Bill C-293 concerns Astroturfed? You can bet they're not!! Rebuttal to a Rebuttal

Complete with a total revision for the Pandemic Prevention & Preparedness Bill C-293

ERROR CORRECTION - When looking at the minutes of the meeting of Canada’s Standing Committee on Health at which Bill C-293 was introduced, I mistakenly assumed the ENTIRE meeting occurred “in camera” i.e. without public access/minutes. I have since noted that this was NOT the case and that MP Erskine-Smith’s comments WERE publicly noted. I have gone into the post to adjust the wording to that effect. An email to MP Erskine-Smith will follow.

So our ON MP, Nathaniel Erskine-Smith or ‘Nate’ as he calls himself online, the Private Liberal Member of Parliament behind Canada’s Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Bill, has now made a video and posted it to his Substack with this comment:

*** There has been a campaign in the alt-right media that attacks my pandemic prevention and preparedness legislation as some hidden vegan agenda to mandate vegetable proteins. I wouldn’t normally respond to this grifting, especially from Rebel Media, but at least one Senator has expressed concerns based on this astroturfing and the bill now looks to be stalled. So here’s my message to my Senate colleagues.

(LINK shared a bit later in this post.)

First, let’s visit Nate’s claim that the backlash to Bill C-293 is an example of “astroturfing”. Nate has linked us directly to this Wikipedia definition:

Astroturfing is the deceptive practice of hiding the sponsors of an orchestrated message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious, or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from, and is supported by, unsolicited grassroots participants. It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations credibility by withholding information about the source's financial backers.

The implication behind the use of the term is that instead of a "true" or "natural" grassroots effort behind the activity in question, there is a "fake" or "artificial" appearance of support.

Well, there certainly is no political, religious or public relations organization backing those bleary-eyed concerned citizens putting in long and late hours tediously looking up email addresses, one by one, of Canadian Senators, mayors, town councillors, Chamber of Commerce members, farmer organizations, educational organizations, etc. etc. to share with them the combined weight of

• the World Health Organization Pandemic Treaty and International Health Regulations which clearly stated that global authority to manage pandemics should be turned over to the head honcho of the WHO (thankfully there was pushback on that by delegates to the World Health Assembly, but a revision of more or less the same document is back in the works) See hours of work by a tiny group of volunteers here.

• the draconian powers given to the United Nations under its Trifecta of documents making up the euphemistically named Pact for the Future. See more work here.

• various other de-growth and control-grid types of agendas collected on citizen-run webpages such as this one late into the night https://www.canadaexitwho.org/control-grid-news (a must read for anyone who hasn’t heard of Canadian Maurice Strong and the role he played in this less than stellar field of endeavour)

• the astonishing commitments being made by who knows who behind the c40 cities movement which openly admits to wanting to “influence the Global Agenda” by making “ambitious climate commitments” “climate budgets” and the “race to zero”— all this with backing from the philanthropic arms of major financial interests like Bloomberg’s along with the ever-present Google, Open Society Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and this time, even IKEA. Interesting, as having everyone transition to smaller housing options would mean everyone then needs different (smaller) new furniture (Kaching!!!! ) Some of the “ambitious” commitments of the c40 folk include 0 kgs of meat and dairy products within a few years, no private vehicles, only one chance to travel outside of the city every three years, and only three new items of clothing each year - you’ve got to see it to believe it! (Were these numbers drawn out of a hat like Dr. Fauci’s SIX FEET OF SOCIAL DISTANCING RULE?)

All that and so much less to live on as prescribed in this handy dandy guide downloadable from this webpage https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/The-future-of-urban-consumption-in-a-1-5-C-world?language=en_US. Note, this was posted already in 2019 while no one was paying much attention!

