Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis has endorsed a petition demanding the federal government withdraw from the United Nations (U.N.) and the World Health Organization (WHO).
The petition states “Canada’s agreement to participate in the UN/WHO comprehensive “Agenda 2030″ undermines national sovereignty and personal autonomy”.
Initiated October 10, the petition will be available on the House of Commons website until February 2024 (you can read it below).
The petition asks Parliament to “Urgently implement Canada’s expeditious withdrawal from the U.N. and all of its subsidiary organizations, including WHO”. It goes on to allege participating in the U.N.’s Agenda 2030 undermines Canadian sovereignty. Agenda 2030 is the U.N.’s plan to end poverty and hunger, promote equality, and take “urgent action on climate change” through “Sustainable Development Goals” or SDGs.
While many of the 91 declarations in Agenda 2030 sound perfectly reasonable, others are the source f major concern and suspicion. Examples causing distress include declaration 28 and declaration 31.
Declaration 28 states “We commit to making fundamental changes in the way that our societies produce and consume goods and services… individuals must contribute to changing unsustainable consumption and production patterns.” Obviously there has never been a national discussion confirming that Canadians believe consumption and production patterns are ‘unsustainable’. Needless to say if Canadians were forced to reduce consumption patterns, all Canadians and Canadian owned businesses would be profoundly impacted.
Meanwhile, Declaration 31 is a major concern for the Canadian energy sector and anyone concerned with both the availability and the cost of energy. Declaration 31 urges governments to follow international direction, stating “We acknowledge that the UNFCCC is the primary international intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change.”
At the UN Climate Conference in Dubai, UAE later this year, the UNFCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) will promote dropping efforts to replace dirty coal production with much cleaner solutions like Canadian LNG in favour of “fast-tracking the energy transition and slashing emissions before 2030.”
Just over one week since this petition was opened (Oct. 10), it’s closing in on 40,000 signatures. Canadians have until February 7, 2024 to sign it.
With support from at least five other citizens and at least one sitting MP, any Canadian can bring a petition to Canada’s House of Commons.
If more than 500 people sign a petition it will be presented to the House of Commons for official government response.
Original language of petition: English
By Andrew Rice
Anti-oil and gas advocates across the country have pursued litigation in recent years attempting to force the fossil fuel industry to pay for decades of financial damages the advocates claim were caused by climate change.
Several cases have been dismissed while others advanced through court systems, with some being considered before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2026. Critics of the litigation call it “woke lawfare” and an attempt to force progressive political policies via the judicial system.
Critics also argue the lawsuits threaten U.S. energy independence and, depending on outcomes, will have sweeping impacts on every American.
Here are some of those cases.
Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana
On Jan. 12, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, vs. Chevron USA Inc. The case questions to what extent a state court can litigate against an oil company for its production of oil even if it obtained federal permits to produce the oil.
The litigation challenges activities of the oil companies dating back to World War II in some cases. Chevron argued the lawsuit was flawed, claiming that the activities in question were permitted, legal, and often conducted under federal direction – particularly those tied to national security during World War II.
A Plaquemines Parish jury in April ordered Chevron to pay $744 million in damages for its role in the degradation of the state’s coastal wetlands. Environmental activists celebrated the verdict. It was the first of 42 lawsuits filed since 2013 by parishes across coastal Louisiana to go to trial.
The Trump administration’s Justice Department stepped in on Chevron’s side, urging the Supreme Court to move the case from state court to federal court.
Business groups and energy advocates warned the verdict will drive jobs and investment out of Louisiana. The Louisiana Association of Business and Industry called the decision “shortsighted,” saying it would “brand Louisiana as a state that will extort the most recognizable companies on earth for billions of dollars, decades later.”
O.H. Skinner, executive director of Alliance for Consumers, told the Center Square the case seeks to score large settlements from the energy industry and stop oil production.
“The case arises from a broader campaign of woke lawfare in which activists and municipal governments seek to use courtrooms to determine what companies are allowed to produce and what consumers can buy,” Skinner said.
Suncor Energy Inc. v. Boulder
The nation’s highest court is still deciding whether it will hear arguments in Suncor Energy Inc. v. Boulder; a case to decide whether state and local governments can use nuisance laws to sue energy companies for activities that may cause climate change.
