all children, boys and girls alike, achieve a full course of primary schooling by 2015. instead, 67 million children of primary school age remain out of school and are still not receiving a primary education. The gap is especially critical for girls, who as of 2008 still made up more than 53 per cent of the out-of-school population. basic education is essential to overcoming barriers to their future employment and political participation, as women presently constitute roughly two thirds of the 793 million adult illiterates worldwide.
.
69. The Millennium development Goal on universal primary education has not yet been met, owing in part to insufficient funds, although other barriers exist. international means to supplement funds and support local and national efforts could help to overcome challenges such as teacher shortages and lack of infrastructure. The World bank’s Global partnership for education provides one model to help countries develop and implement sound education strategies.
.
70. While primary education is the foundation of development, post-primary and secondary education and vocational training are as crucial in building a sustainable future. every added year of education in developing countries increases an individual’s income by 10 per cent or more on average. studies also show that women in developing countries who complete secondary school have on average one child fewer than women who complete only primary school, leading to more economic wealth within families and decreased intergenerational poverty. Moreover, post-primary education based on a curriculum designed to develop key competencies for a twenty-first-century economy — such as ecosystem management, science, technology and engineering — can encourage innovation and accelerate technology transfer, as well as provide skills vital for new green jobs. yet today it is estimated that fewer than a quarter of children complete secondary school.

I can’t be the only one thinking that this “global” education push will just lead to propaganda to be used against children. Rather than teaching the basics, kids will be indoctrinated about how to be good global citizens.

Also worth noting, wherever this education takes root, it leads to young children being exposed to highly sexual content.

4. (Page 54) Innovative Sources of Financing
158. other innovative sources of financing can be used at the global, regional or national level as a way of pricing externalities, as well as of generating revenue that can be used to finance other aspects of sustainability. The reform of tax systems to shift taxation away from employment and towards consumption and resource use can help incentivize greener, more resource-efficient growth. Tax deductions to incentivize sustainable behaviour can also be highly effective.
.
159. While the political acceptability of innovative sources of finance and new fiscal measures will vary by country, as past efforts have shown, recent years have seen particular attention paid to the potential for this kind of approach to be used at the global level. The panel discussed and agreed on the need to further explore new areas of innovative sources of finance. This could build on, for instance, the work of the high-level advisory Group of the secretary-General on climate change financing. in terms of sources, a number of categories were identified by the advisory Group (see box 16).
.
160. a number of important sectors of the global economy are currently untaxed, despite the externalities they generate; these include emissions from fossil fuel combustion in the international maritime and aviation sectors. a tax on the most important energy-related greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, would be another economically efficient means of addressing externalities.

recommendation 27
161. governments should establish price signals that value sustainability to guide the consumption and investment decisions of households, businesses and the public sector. in particular, governments could:
.
a. establish natural resource and externality pricing instruments, including carbon pricing, through mechanisms such as taxation, regulation or emissions trading systems, by 2020;
.
b. ensure that policy development reflects the positive benefits of the inclusion of women, youth and the poor through their full participation in and contribution to the economy, and also account for the economic, environmental and social costs;
.
c. reform national fiscal and credit systems to provide long-term incentives for sustainable practices, as well as disincentives for unsustainable behaviour;
.
d. Develop and expand national and international schemes for payments for ecosystem services in such areas as water use, farming, fisheries and forestry systems;
.
e. Address price signals that distort the consumption and investment decisions of households, businesses and the public sector and undermine sustainability values. governments should move towards the transparent disclosure of all subsidies, and should identify and remove those subsidies which cause the greatest detriment to natural, environmental and social resources;
.
f. Phase out fossil fuel subsidies and reduce other perverse or trade-distorting subsidies by 2020. The reduction of subsidies must be accomplished in a manner that protects the poor and eases the transition for affected groups when the products or services concerned are essential.

4. Some Reflection

This is all about finding new ways to tax people, and regulate their behaviour. Absolutely leads to complete government control. Worst of all, it wouldn’t even be our government doing the regulating.