So no Astroturfing here Nate. No Opposition Party has dared make itself vulnerable to slurs and barbs from politicians such as yourself that they may have suddenly become “conspiracy theorists” despite clear cut evidence that these Agendas are marching along happily in all corners of our world. No religious organization either. No one wants to rock the boat. Well, Rebel Media does. They area always up for a David and Goliath story, one that you obviously are not taking seriously! (What about concerns raised here like “criticizing the bill for its vague definitions and broad powers granted to the Minister of Health” do you possibly consider ‘alt-right’? But beyond one incident when one media outlet briefly took up the cause, it is simply citizens trying to squeeze in this type of messaging between our daily work, like the farmers among us, or the practicing lawyers, the former health care professional, or the retirees, or those struggling with the after-effects of flawed COVID-19 mitigation on our lives and those of our loved ones. We so much wish we had the kind of staff resources you had access to, in order to get your message out to every Senator (or did you copy paste, copy paste, copy paste everyone single one of their email addresses yourself after work over a few nights after the kids were in bed?) We too want to “get on with life” but feel innerly compelled, like the lookout, the perennial sentinel among a flock of birds, to always be the one to give off the warning sound, when danger stalks near. We would LOVE, for once, to be just the ordinary bird, minding its own little business, but no, with each new AGENDA creeping in on us, here we are back on the job… no pay, no praise, just gaslighting, denialism, rejection from the very folk we are trying to warn!!! And the politicians, like you, whom we are trying to wake up!

~~~~~~~

Now, let’s get to Nate’s actual message to the Senators. It was essentially his rebuttal to this article by Halifax prof Dr. Sylvain Charlebois: https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/charlebois-is-bill-c-293-canadas-vegan-act 

See MP Erskine-Smith’s message to Senators, his video and his Substack post here:

What is scary vegan Bill C-293?

And here, this is what I would like Nate to know:

Open Letter to MP Erskine-Smith

Dear MP Erskine-Smith

It was interesting to note how you present Bill C-293 in your “rebuttal video” and on this Substack post

What is scary vegan Bill C-293?

 

I had noted that there seemed to be no minutes taken or records transcribed when you presented your intentions for this bill early on at the Standing Committee for Health (HESA). So until you recently posted this video, the Canadian public was really not clear about your stated motivations for pulling this document together.

THIS WAS MY ERROR. Your intentions for the Bill were recorded and can be see in these minutes: https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/44-1/HESA/meeting-62/evidence You wanted us to avoid living through another devastating pandemic like COVID-19. You also explained:

I consulted with the United Nations Environment Programme's report about preventing future pandemics. I consulted with the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services' report about preventing future pandemics, including consulting with a Canadian expert involved in that report. I consulted with the independent panel, which has written reports on pandemic prevention and preparedness and worked directly with the researchers who wrote and put those reports together, and consulted with a range of other experts.

You insist that you wrote the Bill with only these intentions:

• identify key drivers of pandemic risk (section 3(2)(b);

• ensure Canada contributes to global disease surveillance (3(2)(g);

• identify preparedness strategies with respect to the availability of PPE, surge capacity for contact tracing, and the working conditions of essential workers (3(2)(i);

• assess our domestic manufacturing capacity for vaccines and treatments (3(2)(k)); and

• review measures to support global health equity (3(2)(n).

And to:

1. reduce the risks posed by antimicrobial resistance

2. regulate commercial activities that can contribute to pandemic risk, including industrial animal agriculture

3. promote commercial activities that can help reduce pandemic risk, including the production of alternative proteins

4. phase out commercial activities that can help reduce pandemic risk, including activities that involve high-risk species

If these are your core aims, as you stated, please see my proposed (rough) redraft of your bill attached in a separate document below. I strip it of all additional content that does NOT match these stated intentions. And I add in very important caveats that you left out or simply did not even think of. My explanations for the additions and deletions, unfortunately, are what makes my draft quite a bit longer than your original!

You may switch over to the redraft of your bill at any point. For the remainder of this letter, please allow me to provide some other questions, comments, concerns and suggestions. These come from my background as a teacher with decades of experience critiquing student assignments both at the high school and university level, and from my work as a health advocate for various people in my life and as the author of the FollowingtheCovidscience substack which reflects 4 1/2 years of close observation and gathering of insights, expressing them for a lay audience.

