Catherine Bayne and Sheila Gunn-Reed expose the UN Global Compact for Migration’s focus on economic migrants, not refugees, while warning Canada risks surrendering sovereignty by signing—mandating indefinite benefits, healthcare, and surrendering immigration control to the UN. Section 17 silences critical media, threatening subsidies like the Canadian Media Fund, as seen in Austria, Hungary, and Poland’s rejections. With Trudeau poised to adopt it next month, they urge Canadians to oppose via petition E-1906 at ourcommons.ca, citing public demand for merit-based immigration over open borders. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight we're talking about the UN Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration with one of the two people who started the House of Commons e-petition against Canada becoming an official signatory of the agreement.
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed and you're watching The Gunn Show.
Have you heard about the UN Compact for safe, orderly, and regular migration yet?
If you haven't, I can tell you why that probably is, but I'll get to that in a second.
This Global Compact for Migration, it's not about refugees or people fleeing violence, persecution, war, disease, or even famine.
This UN Compact deals specifically with economic migration, or as the UN puts it, migration motivated by inequality, trade, changing demographics, connectivity, and even climate change.
Now, some of this migration compact is good, but most of it is awful.
Two separate portions do some good by dealing with human trafficking.
But what the worst thing this compact will do is make migration from one country to another a human right and not something determined by a sovereign state based upon merit and need of the sovereign state.
And of course, with made-up human rights in these crazy modern times also comes expensive entitlements.
Part of the pact deals with ensuring benefits, supports, training, and health care are not denied to migrants based upon migration status.
Signing on to this UN agreement will be a horrendous surrender of Canadian sovereignty and the ability for Canadian citizens to make decisions for themselves about their own independent country.
Instead, all of that power will be ceded over to the United Nations and I guess to the migrants themselves because it would become a human right for anyone to come into Canada and then it would be our obligation as Canadians to help them do it and then foot the bill for them when they do get here regardless of our ability to pay for that enormous bill.
Now, let's talk about the reason you've been kept in the dark about the UN Compact on Migration.
The mainstream media in Canada has absolutely not been talking about the Global Compact on Migration or even really what mass, unvetted, unrestrained migration will do to Canada.
And there is one very important reason for that.
You can find a reason for that under section 17 of the pact itself, the objective to eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote fact-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration.
It reads, promote independent, objective, and quality reporting of media outlets, including by sensitizing media professionals on migration related to issues and terminology.
Okay, let's stop right there.
If your reporting is shaped by the United Nations and the government and a pact that the government signed on to instead of the facts as you see them, then that's not reporting.
That's propaganda.
And any reporter who submits themselves to this sensitizing or retraining is not a reporter at all, but rather a propagandist.
Anyway, let's go on.
Section 17 also calls for investing in ethical advertising, restricting public funding and material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism, and other forms of discrimination towards migrants.
What this really means is if you tell the truth about the effects of mass migration, you don't qualify for government subsidies, grants, support, or advertising dollars spent by the government at your network.
That would hit the CBC, but it also hits any media company that wants to sell advertising to a federal agency.
And it also hits media companies who are looking for a federal government handout via the Canadian Media Fund, which is basically all of them, except for us here at the Rebel.
There are a few voices at post-media like Anthony Fury and Lauren Gunter who have been writing about the pact, but that's pretty well it.
We don't take the liberal handouts here at the Rebel because we are truly independent and we don't take our marching orders from the United Nations via Justin Trudeau.
And that's why tonight I have someone who noticed the problem with the Global Compact on Migration and decided to do something, anything about it.
She started the House of Commons e-petition with George Brown that ultimately became sponsored by People's Party of Canada MP Maxime Bernier.
The petition calls on the government to not sign the migration pact.
So joining me tonight from Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, is citizen activist Catherine Bain.
Joining me now from Sault Ste. Marie is one of the people behind this latest e-petition to the Canadian Parliament about the global compact on migration.
And I wanted to have Catherine on because we're not talking about this compact on migration in the North American media really at all, although it is really being focused on in the European area because Europe is really experiencing the downfall to mass migration.
And I think Catherine and the people behind her petition are sort of trying to warn Canadians about what signing this compact will bring to Canada.
So Catherine, thank you so much for joining me.
Why don't you tell me how your petition got started?
Well, thank you very much for having us and for enabling patriotic Canadians to at least have some sort of voice on this issue.
It may be the only referendum that they get.
We have found through the course of fighting the Green Energy Act in Ontario that the UN says things beautifully.
It all sounds like motherhood and apple pie, but it rarely is.
So we have gone through Agenda 21, which actually eroded people's property rights.