The review will stop here, but please read through the document in its entirety. Anyone who supports it is no friend of freedom, or of sovereignty.

Posted on

CBC Propaganda #13: Political Charities Not Worth Auditing

CLICK HERE, for a link to the CBC article.
CLICK HERE, for the propaganda masterlist.

Political activity audits of charities suspended by Liberals

Panel report says charities should be free to engage in politics, minister suspends infamous audit program

While this “looks” like a victory for free speech and political engagement, one has to ask how tainted charities will become when their income is influenced by who gets into power.

The Liberal government is suspending the few remaining political activity audits of charities after an expert panel report recommended removing a political gag order imposed on them by the Conservatives five years ago.

As an immediate first step to respond to the panel’s recommendations, National Revenue Minister Diane Lebouthillier “has asked the CRA to suspend all action in relation to the remaining audits and objections that were part of the Political Activities Audit Program, initiated in 2012,” a release Thursday said.

The panel report, also released Thursday, and the suspension together appear to end a long chill for charities that began in 2012, when the Conservative government launched 60 political activity audits, starting with environmental groups that had criticized federal energy and pipeline policies.

This actually makes sense. When political advocacy groups cloak themselves as charities, the lines get blurred and its dangerous.

The program cost environmental, anti-poverty, human-rights and religious charities significant staff resources and legal fees, and brought an “advocacy chill” to the sector, with many groups self-censoring lest they be caught in the Canada Revenue Agency’s net or annoy their auditors.

The Liberal Party campaigned in the 2015 election to end the “political harassment” of charities, but once elected did not quite end the program. Instead, the new government cancelled six of the political activity audits that were yet to be launched, but allowed audits already underway to continue.

That left groups such as Environmental Defence and Canada Without Poverty, which were deemed too political by CRA, still under immediate threat of losing their charitable status. Thursday’s announcement lifts that threat, at least until the government responds to the panel recommendations.

The five-member panel, chaired by Marlene Deboisbriand on the board of Imagine Canada, says Canada’s charity law and regulations are too restrictive and vague. It calls for changes to the Income Tax Act to delete any reference to “political activities” with regard to charities.

For what it’s worth, it is still worthwhile to know if the charity in question is a charity, and to what degree it engages in political activities. Of course, the same could be said for religious groups.

The panel report, based on wide consultations last fall, also said there was broad consensus in the charity sector that partisan activities — endorsing particular candidates or parties — should remain forbidden.

The proposed changes would eliminate current rules that restrict a charity’s political activities to 10 per cent of their resources. Critics have argued the rules are unclear on definitions of what constitutes a political act.

No kidding, charities shouldn’t be endorsing political candidates or parties. And 10% is actually a lot. If a “charity” spends a good chunk of their money lobbying for government, shouldn’t they register as such?

The revenue minister’s decision to suspend political activity audits, as recommended by the panel report Thursday, amounts to an abrupt about-face. Last year, Lebouthillier refused to intervene, saying the “independence of the charity directorate’s oversight role is a fundamental principle that must be protected.”

To be clear, I have no issue with people getting involved in politics. However, there are considerable financial and tax advantages to being classified as a “charity”. If the groups in questions really are lobbying politically, then it puts them on an unlevel playing field.

Posted on

CBC Propaganda #12: Judy Sgro Shrugs Off Ethics Problems

CLICK HERE, for link to the CBC article.
CLICK HERE, for the CBC propaganda masterlist.
CLICK HERE, for Judy Sgro’s “questionable” past, which involved getting a visa fast tracked for a stripper.

Liberal MP Judy Sgro openly puts party unity and re-election prospects over ethics and transparency. CBC, at least in the article, doesn’t seem to press her on it.

Long-time Liberal MP Judy Sgro is calling out fellow caucus members Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott, accusing them of targeting their anger and frustration directly at Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over the SNC-Lavalin scandal.
.
In an explosive interview with Maclean’s — her first media interview since she resigned from the Liberal cabinet on March 4 — Philpott said there is “much more” to the SNC-Lavalin affair and Canadians have concerns about the government’s attempts to “shut down” the story.
.
On Friday, Wilson-Raybould said she will provide a written statement and copies of text messages and emails to the Commons justice committee that shut down its probe of the SNC-Lavalin affair.