The case, originating in Colorado, centers around a City of Boulder and Boulder County lawsuit in state court against Suncor Energy claiming it misled the public in its activities that the local governments claim led to climate change effects.
Lawyers for Suncor Energy argue that allowing a case like this one to play out goes against protections in the Clean Air Act that prevent lawsuits from occurring against emitters from across state lines.
“Public nuisance can’t be used for global problems. It can be used for local problems,” Skinner told The Center Square. “That’s what it’s supposed to be used for.”
However, Skinner said many organizations that are pursuing climate change litigation are seeking to bankrupt energy companies with large monetary settlements. He said litigants will likely attempt to drain energy companies of their resources and use the funds to advocate certain ideological causes.
“These are highly ideological dark-money-funded, multi-faceted legal campaigns to bankrupt an entire industry and confiscate it for ideological reasons,” Skinner said.
City and County of Honolulu v. Sunoco
Similarly, in 2020, City and County of Honolulu v. Sunoco was one of the first examples of public nuisance lawsuits pursued in a state court. The city and county of Honolulu filed a lawsuit in 2020 accusing oil and gas companies, including Sunoco, Exxon Mobil, BP, Chevron and Shell, of misleading the public for decades about the dangers of climate change induced by burning fossil fuels.
The companies asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in the case, but the court, without ruling on the merits, declined to do so in January.
While the case is based in Hawaii, Skinner said litigants there hope it will have far-reaching effects across the country.
“They’re not trying to stop behavior just in those states,” Skinner said. ”The thing that really freaks me out is how people in regular, everyday, real America are going to potentially be affected.”
The People of the State of California v. Exxon Mobil Corporation
Going a step further than Boulder and Honolulu, California Democrat Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a complaint against ExxonMobil in 2024 for what he says are its contributions to “the deluge of plastic pollution” affecting the state.
Exxon countersued, alleging “Bonta and the US Proxies – the former for political gain and the latter pawns for the Foreign Interests – have engaged in a deliberate smear campaign against ExxonMobil, falsely claiming that ExxonMobil’s effective and innovative advanced recycling technology is a ‘false promise’ and ‘not based on truth.,” American Tort Reform Foundation reported.
One of the foreign interests is IEJF, an Australian nonprofit that’s connected to an Australian mining conmpany “that competes with ExxonMobil in the low carbon solutions and energy transition markets, ATRF reported.
Skinner said the litigants in this case are attempting to significantly reduce plastic use throughout the state of California and potentially beyond.
“That’ll make your average person’s life dramatically harder, and it’ll make a lot of things a lot more expensive, and it’ll make having kids, like, brutal,” Skinner said.
Leon v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
Aside from monetary settlements, petitioners in this case also are seeking wrongful death claims against energy companies for their contributions to climate change. The case stems from a woman in Washington state who said her mother died from heat-related illness due to the exacerbated effects of climate change.
She is suing energy companies for their alleged creation of conditions over a period of decades that led to increased temperatures on the day her mother died.
Skinner told The Center Square this case is one of the more blatant examples of ideology affecting the way a litigant pursues cases.
“I think they care because a death is worth a lot of money,” Skinner said. “The climate homicide cases are one of the more far-fetched legal theories I’ve ever seen, because you’re leveling this incredibly staggering charge.”
Climate cases will continue to move through the court system, with one to be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court in early 2026.
Skinner is urging the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts to rule in favor of energy companies across the country.
“We want the energy companies to win, not because they are perfect actors, but because the alternative is that our lives are governed day in and day out by woke trial lawyers, woke [nongovernmental organizations] and local governments,” Skinner said.
In a Dec. 22, 2025 article, influential Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun laid out why Japan is placing growing strategic weight on liquefied natural gas exports from Western Canada – and why the start of full-scale operations at LNG Canada marks a significant shift in Japan’s energy-security calculus.
The article, written by staff writer Shiki Iwasawa, approaches Canadian LNG not as a climate story or an industrial milestone, but as a response to the vulnerabilities Japan has experienced since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine upended global gas markets.