Agenda 2030, which encroaches on freedom of speech, and now we have this latest migration, not immigration, migration compact, which will erode our sovereignty.
As indicated in the petition, there are several countries which have cited this erosion of sovereignty for their own nations because in the detail of this lengthy document, they have such gems as let me get this, I'll read it to you.
And if you doze off, I'll understand because this is one of the problems.
They have such long texts and embedded in them are critical points.
So they're saying we learned that migration is the defining feature of our globalized world, connecting societies within and across all regions, making us all countries of origin, transit, and destination.
We recognize that there is a continuous need for internal efforts to strengthen our knowledge and analysis of migration as shared understanding will improve policies that unlock the potential of sustainable development for all.
Limiting Public Rights00:07:10
We must collect and disseminate quality data.
We must ensure that current and potential migrants are fully informed about their rights, obligations, and options for safe, orderly, and regular migration and are aware of the risks of irregular migration.
We must also provide all our citizens with access to objective, evidence-based, clear information about the benefits and challenges of migration with a view to dispelling misleading narratives that generate negative perceptions of migrants.
Now, that last right off the bat is where you find the media are supposed to be re-educated so that they won't say anything derogatory about migrants.
And we've seen where that leads with these cases where there is violence by someone of a certain race or religion or one of the preferred victim groups and the actual victim of the crime can't get any justice because they're not high enough on that priority list.
Well, you know what, I'm just going to interrupt here.
We actually saw that with the Tommy Robinson case in the UK.
It was so culturally sensitive that the UK public wasn't really finding out about these rape gangs because the media was covering it in such a self-censoring, sensitive way that it actually makes it more dangerous for the UK public.
And Tommy Robinson sort of became a martyr for that information cause to sound the alarm bells.
And this is exactly what it sounds like this Global Compact on Migration calls for, this re-education of journalists.
Actually, one of the key points that I was reading through this very verbose compact on migration, one of the things it calls for is strengthening hate crimes legislation, which just becomes the inability for the public to speak out about certain things.
It's okay to say disagreeable things in a free and liberal society.
It's not okay to do disagreeable things, but speech and ideas should not be governed by the government or for that matter, the UN.
But that is one of the things that is being called for in this UN Compact on Migration, a limiting of the rights of the people who live in the countries that the migrants are coming to.
This thing is all about migrants' rights, but it's not about protecting the rights of the people in the country the migrants are coming to.
No, not at all.
And in fact, it's not just the media that are being re-educated.
It is the police, the institutions.
This penetrates so deeply into our civilization that it is truly frightening.
Because when you find that the police themselves are now blaming the victims, you know, to whom do you turn?
Right.
Concomitant with this, there are more pressures to reduce people's access to guns or anything for self-defense.
So it's, you know, the UN has assumed that migration, because they have allowed it, I mean, we're talking the UN, this giant mission failure, because of all the things that they list as this compact is based upon, they've failed.
They failed dismally and in many instances catastrophically.
So where they have been called upon to render aid, it's actually been further victimization of peoples.
Sorry, one of the things that I noticed in the Compact on Migration is that they want governments to use immigration detention only as a last resort.
So when people are flooding your border and crossing illegally, the UN is calling on the signatories of this pact to basically do a catch and release program.
Well, where's the deterrent?
If you're not arresting people for crossing your border illegally and you're just catching and releasing them, eventually there will come a time where you cannot process all those people you've caught and released.
And so I guess the expectation is for these countries to just throw up their hands and allow an amnesty just by overwhelming the system.
Yes, swarming, basically.
And they are very astute at demonizing other people for wanting to protect themselves.
And yet they bent over backwards saying that these migrants have a right to go anywhere they want.
So you're left with, you're damned if you do and you're damned with if you don't because they will find a way to bring evidence.
And part of the you know, they're claiming they're going to do all this evidence-based decision-making, but they are not actually responding to existing data that we have on, for instance, the number of crimes committed by illegal aliens.
They want to ignore existing data and yet they want to be intrusive in their data gathering.
Now, it makes no sense.
And we've seen with the instance of, well, climate change is one of the UN's pet projects.
It's sometimes used as the excuse for migration, although there has been no observable increase in global temperatures.
And in fact, there's a decline.
And yet, they're not willing to, you know, the science is settled.
Concerns Over Open Borders00:03:58
They will only take one type of data and that has been adjusted and the rest of it, well, goes by the board.
So do we want to put ourselves in an agreement with an agency that is so prone to corrupting data?
And once they have the data, there's no guarantee that it won't be used for nefarious purposes by others.
