Are we still a nation of Laws & Justice? Special Investigation: Geoengineering & Weather Modification in Canada, Part 3

Special Investigation Report by Dan Fournier, published Tuesday, October 24, 14:40 EDT on fournier.substack.com

Oct 24, 2023

Lady Justice (the goddess Justitia) in front of the Canadian flag, denoting blind justice. The scales represent Unprejudiced Deliberation. The blindfold, her Impartiality. And her double-edged sword Reason and Justice.

Preamble

This post is not merely about Geoengineering & Weather Modification in Canada.

It is about whether or not we are still a nation that adheres to, and respects the rule of law.

It is about determining whether existing laws hold practical value versus just being words on paper.

It is about justice for all Canadians.

In a way, it is a test to determine if these fundamental principles still hold true in our nation under its Supreme Law, the Constitution, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It is a test to determine if our politicians and those holding positions of authority, including members at all levels of Law Enforcement, still adhere to, and respect the oaths they have taken, and whether they are loyal to Canada and Canadians versus other entities and interests.

This is Part 3 of this series. Part 1 can be accessed here and Part 2 here.

Please note that if this post gets removed from Substack, an archived version can be consulted at https://archive.ph/PBKoY.

This comprehensive post is segmented as follows; so feel free to skip to the section that interests you most.

PART 1:

PART 2:

PART 3: (this post):

PART 4:

3.1 Transparency surrounding Geoengineering Activities in Canada & the U.S.

When preparing and writing Part 1 and Part 2 of this special investigation series, this author contacted several Canadian agencies for clarifications and information surrounding geoengineering- and weather modification-related activities as well as other important information (such as the control of aircraft and 5G, for instance).

While some of their replies have addressed stated concerns and questions posed, many others remain lacking; and this, despite follow-up media inquiries.

The issues that remain unanswered and unaddressed by the respective agencies include the following:

1) NAV CANADA:

The ownership of this private entity that controls the totality of Canadian air space has yet to be disclosed.

References:

NAV CANADA (Part 2),
2023-09-24 Media Inquiry,
2023-09-28 Reply #1,
2023-09-28 Follow-Up Inquiry #1,
2023-09-28 Reply #2,
2023-09-28 Follow-Up Inquiry #2 – which remains unanswered)

Also, as mentioned in Part 2, NAV CANADA has failed to answer two questions specifically pertaining to whether military aircraft are allowed to fly over Canadian airspace with their transponders turned off (which is illegal).

As such, the fact that a private entity (for whom we still do not know its ownership) that is controlling all of the civil domestic Canadian airspace is not being transparent about these issues of concern, may be considered disconcerting.

2) Transport Canada:

On Sept. 24, 2023, an extensive media inquiry was sent to Transport Canada regarding different aspects of Canada’s airspace.

A Sept. 29 reply provide some clarity on the regulation of Canadian airspace, but failed to address some issues. Here are highlights of some of the clarifications they provided:

Transport Canada regulates civil aviation activities in Canada in accordance with the Aeronautics Act (see also Canadian Aviation Regulations (SOR/96-433)) and the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs).
Commercial and private operators in Canada are required to comply with Transport Canada’s regulatory requirements to ensure safety and security.
The Minister of Transport and the Minister of National Defence hold significant responsibilities pertaining to the safety of aviation in Canada. As well, the Canadian Armed Forces provide air traffic control to military aircraft in specific and designated airspace, and also manage airspace required for specific military training.
Transport Canada regulates the use of Canadian domestic airspace.

The link provided points to an informative infographic which appears hereunder (click image or here to enlarge).

As can be noticed from the image above, transponders are required to be turned on at all times for Class A, B, and C airspace.

