Why Bill C-15 is Bad
C-15: What you need to know about law that could redefine Indigenous-government relations in Canada
Cameron FrenchCTVNews.ca writer
Published Friday, May 21, 2021 1:01PM EDTLast Updated Friday, May 21, 2021 1:41PM EDTVolume 90% 'Indigenous rights bill does not speak for all of us': Grand Chief Abram on UNDRIP 
NOW PLAYINGGrand Chief Joel Abram with the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians offers an opposing view on the Indigenous-rights bill to implement United Nations declaration in Canada.
SHARE:
TORONTO -- Currently moving through the parliamentary committee process, Bill C-15 purports to harmonize Canadian law with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which the global body adopted in 2007.
The bill is the third attempt in parliament to enshrine UNDRIP into law, and the Liberal government has been trying to move it promptly through readings and committee in order to get it passed before the summer parliamentary shutdown and the uncertainty of the timing of the next election.
Implementing UNDRIP would fulfill a campaign promise from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The bill passed second reading on April 19, with Conservatives voting along party lines against it. The bill is currently being studied by the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.
Related Stories
- 'No more symbolic gestures': Indigenous rights holders sound off on aligning Canadian law with UNDRIP
- Indigenous communities face unique challenges in funding infrastructure projects, experts say
- Feds pressed to define 'free, prior and informed consent' in UNDRIP bill
- Liberal motion to impose closure on UNDRIP bill passes, limiting time for debate
- Indigenous leaders, experts urge Ottawa to quickly pass UNDRIP bill before election
- Ottawa to define 'prior consent' through dialogue with First Nations: Lametti
How it started
The UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in September 2007, with an overwhelming majority of 144 countries in favour and four opposed. Canada stood out as one of the four countries to vote against it, along with the United States, Australia and New Zealand.
The UN says the declaration establishes “a universal framework of minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the Indigenous peoples of the world” through 46 articles, covering issues such as equal rights, self-determination, and rights to their traditional lands.
Canada shifted its position in 2010 to support the declaration, but noted it was an ‘aspirational’ document that was not legally binding. In 2016, Canada fully endorsed UNDRIP and pledged to fully adopt and implement it.
Previous attempts to enshrine UNDRIP into law were through private member’s bills. The first, in 2014, was defeated at second reading, and the second, in 2019, stalled in the Senate. Bill C-15, however, is a government bill rather than a private member’s bill.
What Bill C-15 would do
While the bill is often described as enshrining UNDRIP into law, it would not actually directly implement the declaration’s various articles into Canadian law. Rather, it would establish a framework for their implementation.
The bill’s summary says it “provides that the Government of Canada must take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and must prepare and implement an action plan to achieve the objectives of the Declaration.”
If passed, a minister would be made responsible for preparing and implementing a plan to achieve the objectives of UNDRIP “in consultation and co-operation with Indigenous peoples”.
The ‘veto’ issue
While C-15 addresses all 46 articles of UNDRIP, the most contentious issue as far the Canadian debate goes is the requirement for “free, prior, and informed consent” (FPIC) of Indigenous groups on any government decision that affects their land or rights, including approvals of development projects.
Critics of the attempts to enshrine UNDRIP into law have long claimed that this provision would give Indigenous groups an effective veto over development projects, and this worry was a reason the Canadian government under then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper initially voted against UNDRIP in 2007.
Federal Conservatives have asked the government for a more definitive definition of FPIC in the bill, but Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Carolyn Bennett pointed out in April that doing so would require consensus among Indigenous partners co-developing the bill, which has not been reached. Bill backers also point out the word ‘veto’ does not appear in the bill nor in UNDRIP, and that the point of the phrase is to ensure consultation.
According to a government background document on the issue, Bill C-15 would not change Canada’s existing duty to consult Indigenous groups. “What it would do is inform how the Government approaches the implementation of its legal duties going forward. Additionally, it would do so in a way that provides greater clarity and creates greater certainty over time for Indigenous groups and all Canadians,” the document reads.