Well, and I think there's something that Canadian taxpayers, no matter what they feel about mass migration and what it does to the culture of the places that mass migration occurs into, I think the average Canadian should be concerned about the financial obligations that the UN is calling on the countries who are signatories to this pact to commit to.
One of them is the portability of social security entitlements and benefits.
So if a migrant goes to work in another country, they can still take with them their social security benefits from the prior country.
And there's no specifics about how that works out.
Would that obligate Canada to pay UK social security rates to a migrant who's passed through the UK?
We don't even know what that means.
And there's another thing.
It specifically calls on the countries participating in this pact to provide care and assistance to the migrants.
And we have to remember, these are not refugees.
These are not people who are coming to Canada with nothing.
These are people who are just transferring through countries for economic purposes.
One of them, like even some of the reasons that the UN cites for migrants to be traveling from country to country, they're mostly purely economic.
So trade, economic inequality, even demographic imbalance is one of the reasons that Canada should open its borders to anybody who wants to waltz in and then pay for their care and their comfort for generations to come.
I think normal Canadians would be opposed to that.
There's no fairness for the country that's being, I'll say, invaded when you have a system of social benefits that people have paid in for generations, and then it's being diverted to people who have not contributed and who show no great potential for contributing.
You realistically cannot have open borders and a welfare state.
And as we've seen from the model of Europe, people that went to, I don't know, they landed in Italy or somewhere and found that the social benefits were not up to snuff.
And they went all the way to Sweden because it has more to offer in the way of handouts.
Now, again, we talked about how this is being talked about a lot in Europe, but not here in North America.
There are several European states who are either saying a complete and flat out no to this or maybe a hard no.
So it's Austria, Hungary, Poland.
The German Conservative Party has come out strong against this.
Merkel, not yet, although she's on her way out the door.
And Czechoslovakia, I believe, is either a no or a maybe hard no to come.
Complaining Federal Governments00:02:31
And then our friends in the United States have absolutely said no to ceding their sovereignty over to the United Nations.
Why do you think Canada is okay with this?
Well, it could be anything from the fact that Justin Trudeau wants a seat on the Security Council to the fact that we have for quite some time allowed the penetration of the UN through sustainable development.
There is an entity called ITLI.
It's the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, founded way back in 1990.
And these the government of Canada has allowed this to go through the three levels of government.
So the local community governments are actually infested with this sustainable development mandate.
So when, for instance, we were complaining to the federal government about the Green Energy Act in Ontario, they denied having anything to do with it.
And yet, the person who is the Speaker of the House is automatically the chair of the implementation of these UN sustainable development programs through the three levels of local municipal, provincial, and federal government.
So they were actually subsidizing electricity produced by wind turbines, even as they were denying that they had anything to do with, because electricity is a provincial issue, whereas energy as such is a federal issue.
So they were pretending that they didn't have this agency within them.
Now, your e-petition, if people want to find it, it's e-petition 1906.
Now, we're recording this Tuesday afternoon, but it will go to air Wednesday night.
And I just checked on your petition, and it's doing quite well.
It's at 9,714 signatories.
E-Petition 1906: Immigration Debate00:11:54
I've got 1,844 from Alberta.
That doesn't surprise me at all, the most conservative province in Confederation, despite our government.
Ontario, 3,084 in Ontario.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that probably has a lot to do with the fact that Ontario is really footing the bill for much of this mass migration across our southern border.
And Quebec, this, on some level, it should surprise me, but looking a little deeper, it doesn't.
Quebec is the next highest with 2,195 signatories.
And I think it's because Quebecers really cherish their distinct culture.
And I believe they feel as though mass migration, unfettered migration that isn't based on merit or need, damages their distinct culture.
What do you think?
Oh, yes.
Well, you know, they're practical people as well.
I actually originate in the province of Quebec.
And that didn't surprise me at all.
But I just wanted to bring your attention to something about this petition as it's posted by the government of Canada.
It's E 1906.
Well, I always say 06, but 1906.
And it's under the category of immigration.
Great.
Yes.
Great.
So you see, you have to watch their abuse of language because it just pervades the whole discussion.
And as far as I'm concerned, the best thing that you can do with the UN or any of these types of, you know, when you're having one of their never-ending public consultations, insist they define their terms.
Because as you pointed out, it's all just mushy.
It could mean this, it could mean that.
And as far as we're concerned, in our experience with sustainable development, it always means a curtailment of your rights.
Yes.
Now I wanted to ask you how you came to have your petition sponsored by renegade MP Maxime Bernier.
Well, I guess we're all renegades at heart.
We put the petition up.