From the opening, Sgro seems to show no concern for the allegations, which are not only unethical but most likely criminal. Instead, she complains that is harming the party itself, despite the continuing story.

Both the interview and the letter landed in the midst of a parliamentary uproar over the Liberals’ move to end the Commons justice committee’s probe of Wilson-Raybould’s claim that she was pressured by senior government officials to allow SNC-Lavalin to avoid a criminal trial on bribery charges.
.
Philpott, who resigned from cabinet over the government’s handling of the file, said she believes Canadians need answers to maintain their confidence in the independence of the justice system.
.
But Sgro said she thinks Wilson-Raybould and Philpott are providing fodder to the opposition and challenged them to use their parliamentary privilege to air whatever they have to say on the SNC-Lavalin affair.
.
“It’s either put up or shut up,” Sgro told Chris Hall, host of CBC Radio’s The House, in an interview airing Saturday.

The Liberals use their majority to shut down the committee. Sgro glosses over that and suggests that this is being used by opposition members against them. Again, no concern for ethics here.

Sgro was one of the MPs attending a meeting of the Liberals’ Ontario caucus on Wednesday — a meeting described by people in the room as “rough” and “uncomfortable.”
.
CBC News reported this week that Philpott faced tough questions from her colleagues at the closed-door meeting. Sources inside the room told CBC News Philpott began by defending her decision to resign from cabinet, saying she was acting on principle and for the good of the country. Some MPs reminded her that the caucus had supported her on sensitive issues, including her handling of medical assistance in dying legislation, and had backed her when she ran into controversy over limo costs in 2016.

Some at the meeting also told CBC News that Philpott appeared to be taking notes and was asked to stop.

I bet it was awkward.
Is Philpott supposed to give Trudeau a free pass because some of here agenda (assisted suicide), and since her ethics stains had been shrugged off?
Don’t take notes… Why? Harder to create a paper trail perhaps.

Sgro said she thinks the ongoing affair is hurting the Liberal government’s chance of re-election this year and some of her fellow MPs are worried.

Exactly, this is all about being re-elected.

It affects all of us when one of our members of the team decides to go out and speak against the rest of us, or unnerve the rest of us,” she said. “You can’t keep dropping innuendo every day and expect that all of us from the prime minister down are hopeless to stand back and do anything about this.”
.
Trudeau’s brand as a feminist has taken hits since the SNC-Lavalin affair began, including Opposition House Leader Candice Bergen accusing him of being a “fake feminist”. Sgro fiercely defended Trudeau, saying that of the five prime ministers she’s served with, she’s never had a prime minister as caring and compassionate as him.

No care for ethics breaches, just how it impacts MPs. And interesting that Sgro shifts from “ethics” to “compassion”. Guess she thinks that if people see Trudeau as compassionate, he can’t be unethical.

Despite her challenge to her caucus colleagues, Sgro said she thinks the justice committee probe shouldn’t be reopened and that any further probe should be handled by the ethics commissioner.
.
“Let the commissioner do his job. He’ll come back with a recommendation to the House of Commons, with a report, and then whatever action … if any action needs to be done, it’ll be done then,” she said.
.
“Let’s let things get investigated by the proper people and not politicians who are out to knock each other.”

Shouldn’t be reopened. Nothing to see here. And if committees are so useless, why have them in the first place?

Posted on

World Economic Forum = SJW/NPC + Globalist Business Practices

1. Important Links

(1) https://www.weforum.org/
(2) https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/03/our-thought-leaders-are-not-thinking-equal/
(3) https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/03/its-time-to-fulfil-the-promises-made-to-women-25-years-ago/
(4) https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/03/how-to-fix-gender-pay-gap-laura-tyson/
(5) https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/03/how-to-help-women-progress-in-companies-mercer/
(6) https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/03/gender-equality-in-the-future-of-work/
(7) https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/03/gender-equality-in-stem-is-possible/
(8) https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/03/international-women-s-day-women-have-been-written-out-of-power-time-is-ripe-for-a-new-language-of-equalit/

The above are just a “few” of the recent gender articles. To be fair, however, with International Women’s Day, there are probably a lot more virtue signallers posting.

