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 Will Gibson
A new report on North American energy highlights the important role that Canada’s oil sands and Montney natural gas resources play in supplying growing global energy demand.
In its annual North American supply outlook, Calgary-based Enverus Intelligence Research (a subsidiary of Enverus, which is headquartered in Texas and also operates in Europe and Asia) forecasts that by 2030, the world will require an additional seven million barrels per day (bbl/d) of oil and another 40 billion cubic feet per day (bcf/d) of natural gas.
“North America is one of the few regions where we’ve seen meaningful growth in the past 20 years,” said Enverus supply forecasting analyst Alex Ljubojevic.
Since 2005, North America has added 15 million bbl/d of liquid hydrocarbons and 50 bcf/d of gas production to the global market.
Enverus projects that by the end of this decade, that could grow by a further two million bbl/d of liquids and 15 bcf/d of natural gas if the oil benchmark WTI stays between US$70 and $80 per barrel and the natural gas benchmark Henry Hub stays between US$3.50 and $4 per million British thermal unit.
Ljubojevic said the oil sands in Alberta and the Montney play straddling Alberta and B.C.’s northern boarder are key assets because of their low cost structures and long-life resource inventories.
“Canada continues to be resource-rich and competes very well against major U.S. resource bases. Both the Montney and oil sands have comparable costs versus key U.S. basins such as the Permian,” he said.
“In the Montney, wells are being drilled longer and faster. In the oil sands, the big build outs of infrastructure have taken place. The companies are now fine-tuning those operations, making small improvements year-on-year [and] operators have continued to reduce their operating costs. Investment dollars will always flow to the lowest cost plays,” he said.
“Are the Montney and oil sands globally significant? Yes, and we expect that will continue to be the case moving forward.”
By: Julio Mejía, Elmira Aliakbari and Tegan Hill
According to an announcements last week by Premier Danielle Smith, the Alberta government will use the Alberta Sovereignty within a United Canada Act to challenge Ottawa’s proposal to cap greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector at 35 per cent below 2019 levels by 2030.
Premier Smith, who said the cap will harm the economy and represents an overstep of federal authority, also plans to prevent emissions data from individual oil and gas companies from being shared with Ottawa. While the federal government said the cap is necessary to fight climate change, several studies suggest the cap will impose significant costs on Canadians without yielding detectable environmental benefits.
According to a recent report by Deloitte, a leading audit and consulting firm, the cap will force Canadian firms to curtail oil production by 626,000 barrels per day by 2030 or by approximately 10.0 per cent of the expected production—and curtail gas production by approximately 12.0 per cent.
Deloitte estimates that Alberta will be hit hardest, with 3.6 per cent less investment, almost 70,000 fewer jobs, and a 4.5 per cent decrease in the province’s economic output (i.e. GDP) by 2040. Ontario will lose 15,000 jobs and $2.3 billion from its economy by 2040. And Quebec will lose more than 3,000 jobs and $0.4 billion from its economy during the same period.
Overall, the country will experience an economic loss equivalent to 1.0 per cent of the value of the entire economy (GDP), translating into lower wages, the loss of nearly 113,000 jobs and a 1.3 per cent reduction in government tax revenues. Canada’s inflation-adjusted GDP growth in 2023 was a paltry 1.3 per cent, so a 1 per cent reduction would be a significant economic loss.
Deloitte’s findings echo previous studies. According to a recent analysis by the Conference Board of Canada think-tank, the cap could reduce Canada’s GDP by up to $1 trillion between 2030 and 2040, eliminate up to 151,000 jobs by 2030, reduce federal government revenue by up to $151 billion between 2030 and 2040, and reduce Alberta government revenue by up to $127 billion over the same period.
Similarly, another recent study published by the Fraser Institute found that the cap would reduce production and exports, leading to at least $45 billion in lost economic activity in 2030 alone, accompanied by a substantial drop in government revenue.
Crucially, these huge economic costs to Canadians will come without any discernable environmental benefits. Even if Canada entirely shut down its oil and gas industry by 2030, eliminating all GHG emissions from the sector, the resulting reduction in global GHG emissions would amount to a mere four-tenths of one per cent with virtually no impact on the climate or any detectable environmental, health or safety benefits.
Given the demand for fossil fuels, constraining oil and gas production and exports in Canada would likely merely shift production to other countries with lower environmental and human rights standards such as Iran, Russia and Venezuela. Consequently, global GHG emissions would increase, not decrease. No other major oil and gas-producing country has imposed a similar cap on its leading export sector.
The Trudeau government’s proposed cap, which still must pass the House and Senate, would further strain an already struggling Canadian economy, and to make matters worse, do virtually nothing to improve the environment. The government should cancel the cap plan given the economic costs and nonexistent environmental benefits.
‘Hell To Pay’: Trump Warns Middle East Leaders, Terrorists Of Consequences If Hostages Aren’t Released
Luxury Vancouver Homes at the Center of $100M CAD Loan and Chinese Murder Saga
From Smug to Subservient, Justin Trudeau Bows to MAGA Realities at Mar-a-Lago
Parents in every province—not just Alberta—deserve as much school choice as possible
New FCC Chairman Vows to End Big Tech’s Grip on Free Speech
Let Them Eat Cake
Court rules in favor of Texas in razor wire case
Alberta government’s fiscal update underscores need for rainy-day account