Key UNDRIP articles mentioning FPIC
Article 10: Relocation of Indigenous Peoples
Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return.
Article 11.2: Redress for property taken
States shall provide redress through effective mechanisms, which may include restitution, developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples, with respect to their cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without their free, prior and informed consent or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs.
Article 19: Legislation affecting Indigenous Peoples
States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.
Article 28: Compensation for lands and resources
Indigenous peoples have the right to redress, by means that can include restitution or, when this is not possible, just, fair and equitable compensation, for the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior and informed consent.
Article 29.2: Storage or disposal of hazardous materials
States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent.
Article 32.2: Consultation for projects affecting Indigenous Peoples
States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.
Support from Indigenous groups
Support for the bill from Indigenous leadership has been fairly widespread, but also guarded and not unanimous. There has been understandable skepticism about how the law will be implemented if passed – particularly the issue of free, prior-and informed consent -- and some have said the legislation is flawed and doesn’t go far enough in addressing issues around self-government.
Some critics have pointed to the example of British Columbia, which passed its own law adopting UNDRIP in 2019, as that law didn’t stop the forced eviction of Wet’suwet’en peoples trying to stop construction of the Coastal GasLink Pipeline through unceded territory in 2020.
However, an open letter in March sponsored by Cree Nation and signed by several chiefs and Indigenous leaders called the bill “an historic opportunity to advance reconciliation,” and urged its passing, with amendments, in the current session of Parliament.
What does it mean for natural resource development in Canada?
Depending on who you ask, this could speed up approvals of resource development projects or prompt investors to shy away.
The bill does not create any new regulatory requirements for developers, and some see the additional legal clarity as something that could reduce barriers to development by prompting governments and companies to engage with affected Indigenous groups early in the process. Groups such as the First Nations Major Projects Coalition advocate partnering with large investors and developers on projects and say early consultation can eliminate the types of issues, such as working on sacred lands, that sometimes lead to disputes.
But there are also concerns that uncertainty over how FPIC will play out may scare off investors who view it as an additional risk to a project going forward.
What happens next
The bill is currently being pre-studied by the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, and then will likely go back for a third reading in the House of Commons before going to the Senate. While the bill has enjoyed majority support in the House, there is no guarantee the bill would pass the Senate, where Bill-262, the previous private member’s attempt to enshrine UNDRIP into law, stalled in 2019.
The other issue is the clock, as adopting committee recommendations can take time, and the parliamentary summer break begins on June 23. With the current Liberal minority government, the longer the bill takes to pass, the greater chance the process could be hijacked by an election.
WHAT IS BILL C-11
Join Our Community
Bill C-11 - everything you need to know about Canada's new Online Streaming Act
FeaturesBy Chiara Castro published July 13, 2022
Many Canadian YouTubers fear for their freedom of expression
(Image credit: Shutterstock / mrmohock )
Everywhere around the globe, governments are busy drawing up new legislations to better control how digital tools and platforms operate.
Some of those, like India's new data law, are introducing new rules on how security software like the best VPN services handle users' data, while others seek to give a legal framework to regulate online content.
Canada's Bill C-11, also known as the Online Streaming Act, lies in the second category. An attempt to modernize the 1991 Broadcasting Act, it aims to regulate how streaming platforms must treat all the audio-visual content posted online.
The bill has been facing criticism for the lack of transparency and broad definitions of what content should be overseen. Commentators also fear that this may lead to future misuse of its directives.
Canadian YouTubers have been especially vocal against the proposed legislation, claiming that controlling user-generated content will negatively impact their freedom of expression. Some are even suggesting they will use a Canada VPN to spoof their location if the bill is enforced.
See more
What is Bill C-11?
Introduced by Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez on February 3, Bill C-11 is the updated version of the Bill C-10 that the previous Parliament failed to pass before last year's election.
Its aim is expanding the reach of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), which currently regulates content across radio and television, to oversee all audio-visual content posted online.