2. About The World Ec. Forum

The World Economic Forum
.
The World Economic Forum is the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation.
.
The Forum engages the foremost political, business and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas.
It was established in 1971 as a not-for-profit foundation and is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland. It is independent, impartial and not tied to any special interests. The Forum strives in all its efforts to demonstrate entrepreneurship in the global public interest while upholding the highest standards of governance. Moral and intellectual integrity is at the heart of everything it does.
.
Our activities are shaped by a unique institutional culture founded on the stakeholder theory, which asserts that an organization is accountable to all parts of society. The institution carefully blends and balances the best of many kinds of organizations, from both the public and private sectors, international organizations and academic institutions.
.
We believe that progress happens by bringing together people from all walks of life who have the drive and the influence to make positive change.
.
Read the latest Annual Report here. Find out about our Foundation Regulations and Statutes.

What is the World Economic Forum? Imagine if the United Nations and Chamber of Commerce had a birthchild. It would be a symbolic, virtue signalling money pit which sings the praises of economic growth.

Basically, it is a globalist get together. “Woke” people, feminists, champagne socialists attend annual forums to discuss certain issues, and how these initiatives impact the world economically

1/ Gender
2/ Social Justice
3/ Climate Change
4/ Energy
5/ Digital Economy
6/ Financial Systems
7/ Food
8/ Environment
9/ Health & Healthcare
10/ Infrastructure
11/ International Trade
12/ Mobility
13/ Digital Media

3. Champions Globalism, Not Nationalism

CLICK HERE for the link.

After World War II, the international community came together to build a shared future. Now, it must do so again. Owing to the slow and uneven recovery in the decade since the global financial crisis, a substantial part of society has become disaffected and embittered, not only with politics and politicians, but also with globalization and the entire economic system it underpins. In an era of widespread insecurity and frustration, populism has become increasingly attractive as an alternative to the status quo.
.
But populist discourse eludes – and often confounds – the substantive distinctions between two concepts: globalization and globalism. Globalization is a phenomenon driven by technology and the movement of ideas, people, and goods. Globalism is an ideology that prioritizes the neoliberal global order over national interests. Nobody can deny that we are living in a globalized world. But whether all of our policies should be “globalist” is highly debatable.
.
After all, this moment of crisis has raised important questions about our global-governance architecture. With more and more voters demanding to “take back control” from “global forces,” the challenge is to restore sovereignty in a world that requires cooperation. Rather than closing off economies through protectionism and nationalist politics, we must forge a new social compact between citizens and their leaders, so that everyone feels secure enough at home to remain open to the world at large. Failing that, the ongoing disintegration of our social fabric could ultimately lead to the collapse of democracy.
.
Moreover, the challenges associated with the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) are coinciding with the rapid emergence of ecological constraints, the advent of an increasingly multipolar international order, and rising inequality. These integrated developments are ushering in a new era of globalization. Whether it will improve the human condition will depend on whether corporate, local, national, and international governance can adapt in time.

This is just an exerp. It is too long to go through the entire page, but here are some thoughts:

1/ Debating “globalization” v.s. “globalist” is pedantic and a red herring. WEF is a globalist organization, which rejects nationalism and populism.
2/ This is framed as “economic recovery” but it is nothing of the sort. It is social engineering and pandering to identity politics.
3/ You make it sound like voters wanting to take back control is a bad thing. National sovereignty is important, and WEF seems at best indifferent to it.
4/ This “economic inequality” is an argument that comes up a lot. It is mostly used to justify massive wealth redistribution schemes and promote socialist/communist style policies, the very anti-thesis of global economic freedom.
5/ Later in the page you go on about the benefits of global trade. Missing, however, is acknowledgement that outsourcing jobs and trade has done severe damage to Western societies. Companies offshore their manufacturing, and communities that rely on those jobs are devastated.
6/ While criticizing populism and nationalism, you ignore that national leaders are “supposed” to work in the interests of their citizens, not the “larger global order” that you love so much. Yes, that means implementing policies that protect their people.