You appear to be mixing up strategies to deal with antibiotic and microbial resistance  (AMR) related to overuse of antibiotics with pandemic mitigation strategies. In fact, during the COVID-19 period cases of AMR declined slightly. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01867-1/fulltext

You also appear to believe that biosecurity measures are not controversial, seemingly unaware of the problem around invalid testing tools. You might not have been aware of the numbers of poultry and other animals put down in other countries solely because of “positive” test results on PCR tests not meant for use in this way, resulting in false results and a huge loss of farmer income for nothing. https://www.naturalnews.com/2024-04-07-usda-using-pcr-testing-depopulate-poultry-farms-harming-us-food-supply.html

Unbelievably, you mislabel a fellow colleague in the House of Commons (Ms. Cheryl Gallant) a “far right MP” apparently without the awareness that far right equals fascist and that when BigTech/BigPharma/BigMedia and the like conspire to drive their profit seeking agendas by manipulating governments and ‘leading them by the nose’ to create legislation in their corporate interests, we have an actual case of corporatism or fascism on our hands. So your insulting of others could actually apply to you, if you are being influenced in some way to create legislation more favourable to corporate than to citizen interests. One of your recommendations is to support the manufacture of vaccines despite massive concerns by vaccinologists that vaccinating into a pandemic is dangerous and actually drives viral mutations/new variants. This seems to be an example of letting corporate interests drive policy over citizen rights and well being — a classic case of corporatism/fascism, i.e. really “far right”, further right than any Conservatives who are speaking up against this situation and who in so doing sound much more like the former left-leaning people who were once so critical of BigCorp in the 1980s and 1990s. Back then any anti-imperialist lefty was never far from their copy of Linda McQuaid’s latest book and could readily cite to anyone how the infamous case of Ethyl Corp. v. Government of Canada meant the deathblow to national sovereignty — as in this case, for the first time, Canada’s government was UNABLE to stand up to a corporation being granted "private legal standing”. You, as a former lawyer, should be interested in this case…in 1997, this case was the largest of its kind — a corporation suing a national government seeking “restitution of $251 million to cover losses resulting from the ‘expropriation’ of both its MMT production plant and its ‘good reputation.’ ” Canada’s environmental protection agency was NOT ALLOWED to have the health of Canadians supersede the right of the Ethyl corporation to make the profits it was counting on by selling a toxic gasoline additive to Canada (one that was already banned in the US). Does this sound familiar? Can the Canadian government sue the corporations with which it engaged in trade deals if the corporations now have “private legal standing”? Why have formerly left leaning folk forgotten these lessons of the past? Why were the Liberals and ND’s the first to cheerlead the rollover of Canadian rights re: informed consent and bodily autonomy to the power of the corporate/Big Pharma profit machine? You’ve got your understanding of right vs left all backwards these days! Today’s leftists and centrists are not ANTIglobalist but PROglobalist and do not OPPOSE corporate overreach or even corporate manipulation of government policy making. Oddly, it has fallen to conservatives to speak out about the clear trend moving us toward global fascism/corporatism/etc. But oddly, to do so, in your mind is now somehow to be labelled as ‘alt right’ — how about you provide evidence backing up your use of that term before you next choose to use it? What, in your mind, does the term ‘alt-right’ mean? How can someone opposing far right globalist and corporatist fascism possibly end up being labeled ‘alt-right’ in your lingo?

Instead of taking the time to understand and learn from the background underlying the concerns expressed, for example, by Dr. Charlebois, you do the intellectually lazy thing and fall into school yard ‘name calling’ or modern day ‘gaslighting’ i.e., belittling valid concerns. You did this when you opened your video implying that concerned citizens are looking in “dark corners of the internet” and when you closed your video claiming that concerns with your Bill originate from “an online ecosystem that is driven by conspiracies and grifters further amplified and torqued by Foreign interference all leading politicians by the nose”. Sure, it is easy, yet sadly unprofessional, to claim that all these concerns with the Bill shared by many Canadians are “due to Foreign Influence” without showing any evidence at all to back your claims and without any intellectual curiosity to listen to and learn from those who provide you with new insights you may not yet have considered, the sign of a mature thinker.

