There is much controversy about Conservative PM Candidate Pierre Poilievere and his current or past involvement with the World Economic Forum (WEF) , or whether he was involved at all.
In 2021, Poilievre was listed on the WEF as is noted in this archived page. Since posting this, we have received a number of comments from Poilievre supporters denouncing this information with claims that anyone can post on the WEF site, web archives aren’t real, that posting a link back to the WEF website is not proof, or that it’s misleading to have anyone on the list without multiple confirmations of involvement. It is worth noting that while researching membership, we also noted that two other prominent politicians were removed from the WEF site the week of February 22, 2022; Doug Ford and Andrew Scheer. Screen shots taken prior to their removal are available in our library, and can also be seen archived on the same site that referenced Poilievre, here and here. It is interesting that this is timed prior to elections. We did reach out to Mr. Poilievre’s office and asked if he could explain why he was listed on the WEF site when he is claiming he has never been involved with the World Economic Forum. At the time of writing we have not yet received a response.
Poilievre is a career politician who won his first elected seat in 2004. He is clean cut, intelligent, educated, well spoken and has made a name for himself calling out the government and demanding answers. He has recently announced that he will be running for Prime Minister of Canada in the next election, with freedom being a major part of his platform.
For the past two years, the Federal Conservative party has been generally quiet on all of the restrictions placed up on Canadians, and Conservative Provincial Governments have had some of the harshest restrictions in the country. Why, now and only recently, are freedom and Charter Rights part of the Conservative platform? One has to wonder if the national outpouring of support of the Freedom Convoy played a role in determining a favourable election platform. Or is it because now Poilievre is in a position of leadership and able to speak freely about his views? But if that’s the case, why was he on the WEF website?
Andrew Lawton with True North interviewed Poilievre on March 11 (after our list of WEF Members was published) and asked about his involvement with the World Economic Forum.
Lawton: Is there a connection there? Have you ever spoken at a World Economic Event?
Poilievre: No. I have not. No, I’ve never been to Davos. I’ve never been part of the organization and I don’t agree with its public, publicly stated policy objectives. My policies are different. I obviously support small government, more freedom and individual independence, so I just have a fundamental disagreement with the organization’s policy outlook, and that is something that you can look at my track record that I’ve said that on the floor of the House of Commons, I’ve said it in parliamentary committees, I’ve said it in comments that I’ve made on line and for years and so anybody who wants to know my position on that subject can simply check it out and look up what I’ve actually said because I’ve been deadly consistent on that issue.
Is or has Poilievre been involved with the World Economic Forum? At this time, we don’t have a clear answer due to conflicting information. We will update when we get a response from Mr. Poilevre’s office in response to our question asking for an explanation of his presence on the WEF website.
UPDATE: April 21, 2022
In an interview with an unidentified reporter, Poilievre admitted that he was on the WEF website, asked to be removed, and stated that he is not a supporter of the organization. A transcript of the exchange follows the video.
Interviewer: “The WayBack Machine can’t be fudged. So, what happened?”
Poilievre: “Truth is, I don’t know exactly why they put me there, but I did have my staff e-mail them and ask them why it was there. The only ah ex explanation that they had that made any sense was that they republished an article of mine, or something like that. So they have publishing agreements with papers and I write a lot of articles in many papers. That’s the only explanation that they could give.”
The second name that raises questions is Tim Uppal.
While Mr. Uppal does not have the same notoriety with the World Economic Forum as his colleague, and does not appear to have a bio posted, he does appear on a list of attendees at a World Economic Forum Meeting. He attended the “World Economic Forum on India” in April 2013, while he held the position of Minister of State for Democratic Reform of Canada. Mr. Uppal currently holds office as the Conservative MP for Edmonton Mill Woods. It is worth noting that Mr. Uppal held the position of Shadow Cabinet Minister for Treasury Board from November 2019 – September 2020.
From our preliminary searches, Quebec Senator Leo Housakos does not appear to have any direct affiliations with the World Economic Forum. He does, however, have direct involvement in creating Digital ID’s for Canadians; which is a major component of the WEF strategy. Canada had a first taste of the power afforded by Digital ID’s with the recent implementation of Vaccine Passports.
A Senate document dated June 16, 2010, states:
While this summary seems rather innocuous on the surface, the report referred to in the last paragraph is far more interesting.
The report was issued by The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, dated June 2010. It was authored by The Honourable Dennis Dawson, Chair and The Honourable Leo Housakos, Deputy Chair. The following are notable highlights from the document.