The World Economic Forum is a disgusting mix of: (a) SJW virtue-signalling; and (b) globalist economic policies. The SJW nonsense seems to be a manipulative attempt to make globalist policies seem just and righteous.

Posted on

Challenge To Proposed UN Parliament: Calgary

(Topic Previously Covered by Canuck Law)

CLICK HERE, for a very interesting page on free speech in Canada (links included).

Here is a portion of what is going to the Federal Court of Canada:

REMEDY SOUGHT
(a) To issue a permanent, binding injunction against the Federal Government ever participating in such a United Nations Parliament or other ”World Government” scheme on the grounds it violates the laws cited above

(b) To find that any such actions in furtherance of this scheme are unconstitutional.

Alternatively an order that:
(c) To rule that any such measure would require the following forms of consent:
I/ Vote from the Federal House of Commons
II/ Vote from the Senate
III/ Signature of the Prime Minister
IV/ Royal Assent from the Governor General
V/ A nationwide referendum on this issue with 75% majority
VI/ 7 of 10 Provinces (with 50%+ population) affirming

Note, should that alternative be ordered, it is asked that the court also rule for (c), that any Province or Municipality that wishes to opt out may do so.

Written submissions For challenge to UN Parliament

Part I: Jurisdiction
Part II: Issues
Part III: Facts
Part IV: Law
Part V: Authorities
Part VI: Order Sought
Part I: Jurisdiction

Part I: Jurisdiction

  1. Under Section 18 of the Federal Courts Act, and Section 300/301 of Federal Court Rules, the Federal Court of Canada has jurisdiction to hear such an application.

  2. Federal Court also has jurisdiction to issue an injunction under Rule 18(1)(a) and 18(3) of Federal Courts Act ”
    18 (1) Subject to section 28, the Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction (a) to issue an injunction, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus or writ of quo warranto, or grant declaratory relief, against any federal board, commission or other tribunal;

  3. Remedies to be obtained on application
    (3) The remedies provided for in subsections (1) and (2) may be obtained only on an application for judicial review made under section 18.1.

  4. Rule 303(2) in Federal Court Rules states that in an application for judicial review (which an extension of time is sought here), where no person can be named, the Attorney General of Canada shall be named as a Respondent. Since there is no ”single person” who is responsible for this mess, the Attorney General of Canada shall be named as a Defendant

Part II: Issues

  1. Seven questions to consider

  2. First: Does the proposed UN Parliamentary Assembly (World Government), violate the 1867-1982 Constitution Act, which requires the Government of Canada to provide, “Peace, Order and Good Government” and makes no provision for abdication of that duty to supra-national bodies?

  3. Second: Does the proposed UN Parliamentary Assembly (World Government) violate the 1982 Constitution Act, which states that it is the supreme law of Canada, and that any laws that any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.”

  4. Third: Considering that this would add a new layer of Government to Canada, would this violate Sections 91 and 92 of the Consitution, which separate Federal and Provincial Jurisdictions?

  5. Fourth: Does the proposed UN Parliamentary Assembly (World Government), require a constitutional amendment (Part V, Section 38 of the Constitution) that would require consent of:
    (a) The House of Commons
    (b) The Senate
    (c) 7 of 10 Provinces, consisting of 50%+ of the population

  6. Fifth: Does the proposed UN Parliamentary Assembly (World Government) violate Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which ensure all Canadians the right to participate in their democracy?

  7. Sixth: Given some of the initiatives the UN proposes, such as internet regulation and free speech restrictions, would these violate Canadians’ fundamental freedoms, enshrined in Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and explicitly affirmed in Section 32?

  8. Seventh: Would the proposed UN Parliamentary Assembly (World Government), violate Part II, Section 35 of the Constitution of Canada, which enshrines Aboriginal Rights?