It defines as a new category of broadcaster, called "online undertaking," any platform airing programs on the internet in Canada. From streaming services like Netflix and Spotify to podcast clients and social media of the likes of YouTube and TikTok.
These will be required to follow CRTC regulations that include adhering to discoverability requirements to better promote Canadian content, and disclosing confidential information like algorithmic data. They would also be forced to pay for an officially recognized license, known as the "CanCon." Multi-million-dollar fines would be the punishment for those failing to comply with the directives.
Why is Bill C-11 controversial?
As mentioned before, Bill C-11 has been meet with a lot of criticism from politicians, lawmakers and online content creators. In fact, while some of the issues with Bill C-10 have been solved, some main faults seem to persist.
The first problem is around its vagueness in defining which content will be considered as Canadian. For instance, the American series based on the Canadian bestselling novel The Handmaid’s Tale failed to meet the standard in the past. The bill doesn't give any guidance either on how CRTC will have to make the content more discoverable.
Another highly contentious area is around user-generated content. The CRTC will use three criteria to define material posted on social media. These are: whether or not the program generates a direct or indirect revenue; if some parts have been broadcast on a traditional platform like radio or TV; and whether it has been assigned a unique identifier under any international standards system.
As these factors can apply to most content posted on platforms like YouTube and TikTok, all content creators will likely be subjected to CRTC taxes and directives. This would not just have an economic impact, but YouTubers and influencers also fear infringements on their freedom of expression as the Commission would be able to promote certain content over others.
See more
Overall, commentators are worried about the extended amount of jurisdictional power and control that CRTC will have on all audio-visual content in Canada. As the Canadian Taxpayers Federation's report points out, combined with other proposed legislations like the Bill C-18 (or Online News Act), the CRTC will be "in an enormously powerful position."
"No other democratic nation regulates user-generated content through broadcasting rules in this manner. Canada would be unique among allies in doing so, and not in a good way," they conclude, claiming that if Bill C-11 will pass in its current form it would do more harm than good.
Ultimately, people consuming online content will be affected. This is because tailored algorithmic recommendations are very likely to reflect CRTC's efforts of pushing forward Canadian content to watchers even if this might not match their interests.
What's next?
On the other hand, supporters of the infamous Online Streaming Act believe that it's important to force foreign streaming platforms to follow the same obligations that national radio and TV have. What's more, it has also been estimated that CanCon licensing and taxing would bring about $830 million in additional funding by 2023.
After passing through the Heritage Committee and House of Commons, the Senate is now expected to address these grey areas over the coming review due in the fall.
If better promoting Canadian storytellers might be a noble aim, lawmakers should carefully consider the impact that these directives will have on small online creators. In its current form, Bill C-11 looks like it's about to fail in doing so.
what is bill c-18
What is Bill C-18, and how do I know if Google is blocking my news content?
From CTV News Channel
Future of Canadian news on Google
NOW PLAYING
04:31
Future of Canadian news on Google
UP NEXT
02:15
CTV National News: Threats from tech giants
01:02
PM criticizes Google for restricting content
02:31
Google blocking some online Canadian news content
01:23
CTV National News: Google news story removals
Daniel OtisCTVNews.ca WriterFollow | ContactUpdated Feb. 24, 2023 1:33 p.m. CSTPublished Feb. 23, 2023 5:14 p.m. CSTShare
- More share options
Google has temporarily blocked some Canadian users from viewing news content.
The company says the move(opens in a new tab) is a response to the Liberal government's proposed Online News Act, or Bill C-18, which would require internet giants to compensate Canadian media companies for making news content available on their platforms.
WHAT IS BILL C-18?
First tabled in June 2022, Bill C-18 would essentially force companies like Google and Meta, which owns Facebook, to negotiate deals to pay Canadian media companies for the content they link to and preview on their websites and platforms.