The most immediate advantage identified is geography. LNG shipped from British Columbia’s Pacific coast reaches Japan in about 10 days, roughly half the time required for cargoes originating in the Middle East or the U.S. Southeast, which can take 16 to 30 days.
For Japan – the world’s largest LNG importer – shorter voyages mean lower transportation costs, tighter inventory management, and reduced exposure to disruptions while cargoes are at sea.
Just as important, Canadian LNG avoids the world’s most precarious shipping bottlenecks.
The Asahi report emphasizes that shipments from B.C. do not pass through either:
Japanese officials explicitly frame these routes as strategic liabilities. As one senior government official responsible for energy security told the newspaper: “We, the government, have high hopes. It means a lot not having to go through the choke points.”
From Japan’s perspective, Canada’s Pacific-facing terminals offer a rare combination of proximity and route resilience.
The article contrasts Canada sharply with Russia, once a significant LNG supplier to Japan through the Sakhalin-2 project.
Before the Ukraine war, Russia accounted for about 10 per cent of Japan’s LNG imports. When Japan joined international sanctions, Moscow responded by restructuring the project’s ownership – a move that underscored how energy supplies can be weaponized.
A government source reflected on that experience bluntly: “We had thought it would be OK if we diversified procurement sources, but we were at risk of power outages even if only 10 percent (of LNG) didn’t reach Japan.”
Canada, by contrast, is described as a friendly and politically stable nation, free from sanctions risk and viewed as a long-term, rules-based partner.
The Asahi article devotes considerable attention to the fundamentals of LNG Canada itself.
Key features highlighted include:
Mitsubishi Corp., which holds a 15 per cent stake, has rights to market 2.1 million tonnes annually to Japan and other Asian buyers. Mitsubishi expects the project to generate tens of billions of yen in annual profits starting in the fiscal year beginning April 2026.
At a Nov. 4 news conference, Mitsubishi president Katsuya Nakanishi said the company is actively considering additional investment to expand capacity, with internal sources indicating output could eventually double.
The article situates Canadian LNG within Japan’s broader energy strategy. Under Japan’s Economic Security Promotion Law, LNG is designated a “specified critical product.” The government maintains dedicated funds to secure supply during emergencies.
While nuclear power remains central to long-term planning, officials acknowledge LNG’s indispensable role. A senior economy ministry official told Asahi: “Nuclear power is the key player in the spotlight, but thermal power (mainly fueled by LNG) is the key player behind the scenes.”
Japan’s latest Basic Energy Plan projects LNG imports rising to 74 million tonnes by 2040, roughly 10 per cent higher than today, underscoring why secure, politically insulated suppliers matter.
In a recent Canada-Japan leaders’ meeting on the sidelines of APEC, Prime Minister Mark Carney and Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi discussed expanding economic ties, with energy cooperation specifically highlighted around the LNG Canada project as a key element of their bilateral relationship. While Takaichi didn’t make a detailed public statement about Canadian LNG itself, the joint statement underscored Japan’s interest in stable and diversified LNG supplies—of which Canadian exports are a part of the broader Indo-Pacific energy security context.
What emerges from Asahi Shimbun’s reporting is a pragmatic assessment shaped by recent shocks. Japan values Canadian LNG because it is closer, less exposed to conflict-prone routes, backed by a stable political system, and already delivering cargoes at scale.
For Canadian readers, the message is unambiguous: Western Canadian LNG is not being embraced because of rhetoric or aspiration, but because it aligns with the operational, geopolitical, and economic priorities of one of the world’s most energy-dependent nations.
Why Japan wants Western Canadian LNG
Mainstream media missing in action as YouTuber blows lid off massive taxpayer fraud
Land use will be British Columbia’s biggest issue in 2026
China Stages Massive Live-Fire Encirclement Drill Around Taiwan as Washington and Japan Fortify
Rulings could affect energy prices everywhere: Climate activists v. the energy industry in 2026
The Global Push for Government Mandated Digital IDs And Why You Should Worry
Canada needs serious tax cuts in 2026
Stripped and shipped: Patel pushes denaturalization, deportation in Minnesota fraud