Part III: Facts

  1. The United Nations (UN) is a globalist body which more and more is taking rights and sovereignty away from individual nation states

  2. Since 2007, there has been an initiative by high ranking politicians and former politicians of ”UN Countries” to form a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA). Dozens of current Canadian MPs, including Liberal, NDP, PM Justin Trudeau, and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May have all endorsed such a World Gov’t (Exhibit B)

  3. As shown by screenshots (Exhibit A) from the website, the goal is explicitly to form LEGALLY BINDING decisions. This would in effect reduce nations to mere ”States” or ”Provinces” of the UN.

  4. Other initiatives by the UN include
    A/ Internet governance (digital cooperation)
    B/ Global ban on blasphemy (criticism of Islam)
    C/ Gender language agenda
    D/ Global MIgration Compact (258M economic migrants)
    E/ Paris Accord (carbon taxes)
    F/ UN Global Citizenship Education
    G/ Encouraging repatriation of Islamic terrorists
    H/ Right to abortion (even for children)
    I/ Agenda 21 (June 1992)
    J/ Agenda 2030 (September 2015)
    K/ Urban Development Agenda

  5. This is only a partial list. But if this proposed UN Parliamentary Assembly (World Government) were ever to take place, all of these ”non-legally binding” initiatives will become ”legally-binding”.

  6. Canadians have never been asked to vote on such a matter, either at the Municipal, Provincial or Federal level. The Government of Canada (nor any Gov’t) has no legal or moral mandate to enact such a proposal.

  7. Canadians have never participated in any sort of national referendum to guage interest and approval of such an idea.

  8. Canadians have never had the sort of public debate necessary to give an informed and intelligent response to such a proposed World Government.

Part IV: Relevant Laws

  1. The proposed United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (World Government) should be rejected because it violates a number of Constitutional provisions. Here are some of them:

(a) Section 2 of Charter: Fundamental Freedoms
(b) Section 3 of Charter: Right to participate in democracy
(c) Section 32 of Charter: Applicability
(d) Part II, Section 35 of Constitution, Aboriginal rights
(e) Part V, Section 38 of Constitution, amending Constitution
(f) Part VII, Section 52 of Constitution, primacy of Constitution
(g) Part VI: Section 91 & 92 of Constitution, distribution of powers

FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS (S2)

  1. (a) Fundamental Freedoms
    Marginal note:
    Fundamental freedoms
  2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
    (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
    (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
    (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
    (d) freedom of association.

DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS (S3)

  1. Democratic Rights
    Marginal note:
    Democratic rights of citizens
  2. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

APPLICATION OF THE CHARTER (S32)

  1. Application of Charter
    Marginal note:
    Application of Charter
  2. (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.

ABORIGINAL RIGHTS (S35)

  1. RIGHTS OF THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLES OF CANADA
    Marginal note:
    Recognition of existing aboriginal and treaty rights
  2. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
    Definition of “aboriginal peoples of Canada”
    (2) In this Act, “aboriginal peoples of Canada” includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.
    Marginal note:
    Land claims agreements
    (3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) “treaty rights” includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING CONSTITUTION (S38)

  1. PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING CONSTITUTION OF CANADA (101)
    Marginal note:
    General procedure for amending Constitution of Canada
  2. (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.
    Marginal note:
    Majority of members
    (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).
    Marginal note:
    Expression of dissent
    (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.

PRIMACY OF CONSTITUTION (S52)

  1. Primacy of Constitution of Canada
  2. (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.
    Marginal note:
    Constitution of Canada
    (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).
    Marginal note:
    Amendments to Constitution of Canada
    (3) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada.

DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS (S91/S92)

  1. VI. DISTRIBUTION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS
    Powers of the Parliament
    Marginal note:
    Legislative Authority of Parliament of Canada
  2. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,
  3. Repealed. (44)
    1A.
    The Public Debt and Property. (45)
  4. The Regulation of Trade and Commerce.
    2A.
    Unemployment insurance. (46)
  5. The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation.
    And any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section shall not be deemed to come within the Class of Matters of a local or private Nature comprised in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces. (47)
    Exclusive Powers of Provincial Legislatures
    Marginal note:
    Subjects of exclusive Provincial Legislation
  6. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,
  7. Repealed. (48)
  8. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes.
  9. The borrowing of Money on the sole Credit of the Province.
  10. The Establishment and Tenure of Provincial Offices and the Appointment and Payment of Provincial Officers.
  11. The Management and Sale of the Public Lands belonging to the Province and of the Timber and Wood thereon.
  12. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Public and Reformatory Prisons in and for the Province.
  13. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Hospitals, Asylums, Charities, and Eleemosynary Institutions in and for the Province, other than Marine Hospitals.
  14. Municipal Institutions in the Province.
  15. Shop, Saloon, Tavern, Auctioneer, and other Licences in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial, Local, or Municipal Purposes.
  16. Local Works and Undertakings other than such as are of the following Classes:
    (a)
    Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Canals, Telegraphs, and other Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province:
    (b)
    Lines of Steam Ships between the Province and any British or Foreign Country:
    (c)
    Such Works as, although wholly situate within the Province, are before or after their Execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general Advantage of Canada or for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces.
  17. The Incorporation of Companies with Provincial Objects.
  18. The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province.
  19. Property and Civil Rights in the Province.
  20. The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts.
  21. The Imposition of Punishment by Fine, Penalty, or Imprisonment for enforcing any Law of the Province made in relation to any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section.
  22. Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province.

  23. Sections 91 and 92 have no provision for any supra-national body to interfere with this distribution of powers.

  24. Note that ”Parliamentary Perogative” does not apply here, since the proposed Gobal Government is not a treaty BETWEEN governments. Rather, it would dissolve nations in favour of a supra-national body,

Part V: Authorities

Reference re Senate Reform, [2014] 1 SCR 704, 2014 SCC 32 (CanLII) (S38)
CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.

Sibbeston v. Canada (Attorney-General), 1988 CanLII 5673 (NWT CA) (S52)
CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 SCR 927, 1989 CanLII 87 (SCC) (S2)
CLICK HERE, for the full text of decision.

Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912 (S3)
CLICK HERE, for decision, view para 27, 30, 31.

2 cases on Aboriginal duty to consult:
Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 SCR 511, 2004 SCC 73 (CanLII) (S35)
(1) CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.

(2) Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2004] 3 SCR 550, 2004 SCC 74 (CanLII) (S35)
CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.

Reference re Senate Reform, [2014] 1 SCR 704, 2014 SCC 32 (CanLII) (S38)
CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.

(a) The General Amending Procedure
[33] 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.

[34] 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”.

  1. Sibbeston v. Canada (Attorney-General), 1988 CanLII 5673 (NWT CA) (S52)
    CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.

[6] The respondent’s amended petition cannot be pursued under principles of Canadian constitutional practice that must now be regarded as established. 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.

[7] 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.

[8] 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, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1148, 77 N.R. 241.

[9] 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.

  1. Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 SCR 927, 1989 CanLII 87 (SCC) (S2)
    CLICK HERE, for the full text of decision.

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), [1985] 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.

Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912 (S2)
CLICK HERE, for decision, view para 27.

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, [1986] 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.

In this passage, Dickson C.J. was addressing s. 1 . Yet since reference to “a free and democratic society” is essential to an enriched understanding of s. 3 , this passage indicates that the best interpretation of s. 3 is one that advances the values and principles that embody a free and democratic state, including respect for a diversity of beliefs and opinions. Defining the purpose of s. 3 with reference to the right of each citizen to meaningful participation in the electoral process, best reflects the capacity of individual participation in the electoral process to enhance the quality of democracy in this country.

30 In the final analysis, I believe that the Court was correct in Haig, supra, to define s. 3 with reference to the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process. Democracy, of course, is a form of government in which sovereign power resides in the people as a whole. In our system of democracy, this means that each citizen must have a genuine opportunity to take part in the governance of the country through participation in the selection of elected representatives. The fundamental purpose of s. 3 , in my view, is to promote and protect the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the political life of the country. Absent such a right, ours would not be a true democracy.