RELATED STORIES
- Google tests blocking news content for some Canadians in response to government bill
- Here are the bills, big and small, that politicians will be looking at next year
- Google has 'serious' concerns with Liberal bill requiring platforms to pay for news
- Google contacts each MP over fast-tracking of online news bill through Commons
- Google warns online news bill could make it subsidize biased news outlets
- Feds try to avoid Australian pitfalls in online news bill
- New bill will force tech giants to negotiate deals to pay media to use their content
"The Bill introduces a new bargaining framework intended to support news businesses to secure fair compensation when their news content is made available by dominant digital news intermediaries and generates economic gain," an explanatory note from the government(opens in a new tab) says. "It seeks to support balanced negotiations between the businesses that operate dominant digital news intermediaries and the businesses responsible for the news outlets that produce this news content."
The bill passed in the House of Commons in December(opens in a new tab) and will soon be studied by the Senate. In its current version, failure to comply could result in fines as high as $10 million for a first violation.
"Canadians need to have access to quality, fact-based news at the local and national levels, and that’s why we introduced the Online News Act," a spokesperson for Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez told CTVNews.ca. "Tech giants need to be more transparent and accountable to Canadians.”
WHY IS GOOGLE BLOCKING NEWS CONTENT?
According to Google, the company is testing ways to comply with new rules proposed in Bill C-18.
"We’re briefly testing potential product responses to Bill C-18 that impact a very small percentage of Canadian users," a Google spokesperson told CTVNews.ca "We run thousands of tests each year to assess any potential changes to Search."
The test affects Google's ubiquitous search engine as well as Android device news feeds. Such tests, Google says, do not always result in permanent changes.
"We’ve been fully transparent about our concern that C-18 is overly broad and, if unchanged, could impact products Canadians use and rely on every day," the spokesperson added. "We remain committed to supporting a sustainable future for news in Canada and offering solutions that fix Bill C-18."
The company voiced its opposition to the proposed legislation in an October appearance before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage(opens in a new tab), which was studying the bill. Instead of negotiating with Canadian media companies, Google has proposed contributing to a fund that would pay them indirectly. The company has also expressed concerns that the proposed law would favour larger outlets over smaller ones, and that it does not require media companies to adhere to basic journalistic standards, which could "lead to the proliferation of misinformation and clickbait."
"We do not think that these measures are in the interests of Canadians, nor are they an effective response to the unique challenges facing Canadian news publishers," Google Canada vice-president and country managing director Sabrina Geremia said in a November 2022 blog post(opens in a new tab). "As currently written, this legislation won’t strengthen or sustain the Canadian news ecosystem and will make it harder for Canadians to find and share authoritative news online."
HOW DO I KNOW IF THIS IMPACTS ME?
Google says less than four per cent of its Canadian users are affected by the test – not an insignificant number, considering Google's search engine enjoys an approximately 90 per cent market share in the country.
To find out if you're one of them, simply open the Google search engine, type in a Canadian-themed word like "Trudeau" or "Ottawa" and then click on Google's "News" tab. If you see stories by Canadian media outlets like CTV News, your account is probably not affected. If you're mostly seeing news sources from the U.S. and elsewhere, you're likely among the four per cent.
These are the results I get when I Google the Prime Minister. US news sources, no CBC/TorStar/G&M/etc. pic.twitter.com/2MDhlcbTg4
— Michael Gendron (@michaelgendron) February 23, 2023
HOW ARE CANADIANS REACTING?
Facebook's parent company, Meta, previously issued a similar warning about blocking news content in Canada(opens in a new tab). When a related law took effect in Australia in 2021, Facebook briefly shut down news feeds(opens in a new tab) in the country.
"It’s disappointing to hear that Google seems to be borrowing from Facebook’s playbook," the spokesperson for Canada's heritage minister said. "This didn’t work in Australia, and it won’t work here because Canadians won’t be intimidated. At the end of the day, all we’re asking the tech giants to do is compensate journalists when they use their work."