We had sort of discussed it and thought it was a good idea, and we worded very carefully to make sure that there wasn't any gratuitous name-calling.
And that we have said that limited, merit-based immigration is essential for the well-being and protection of rights of the Canadian citizens.
Thank you.
And we have, you know, there are Conservative Party people, Michelle Rompel, for instance, who have been outspoken on immigration.
And we put it out on Twitter because it was sitting there waiting for a sponsor for two days on the petition, Government of Canada Petitions website.
And people were retweeting it to their own MPs, to high-profile MPs of every stripe.
And finally, after two days, Maxime Bernier stepped forward and put his name on it.
So we are very grateful.
And as a former CPC policy chair, I tried to bring issues like this forward and was pretty much stonewalled.
So I always say that all Canadians owe Maxime Bernier a debt of gratitude for forcing the politicians to address this issue and give Canadians a voice.
You know, and I think another point is that the majority of Canadians do want to see a control on immigration.
And I think Canada's mainstream parties are really out of step with mainstream dinner table Canadian discussions when they just want it to be a free-for-all.
Yes.
Yes.
And the more that Canadians see what is happening on the U.S. border or heading for the U.S. border, the more concerned they get about unbridled migration.
This is not what we signed on for, as it were.
We've always had and were willing, in fact, enthusiastic because the sponsored immigration programs, if you're looking for data, are the ones that have the greatest success rate.
So people, private citizens and groups have sponsored immigrants willingly, happily, enthusiastically.
We have brought people to this country without government dictating it.
And frankly, the government should just stay out of it.
Now, their job is to defend our nation and our well-being.
Now, that's one thing I want to ask you because you are going to get that as a criticism, that you are a bigot, that you're anti-any number of things, probably Islamophobic, that you're against immigration.
But I get a sense from you that that is not the case.
No, we right in the, you know, if, of course, there is a problem with reading comprehension amongst some people.
However, the second statement within that petition insists that I was going to try and say it exactly as is written, but it escapes me at the moment.
The limited and merit-based immigration, not migration, immigration is essential to our well-being and rights.
It's essential.
We acknowledge that, we fully acknowledge that, and we embrace it.
And when we are talking about Canadians, there's no color, no religion, no nothing.
It's Canadians.
And we want all Canadians to be protected by the federal government.
Well, and I think it does legal immigrants to this country no favors when you allow mass migration and queue jumping to drive the wages down for everybody else.
Well, and speaking just right off the bat on cue jumping, we have some immigrants here in this area who spent thousands upon thousands of dollars and it has taken years of their lives to become Canadian citizens.
In some cases, they aren't even Canadian citizens yet, but they have already invested massively to come to this country.
And some of them have come as refugees from places which are now sending migrants all over the world.
And so we're doing, yes, a huge disservice to the people who have followed the rules, have paid the money, are contributing already to Canada.
And we're betraying the trust of people who came here for refuge, for safe haven, because we will demand they tolerate their enemy, their victimizer, their abuser as their neighbor.
You know, I think that's a great spot to leave this interview.
Catherine, I want to thank you so much for your time to come on the show today, your dedication to put this out, your patience with my Skype connection.
And I want to direct everybody who stands against the Global Compact on Migration and everybody who believes that Canadians should have the right to determine who comes into their country and not the United Nations.
I want to direct them to the OurCommons website.
That's the federal government website, ourcommons.ca.
And it is petition 1906.
Last word goes to you, Catherine.
Well, I thank you very much.
I really appreciate it.
You're giving people a heads up that there is this opportunity, and we're all rebel fans anyway.
Thank you very much.
Thanks, Catherine.
And thanks to our patriot Canadians who are helping.
Great.
Thank you so much.
The UN Compact on Migration is basically a document that puts Justin Trudeau's famous welcome to Canada tweet into practice.
This latest UN agreement dissolves Canada's borders at a time when our UN friends are taking more steps to solidify their own.
And the Liberals are rushing headlong into signing this agreement.
Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussain and Marie-Claude Bebo, the Minister of International Development, co-authored an op-ed in Maclean's magazine, along with a representative for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.
That op-ed admits that Canada was instrumental in drafting the Compact on Refugees that spawned the Compact on Migrants.
And unless Canadians make their voices heard, Justin Trudeau will sign this document next month.
And we know polls show Canadians are not in favor of ever-increasing levels of immigration to Canada.
Maxime Bernier is apparently the one politician who recognizes that obvious fact.
How long until the rest of the official Conservatives in Ottawa get on board with what Canadians actually want for Canada?
Well, everybody, that's the show for tonight.
Thank you so much for tuning in.
I'll see everybody back here in the same time in the same place next week.