One would think that when drafting a bill on Pandemic Prep and Prevention, any single MP with that interest would likely start with what is already on the books in Canadian Health Legislation and make reference to that — either directly or at least in terms of the verbiage used. But you appear not to have referenced any content from Health Canada’s Biosafety Standards as seen here. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/canadian-biosafety-standards-guidelines/handbook-second-edition.html#s411. Or any other documents already in place via Health Canada or any concepts or directives around Emergency Management from the Department of Public Safety and/or the Emergency Preparedness Act. With your history as a former member of the Public Safety and National Security Committee, grabbing concepts around Public Safety and Emergency Response legislation would have been easy for you to do. Instead, the chosen content for your bill sounds like and contains content like this paragraph on page 13 of ‘A guide to implementing the One Health Joint Plan of Action at national level’ which states:“The situation analysis should be led by the multisectoral, One Health coordination mechanism if one is already in place. If not, any of the three main ministries responsible for human health, animal health or the environment can lead the process and ensure the other relevant sectors are involved. Establishment of a One Health, multisectoral coordination mechanism…”  https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/374825/9789240082069-eng.pdf

Similarly it also seems clear that the entirety of Bill C-293 is an abbreviated version of this document published two years ago by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN. Who not yet influenced by the ONE HEALTH model would be looking to FOOD and AG documentation to guard against pandemics? When Ebola briefly came to Toronto in 2014, did the public health officials look to farming guides for help? Why look there now? (FAO, UNEP, WHO, and WOAH. 2022. One Health Joint Plan of Action (2022-2026). Working together for the health of humans, animals, plants and the environment. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc2289en)

We can all see the similarities with the verbiage and the unusual combination of departments of human and animal health plus environment in these parts of your Bill: the Preamble, the Summary and Section (2)(3)(a), (3)(2)(o), (3)(2)(m)(i) and (5). It would have been more logical to include a combination of Health, Emergency Management, Justice, Finance, Labour, Training and Skills, Industry and/or Public Transport references in any Bill purporting to ready the country for MORE pandemics along the lines of COVID-19. Any MP looking at where the Canadian government went wrong during the COVID-19 crisis would naturally turn to these ministries, not to ministries around the Environment and Animal Health….unless they were influenced by a very particular outside NGO, one that is financed for the most part by BigPharma, namely the World Health Organization and that has as its big pet project, the ONE HEALTH agenda. You state you desire accountability and transparency. Instead of claiming as you did in your video, that you wrote the Bill yourself, why did you not explain WHY you were inspired to turn to documents provided by a foreign NGO, written by undetermined and unelected bureaucrats, who are headquartered who knows where, and who mean to direct governments to make policies according to THEIR agendas? Can you admit having referred to these You could also have used your video to explain WHY you chose to give such documentation a higher relevance than existing Canadian laws and policies better suited to nation-wide health emergency responses. Instead of insinuating that others are being “torqued and amplified by foreign influence” can you perhaps admit that this seems to have been your case? At the very least, did you verify whether the claims being made in the WHO’s ONE HEALTH agenda actually reflect reality when it comes to the scientific research around health, viruses, variants, vaccines, etc. etc. instead of just taking someone’s word for it?

It is extremely hard to believe that a former lawyer and a Parliamentarian with nearly a decade of on the job experience, could be so naive as to NOT NOTICE the similarities between what you are proposing, what is being developed in the WHO’s new Pandemic Treaty, its International Health Regulations, the UN’s various “Agendas”, even the World Economic Forum’s many “toolkits” as well as no shortage of other “degrowth” agendas like the c40 Cities plans. You pretend to laugh off the concerns of those following these and other globalist organizations. Your attempts to do just that, sadly, indicate your naïveté or lack of awareness of world news.  