Tech analyst Carmi Levy calls Google's actions "outrageous."
"Google is playing the bully, trying to sort of push back on Ottawa because this new law, Bill C-18, the Online News Act, is something that will threaten its core business," Levy told CTV News. "It'll make less money because of it; it'll have to finally pay media platforms for the content that it then takes and distributes on its own platform and makes money off it through ads. So, the free ride is over, Google isn't happy, and this is why they're doing that."
Andrew Sullivan is president and CEO of the Internet Society(opens in a new tab), a global non-profit that advocates for an open and globally connected internet. In a February 2023 impact assessment paper(opens in a new tab), Sullivan and the group argued that Bill C-18 will ultimately harm the internet and restrict the growth of the digital economy. He says blocking news content is "one near-sure way to comply with C-18."
"Responsible network operators test out features like this all the time in order to make sure they work as expected," Sullivan told CTVNews.ca. "It is a shame that the Online News Act attempts to make Canada choose between full access to the whole Internet, and finding some way to support some news businesses in Canada. If passed, it will be a force for splintering the internet, and that will not be good for anyone."
With files from the Canadian Press
GUARDIANSOFTHELIGHT3-PETITION BOARD
Urgent Call to Action: Block the Pandemic Treaty NOW
CitizenGO Canadastarted this petition toMs. Leslie E. Norton Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Permanent Representative- 11/21/2023
The stakes have never been higher in our ongoing battle against the WHO Pandemic Treaty.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has unveiled yet another draft of this alarming proposal, aimed at becoming the primary tool for managing global health crises.
They are looking to become the global health authority before “the next pandemic strikes”, and it’s up to us to stop them.
This isn't about health; it's about who holds the reins of power in times of crisis.
As they inch closer and closer to finalizing negotiations, we cannot afford to back down.
You have stood right with us on this issue, from the very beginning, and have shown immense dedication and commitment in all our previous campaigns.
Now, we need your support once again as we enter the final straight.
The upcoming Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) meeting set to take place this coming 4-6 December will uncover whether there is “sufficient” global consensus to ratify the Pandemic Accord across member states.
This could be a groundbreaking moment, that could possibly clear the ground for the Treaty to be ratified in time for the set deadline of May 2024.
The urgency to act is now, as the next Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) meeting is just a week from now. Will you sign to oppose this totalitarian power grab? Add your voice by signing our petition today.
The latest draft includes overreaching proposals that extend far beyond simple ‘health management’. Key changes include:
- Expansive Definition of 'Party’ - the term now extends beyond states, potentially diluting national sovereignty.
(g) “Party” means a State or regional economic integration organization that has consented to be bound by this Agreement, in accordance with its terms, and for which this Agreement is in force;
- Permanent Funding Mechanism - This proposal would institutionalize financial support for the treaty's mechanisms.
- Centralized Health Policy Management - The WHO would gain significant authority over global health governance, overshadowing member states' autonomy.
- WHO Autonomy in Declaring Pandemics - The Director-General could independently declare pandemic status, impacting economies and civil liberties.
- Combatting 'False' Information - Vague provisions could lead to restrictions on freedom of expression under the guise of controlling disease spread.
- Gone is the “full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons” (see below):
- And yes … it’s also LEGALLY BINDING now!
They have doubled down, and are doing everything possible to get this in motion through by May next year.
This is why the upcoming hearing in Geneva is so crucial and will dictate how much confidence there is in the project, come the New Year.
This work is essential, if we want to halt this push. It is how we build resistance from within.
But to do so we need to be able to count on your support.
That is why I am asking you to please sign our petition ahead of the INB negotiations on 4-6 December, urging delegates to reject the amendments that are being proposed to centralize global health management.
Imagine a world where health policy is centrally dictated, and your health decisions are made by an unelected body with sweeping powers.
Well make no mistake - if the globalists get away with it, it would centralize health governance globally as legally binding.
The treaty's provisions discussed would give the WHO the authority to declare pandemics and manage health emergencies, overriding national policies.