Page 22: Lessons from Estonia
“This committee is not suggesting that Estonia is a digital or economic utopia. But Estonia does provide the best available example of how to use digital technology to transform a society.
Estonia began implementing its program a dozen years before Canada launched consultations on a digital economy strategy. During this twelve year period, Estonia introduced paperless cabinet meetings, e-voting, digital ID’s, online and secure citizen access to government files.”
Gail Shea has a long career in politics, starting in the early 2000’s with the Conservative Party of Canada. She was a representative in PEI before running for a federal seat. She held the positions of Federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in 2015 and Federal Minister of National Revenue from 2011-2013.
At this time, we have found no evidence to suggest that Ms. Shea is involved with the WEF.
If Mr. Poilievre is dead set against the WEF as he claims, his choices for Campaign Co-Chairs with direct ties to the WEF and/or WEF agenda are curious at best. If he is part of the WEF and is working to usher in their policies, two of his choices for Campaign Co-Chairs are very well positioned and qualified to make it happen.
Update – May 17, 2022
It was brought to our attention by one of our readers that Pierre Poilievre was an Associate Member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. This carries significance as the World Economic Forum (WEF) signed a partnership agreement with the United Nations (UN) to bring forward the WEF 2030 Vision and the UN 2030 Goals for Sustainable Development, to which Canada signed on in September 2015.
Once again, one must ask why Mr. Poilievre would actively participate in the WEF/UN agenda if he is, in fact, dead set against it?
Update – May 30, 2022
Poilievre boldly states he will invoke the Charter’s Notwithstanding Clause
On May 27, 2022, Poilievre took to twitter to make a statement on a Supreme Court of Canada ruling.
The full ruling may be read here.
“Section 745.51 of the Criminal Code violates section 12 of Charter and is therefore unconstitutional.
Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, Chief Justice Richard Wagner said section 745.51 of the Criminal Code violates section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in a way that cannot be justified in a free and democratic society. Section 12 of the Charter guarantees the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. Its purpose is to protect human dignity and ensure respect for the inherent worth of each individual.
In a case of multiple murders, section 745.51 of the Criminal Code allows a court to impose imprisonment on the offender without a possibility of parole for a period of 50, 75, 100 or even 150 years. This provision “authorizes a court to order an offender to serve an ineligibility period that exceeds the life expectancy of any human being, a sentence so absurd that it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute”, the Chief Justice wrote.
A life sentence without a realistic possibility of parole presupposes the offender is beyond redemption and cannot be rehabilitated. This is degrading in nature and incompatible with human dignity. It amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. “By depriving offenders in advance of any possibility of reintegration into society, section 745.51 shakes the very foundations of Canadian criminal law”, the Chief Justice said.
In light of this conclusion, the Chief Justice declared section 745.51 invalid from the time it was enacted in 2011. As a result, the law that existed before that date continues to apply. This means the offender must serve a life sentence without eligibility for parole for a total of 25 years.”
There is strong argument to say that the notwithstanding clause should never have been part of the Charter, and in fact it was a heated discussion when the Charter was created. Use of this clause should be for the most extreme circumstances that cannot be dealt with under current laws. We have seen politicians show great disrespect for the magnitude of this action such as when New Brunswick MLA, Dominic Cardy, initially had it as part of Bill 11; a Bill that would have made an unlimited list of vaccinations a requirement of school entry with only limited and unidentified medical exemptions. Fortunately that Bill failed to pass, even with the notwithstanding clause removed.
Poilievre’s threat to use the notwithstanding clause because he simply did not like a constitutional ruling of the court is extremely concerning. That would be the act of a dictator, not a leader. We have laws and processes if he wishes to address his concerns with this ruling and as a member of parliament he has the option to introduce legislation. The fact that he would use such arbitrary force to address his personal feelings, severely questions his dedication to the parliamentary and democratic processes.
Update: May 31, 2022
Poilievre does not vote on Motion to end travel mandates
MP Melissa Lantsman brought forward a motion to end travel restrictions, that went to vote on May 30, 2022. The Motion was defeated with a vote of 112 Yea to 201 Nay. Interesting, Poilievre did not vote.
At 9:37 pm, over nine hours after the vote took place, Poilievre provided the following explanation.
If he was aware that he had a technical issue while voting on one of the most egregious violations of Charter Rights in Canadian history, why would he not address it immediately?