Click on “Download Resource” here: https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/The-future-of-urban-consumption-in-a-1-5-C-world?language=en_US and open Chapter 6 to see clear and definite intentions to soon limit human consumption to 0 kg of meat and dairy, to cut travel to just once every 3 years, etc. Does knowing that the former mayor of Vancouver, Gregor Robinson has been given a position with the c40 initiative make this seem less of a conspiracy and more of a reality? Likewise the knowledge that not only is Bob Rae Canada’s Ambassador to the UN but he is also now charged with turbocharging the world’s adoption of the UN’s Agenda 2030? NOW do you understand the scepticism of those who see you seek to “regulate” the animal meat industry and implement “land use” reforms? Now, especially people hailing from countries where “collectivization” of their farmland was undertaken by urban-based government officials without their consent have every right to be suspicious given the “ambitious” and short time frame stated in these agendas. And the lack of public debate as to whether Canadians even desire this whole-scale reform of our ways of life? While you claim not to have any nefarious intentions, your words ring hollow given the context in which you yourself are citing unscientific premises from a major globalist organization. Unfortunately, just as is the case with outdated COVID science, we have also been the victim of outdated understandings of the actual causes of fluctuations in climate. As such, none of the Agendas that promote new industries along the line of data tracking etc. under the guise of “saving the planet” are really going to mitigate climate fluctuations. To learn more about both Bill C-293 and the reasons the CO2 climate change theory is being surpassed by newer findings, you may wish to try the two short quizzes I link to at the bottom of my letter.

See also

CSN PRESS ROOM - Canadians Seek Defeat of Bill C-293 re: Pandemic Prevention

for an entire set of Briefing Notes with further background and detail.

I highly recommend to EVERYONE working on Health/Pandemic/COVID policy that they become aware of this resource pulled together by an amazing individual.

https://totalityofevidence.com/

I suggest starting with this page to find many of the the reasons that the experts could see why proceeding with vax mandates and the other policies was the WRONG THING to continue doing already early on. https://totalityofevidence.com/smoking-gun/

Then I suggest people pick a year in the TIMELINE SECTION - for example the time when the Vax was starting to be mandated for various employment groups in Canada let’s say in the fall of 2021. https://totalityofevidence.com/pandemic-timeline/pandemic-2021/#Jun  Then you scroll above that and find out which major public health officials said what when in relation to the date you are looking at. For example “by January 26, 2021, it was already being talked about by public health experts, that the newly rolled-out COVID-19 vaccines will likely NOT prevent infection but more importantly they don’t know if it will stop community transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the exact justification for mandating vaccines!”

If it were not for extreme corporate and government backed censorship, employers, community board members, sporting leagues, nursing homes etc. might have made different decisions re: vaccine mandates about seven months later… what is the point of mandating a product that does NOT function as advertised? Think of the many parents who lost children, children who lost parents, people losing spouses, relatives, colleagues ONLY TO NOW HEAR WHAT WAS KNOWN a good half year BEFORE their loved one was faced with the impossible decision of taking an unproven injection solely upon the WORDS uttered by public health officials, who clearly themselves were NOT UP ON THE DATA! What in your draft bill will guard against this unethical power of information censors in the future?

Also on this same website, see the directory of Experts to consider consulting with here: https://totalityofevidence.com/resources/experts/ These may be Canadian, American, British, European, Australian or from other countries/continents. As the webmaster said, there are many more not yet posted. It looks like he is featuring new people by means of the blog here: https://totalityofevidence.com/blog/

See also his listing of Symposiums or international conferences where evidence-based (non pharma-funded) researchers present their most recent findings. https://totalityofevidence.com/resources/symposiums-conferences/ Do you notice a distinct difference between what is being spoken about here and what the WHO is presenting as its latest publications? The WHO’s website is rife with Guidance for MONITORING this or that, with references pointing at policy documents, not at evidence-based continually evolving science.  There  are “Roadmaps” “Blueprints” “Policies” “Agendas” etc, but no discussion of evolving science in the field as far as I can see. It is the same on the website of the WHO’s partner organization, the world’s largest corporate lobby group, the World Economic Forum with all of its “Toolkits” etc. There are over 800 hits of the search term “pandemic toolkit” featuring anything from blockchain technology and digital facial recognition all somehow tied to “pandemic”. Apparently “pandemic preparedness” nets over 1800 hits - it must be great for business! How many of these “toolkits” like the one called Agile Regulation for the Fourth Industrial Revolution A Toolkit for Regulators are written directly for government officials, again by unelected, unaccountable, unknown figures? See https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Agile_Regulation_for_the_Fourth_Industrial_Revolution_2020.pdf