We have a real opportunity to close the year, one-up against our enemies, and stop this madness!
418,974 have signed. Let's get to 500,000!- Select a country -CanadaUnited StatesUnited KingdomAfghanistanAland IslandsAlbaniaAlgeriaAmerican SamoaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBritish Virgin IslandsBruneiBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCape VerdeCaribbean NetherlandsCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongo (Brazzaville)Congo (Kinshasa)Cook IslandsCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCuraçaoCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland IslandsFaroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuamGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard Island and McDonald IslandsHondurasHong Kong S.A.R., ChinaHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyIvory CoastJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKuwaitKyrgyzstanLaosLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacao S.A.R., ChinaMacedoniaMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMicronesiaMoldovaMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNetherlands AntillesNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorth KoreaNorwayOmanPakistanPalauPalestinian TerritoryPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalPuerto RicoQatarReunionRomaniaRussiaRwandaSaint BarthélemySaint HelenaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Martin (French part)Saint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint MaartenSlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth KoreaSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan MayenSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanTajikistanTanzaniaThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluU.S. Virgin IslandsUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVaticanVenezuelaVietnamWallis and FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabwe
To the Esteemed Delegates of the Upcoming INB Negotiations
Urgent Plea to Consider the Far-Reaching Implications of the WHO Pandemic Treaty
I write to you at a crucial juncture as the World Health Organization (WHO) moves closer to finalizing the Pandemic Treaty. This correspondence comes from a place of deep concern for the future of global health governance and the preservation of individual freedoms and national sovereignty.
1. **Expanded Scope of WHO Authority:** The latest draft of the treaty proposes an expanded definition of 'Party', moving beyond states and potentially undermining national sovereignty. This raises significant concerns about the dilution of individual countries' rights to self-governance in health policy.
2. **Permanent Funding Mechanism:** The treaty introduces a permanent financial support structure for its mechanisms, implying long-term commitments without clear oversight from member states.
3. **Centralized Health Policy Management:** It entrusts the WHO with significant authority over global health governance. This shift in power dynamics risks overshadowing the autonomy of member states.
4. **Unilateral Pandemic Declaration:** The treaty grants the WHO Director-General the power to independently declare pandemic status, which could have sweeping economic and civil liberty implications.
5. **Potential Restrictions on Freedom of Expression:** Vague provisions aimed at combating 'false' information could inadvertently lead to limitations on free speech.
The world is watching, and the decisions made in these negotiations will shape the future of global health policy and the balance of power between the WHO and its member states.
We believe in a collaborative approach to global health challenges, but not at the cost of individual freedoms and national autonomy.
We ask you to stand with us in opposing the WHO Pandemic Treaty in its current form.
We encourage you to advocate for a treaty that seeks effective international cooperation without overstepping into the realms of individual freedoms and autonomy.
Your actions during these negotiations will have a lasting impact on the world. Please consider the voices of those you represent and the foundational principles of freedom and sovereignty as you make your decisions.
Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Climate Stewardship Debate
- Aug 24 2023
- Kal Commodore
#EnvironmentTarget:Pierre PoilievreRegion:CanadaWebsite:www.nextleveldemocracy.ca
Canadian taxpayers pay heavily to solve climate change, and yet there has never been an open public debate on climate change or the method to handle it.
Canadians need to hear all the data, not just what the government and the media feed us.
Debate is a forum where all the data is presented on all climate change issues and how to handle them.
Citizens need to hear all the Data from all scientists and economists, not just the experts that the government and media approve.
At present:
1) There have never been formal, extensive public debates on handling climate change, yet it is one of the most significant taxes in our history.
2) Anyone who questions climate change or the method to handle it is publicly shamed as a climate denier or skeptic
3) Climate change is worldwide, and the solutions to this dilemma must be acknowledged.
4) China is Building coal plants yearly, and they will not stop.
China, the USA and India are the biggest polluters.