31 For this reason, I cannot agree with LeBel J. that it is proper, at this stage of the analysis, to balance the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process against other democratic values, such as the aggregation of political preferences. Legislation that purports to encourage the aggregation of political preferences might advance certain collective interests, but it does not benefit all citizens, namely, those whose interests are not aggregated by the mainstream political parties. As a result, the proportionality analysis endorsed by LeBel J. clearly admits of the possibility that collective or group interests will be balanced against the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process at the infringement stage of the analysis. If the government is to interfere with the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process in order to advance other values, it must justify that infringement under s. 1 .

Also worth noting (need a residency to vote) persons who have recently arrived in a province or territory (Reference Re Yukon Election Residency Requirements (1986), 27 D.L.R. (4th) 146 (Y.T.C.A.); Storey v. Zazelenchuk (1984), 36 Sask.R. 103 (C.A.); Olson v. Ontario (1992), 12 C.R.R. (2d) 120 (Ont.Gen.Div.); Arnold v. Ontario (Attorney General) (1987), 43 D.L.R. 4th 94 (Ont.H.Ct.) — although 6 to 12 month minimum residency requirements were justified under section 1)

Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 SCR 511, 2004 SCC 73 (CanLII) (S35)
CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.

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. The Crown is not rendered impotent. It may continue to manage the resource in question pending claims resolution. But, depending on the circumstances, discussed more fully below, the honour of the Crown may require it to consult with and reasonably accommodate Aboriginal interests pending resolution of the claim. To unilaterally exploit a claimed resource during the process of proving and resolving the Aboriginal claim to that resource, may be to deprive the Aboriginal claimants of some or all of the benefit of the resource. That is not honourable.

Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2004] 3 SCR 550, 2004 SCC 74 (CanLII)
CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.

23 The Province argues that, before the determination of rights through litigation or conclusion of a treaty, it owes only a common law “duty of fair dealing” to Aboriginal peoples whose claims may be affected by government decisions. It argues that a duty to consult could arise after rights have been determined, through what it terms a “justificatory fiduciary duty”. Alternatively, it submits, a fiduciary duty may arise where the Crown has undertaken to act only in the best interests of an Aboriginal people. The Province submits that it owes the TRTFN no duty outside of these specific situations.

24 The Province’s submissions present an impoverished vision of the honour of the Crown and all that it implies. As discussed in the companion case of Haida, supra, the principle of the honour of the Crown grounds the Crown’s duty to consult and if indicated accommodate Aboriginal peoples, even prior to proof of asserted Aboriginal rights and title. The duty of honour derives from the Crown’s assertion of sovereignty in the face of prior Aboriginal occupation. It has been enshrined in s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, which recognizes and affirms existing Aboriginal rights and titles. Section 35(1) has, as one of its purposes, negotiation of just settlement of Aboriginal claims. In all its dealings with Aboriginal peoples, the Crown must act honourably, in accordance with its historical and future relationship with the Aboriginal peoples in question. The Crown’s honour cannot be interpreted narrowly or technically, but must be given full effect in order to promote the process of reconciliation mandated by s. 35(1).

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), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075, at p. 1119; R. v. Nikal, 1996 CanLII 245 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013; R. v. Gladstone, 1996 CanLII 160 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723; Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1997 CanLII 302 (SCC), [1997] 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.

Part VI: Order Sought

  1. (a) To issue a permanent, binding injunction against the Federal Government ever participating in such a United Nations Parliament or other ”World Government” scheme on the grounds it violates the laws cited above

(b) To find that any such actions in furtherance of this scheme are unconstitutional.

Alternatively an order that:

(c) To rule that any such measure would require the following forms of consent:
I/ Vote from the Federal House of Commons
II/ Vote from the Senate
III/ Signature of the Prime Minister
IV/ Royal Assent from the Governor General
V/ A nationwide referendum on this issue with 75% majority
VI/ 7 of 10 Provinces (with 50%+ population) affirming

Note, should that alternative be ordered, it is asked that the court also rule for (c), that any Province or Municipality that wishes to opt out may do so.

Sincerely,

Me