This is clearly an attempt by corporate lobby groups to shape government policies. And it obviously worked in the case of Canada changing its drug implementation policy to align with the corporate goal of removing a “prescriptive approach” to drug safety regulation and to replace that with what BigCorp really prefers: a “goal based approach” which leaves so much more leeway in the hands of the companies. You may not be aware but prior to 2019, Health Canada required that corporations submit records of X number of safety studies involving at least 3000 study participants each in order to have their products approved. That would have been seen by Big Corp as “too prescriptive”. Once you listen to Shawn Buckley’s testimony, which I shared earlier, you will see exactly how Canada was pushed into making this goal-based approach so much preferred by BigPharma a reality without insisting that the need for patient safety take precedence over corporate preferences. Why can’t Health Canada now lon longer determine its own regulations and get back to its own priority setting?? The Agile Regulations Toolkit for Regulators (i.e. something a corporate lobby group writes FOR Health Canada) states:

“Goal-based regulation involves a focus on the achievement of “real-world” outcomes for citizens and the environment.17 Also called outcome-focused, principles-based or performance-based regulation, it defines high-level goals or outcomes that businesses’ actions must achieve using their own judgement. It is distinct from prescriptive rules-based regulation, which defines in advance precisely what actions businesses must or must not do.

Goal-based approaches are inherently technology-neutral. They increase flexibility for business, enabling them to find the most efficient way to comply and reducing costs for consumers. They can encourage innovation since firms have greater freedom to try out new ideas, products and business models.18 They can also encourage businesses to think more carefully about how best to achieve a regulatory goal, and not mechanically follow rules.

Goal-based regulation can enhance stability and predictability for business, as public policy goals are set for the long term. It is well-suited to the dynamic and uncertain context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, where technological developments combined with economic, social and environmental shifts may rapidly make more prescriptive approaches outdated.”

{NOTE: “efficient” = cheap. WEF members like Pfizer, Moderna et al are LOOKING FOR CHEAPER WAYS TO JUMP THROUGH THE REGULATORY HOOPS, not at how to ensure their products are TRULY SAFE, EFFECTIVE, and even necessary. }

Do you notice how this all benefits Big Business and there is NO CONSIDERATION FOR PATIENT HEALTH? Health Canada no longer prescribes that Big Pharma present safety test data of at least a certain number of trial participants held in accordance with XYZ medical/scientific/research best practices. As Dr. Byram Bridle recently pointed out, to say that the C-19 vaccines were PROVEN SAFE AND EFFECTIVE WAS and continues to be AN OUTRIGHT LIE https://followingthecovidscience.substack.com/p/when-dr-byram-bridle-speaks-everyone

Mr. Erskine-Smith, I took this LONG DETOUR to illustrate exactly what it is that so many people find egregious about turning to the WHO and its corporate funders (who btw are also the members at the partner organization the WEF).

• The WHO is AGENDA, NOT SCIENCE BASED

• Its Toolkits, etc. are NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PERSON but rather the CORPORATIONS

• As we saw with the COVID-19 crisis, whenever Dr. Tedros……. and WHO along with FDA, CDC, etc. mandated something, Canada jumped to it and pushed it down the line. No “Collaboration” as your draft would have us believe. Purely a loss of national and personal decision-making abilities (aka individual sovereignty). This phrase is not a “right wing dog-whistle”. Instead it is the basis for all of humanity. Every individual has inherent self worth that YOU as an elected official are called to protect.

We are NOT facing a case of LEFT vs RIGHT. Instead it is a case of HUMANITY vs CORPORATISM/GLOBAL FASCISM. If you still think this is a conspiracy theory, open your eyes a little wider and rethink. It appears there is much you have not yet learned in in your 10 year tenure as a Parliamentarian. May I suggest subscribing to a news source that does not shy away from the topics that are censored in the so-called “mainstream” press. Please learn now that what you have been made aware of thus far was highly curated. To put your passion to make the world a better place to good use when you are no longer MP (as I see you don’t intend to keep running) you will need to get out of the mainstream media bubble asap. If you find no other purveyor of “news not in the news” might I humbly suggest:

UNTIL YOU ARE RELIEVED OF YOUR DUTIES at the next election, please give deep consideration as to what I have shared here. Think of me as a former Social Studies teacher just wanting the best for YOU as well as for those for whom you are responsible. Let the Senate know you are willing and open for all suggestions to improve your bill. Maybe they will see the value in what I have drafted here for illustrative purposes. And please apologize to those whom you have unthinkingly insulted in that video project you submitted, in particular Professor Charlebois, MP Gallant, Rebel Media and all of us working insane hours behind the scenes, to keep you and yours, and all of us, safe!

Hannah Noerenberg (former teacher) Concerned Canadian.

Redone Verson Of Bill C 293

1.11MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

As promised, here are the links to this climate quiz here and to the quiz on YOUR BILL. Can you get at least 80% on each?