Canada has less than 2% of the carbon problem, or near that.
And yet climate alarmists are willing to destroy Canada's economy
to make a negligible impact.
5) Climate alarmists want crippling change immediately instead of thoughtful integration.
6) Climate alarmists will cripple oil production in Canada and yet are silent about imported oil from Saudi Arabia.
*Climate alarmists will stop oil tankers operating on the west coast and yet say nothing about oil tankers on the East Coast.
*Climate alarmists intentionally instil climate hysteria in our children.
*Some scientists have been shut down or ostracized
for having different opinions about climate change.
*Only positive green energy articles are published,
and naysayers are shut down.
It is time for citizens to be given a formal, extensive public debate on handling climate change.
It is necessary for the debate to be organized by people that do not receive government funds.
It is also necessary for the citizens to have the right to vote on the methods to solve climate change.
Canadian taxpayers pay heavily to solve climate change, and yet there has never been an open public debate on climate change or the method to handle it.
Canadians need to hear all the data, not just what the government and the media feed us.
Debate is a forum where all the data is presented on all climate change issues and how to handle them.
Citizens need to hear all the Data from all scientists and economists, not just the experts that the government and media approve.
At present:
1) There have never been formal, extensive public debates on handling climate change, yet it is one of the most significant taxes in our history.
2) Anyone who questions climate change or the method to handle it is publicly shamed as a climate denier or skeptic
3) Climate change is worldwide, and the solutions to this dilemma must be acknowledged.
4) China is Building coal plants yearly, and they will not stop.
China, the USA and India are the biggest polluters.
Canada has less than 2% of the carbon problem, or near that.
And yet climate alarmists are willing to destroy Canada's economy
to make a negligible impact.
5) Climate alarmists want crippling change immediately instead of thoughtful integration.
6) Climate alarmists will cripple oil production in Canada and yet are silent about imported oil from Saudi Arabia.
*Climate alarmists will stop oil tankers operating on the West Coast and yet say nothing about oil tankers on the East Coast.
*Climate alarmists intentionally instil climate hysteria in our children.
*Some scientists have been shut down or ostracized
for having different opinions about climate change.
*Only positive green energy articles are published,
and naysayers are shut down.
It is time for citizens to be given a formal, extensive public debate on handling climate change.
The debate must be organized by people who do not receive government funds.
It is also necessary for the citizens to have the right to vote on the methods to solve climate change.
Sign this petition if you want an open public debate on climate change and the methods to handle it.
Select your country or region United States of America Australia Canada United Kingdom ------------------- Afghanistan Africa Akrotiri and Dhekelia Åland Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Ascension Island Asia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burma (Myanmar) Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Caribbean Cayman Islands Central African Republic Central America Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos Islands Colombia Comoros Cook Islands Costa Rica Côte d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic D.R. of the Congo Denmark Dhekelia Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador England Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Europe Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard and McDonald Islands Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Ivory Coast Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macau Macedonia, Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States of Middle East Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Nagorno-Karabakh Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea Northern Cyprus Northern Ireland Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian territories Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Island Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Republic of the Congo Reunion Romania Russia Rwanda S. Georgia and S. Sandwich Isls. Saba Sahrawi Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena Saint Kitts & Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Scotland Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Eustatius Sint Maarten Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia Somaliland South Africa South America South Korea South Ossetia South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka St. Helena St. Pierre and Miquelon Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Tibet Togo Tokelau Tonga Transnistria Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu U.S. Minor Outlying Islands Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States of America Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Vatican City Venezuela Vietnam Virgin Islands Wales Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Hide my comment Hide my name from public Keep me informed
GoPetition respects your privacy.
Sign this petition Sign Petition Signatures Map Comments Link 826 Views
The Climate Stewardship Debate petition to Pierre Poilievre was written by Kal Commodore and is in the category Environment at GoPetition.
NEXT PETITION COMING SOON
NEXT PETITION COMING SOON
NEXT PETITION COMING SOON
NEXT PETITION COMING SOON