Aviation Publishers provide simplified explanations of these airspaces via their The ABCs of Canadian Airspace page [with some emphasis added]:

Class A airspace is High Level Airspace. It is divided into Southern Domestic Airspace (SDA) and Northern Domestic Airspace (NDA). NDA is further subdivided into a Northern Control Area (NCA) and an Arctic Control Area (ACA). In the SDA, Class A starts at 18,000 ft ASL (also called Flight Level 180, or FL180) and extends up to 60,000 ft (FL600).
The dimensions of Class B are from 12,500 ft ASL up to, but not including, 18,000 ft ASL. It is comprised of designated airways and any other control areas that may extend upward to the upper limit of the class. Control Zones, which are established around airports where there are operating control towers, and Terminal Control Areas within which Control Zones are located, may be classified as Class B airspace.
Terminal Control Areas, and their associated Control Zones, may also be classified as Class C airspace. Class C is, in fact, usually a Control Zone surrounding a large airport. Such Control Zones can have a radius of 3 to 10 nautical miles, and a height of 3,000 ft AGL.
Class F airspace contains activities that, owing to their nature, must be confined to that airspace. Limitations may be imposed on aircraft that are not part of those activities. The restrictions may be temporary or permanent, and may be classified as advisory or restricted. Examples of the types of activities that may be taking place in Class F include: aerobatics, hang gliding, military operations, parachuting, soaring, and training.

Generally speaking (but not in all situations), flights by commercial aircraft or airliners flying in Class A or B airspace would thus have to have their transponders turned on. The same cannot be said for military flights for Class F airspace.

Accordingly, it still remains unclear as to why certain flights (aircraft), as observed and reported on by this author had their transponders seemingly turned off (see media inquiries to NAV CANADA, the Department of National Defence, and the Royal Canadian Air Force).

Continuing with Transport Canada’s Sept. 29 reply we also have the following points:

The Department of National Defence is responsible for military aircraft operations in Canada.
As for weather modification activities, the Weather Modification Information Act, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) is the federal authority that administers the Act and they are the ones who set requirements for reporting such activities.
Transport Canada does not have regulations pertaining to geoengineering, this responsibility falls within ECCC.
Transport Canada is responsible for the approval of air operators who may undertake geoengineering activities but would only regulate the items related to aviation safety.

The last two points from above are important ones; and it will be further explored and address in a sub-section below (Access to Information (ATI) Request to Transport Canada).

A follow-up media inquiry has thus been sent to ask about suspicious flights (aircraft) that didn’t appear to have their transponders turned on, as well as other suspicious flights that carried out spraying operations with substances in various regions of Quebec between 2009 and late 2021 (as described in the subsection ‘Access to Information (ATI) Request to Transport Canada’ below).

Also in light of these spraying operations that took place between 2009 and late 2021 in the province of Quebec, this author has submitted an Access to Information (ATI) request asking for information pertaining to all spraying operations that have taken place in the Eastern Townships (greater Sherbrooke area) in Quebec province from 2009 until the present day (October 20, 2023). As soon as the information is forthcoming, it will be appended to Part 4 of this series.

3) Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC):

Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) replied to media inquiries made to them and to the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Meteorological Service of Canada regarding various issues.

Regarding Solar Radiation Management (SRM) activities that related to geoengineering, they mentioned that at this point “SRM research is entirely done via computer simulations, and there are no large-scale implementations of SRM, nor plans to do so either in Canada or elsewhere.”

This specific reply appears rather odd, given the amount of evidence presented in this series which would suggest that SRM-related activities could indeed be taking place. So, whether they are being truthful, or are simply not aware of such programs occurring over Canadian airspace, remains to be confirmed.

In brief, most of the questions were answered with the exception of the following:

“In the last two years how many complaints or concerns has Environment and Climate Change Canada received (via email or phone calls) specifically with regards to aerosol sprayings from aircraft?”

This question was totally ignored. Last year, this author has sent one email as a citizen (not as a journalist) regarding such suspicious flights. So, they should have had at least one on record. Moreover, it is highly likely that any of the other 40 million Canadians would have inquired about such kinds of flights. And this author knows of other individuals who have formally inquired about this to ECCC. The fact that they are not forthcoming about this information appears to suggest a clear lack of transparency on behalf of ECCC.

Another inquiry, dated Oct. 19, 2023 has been sent inquiring about the following:

Canada’s non-adherence to the United Nations’ 2010 Geoengineering Moratorium;
The possibility of banning Solar Radiation Management (SRM) activities in Canada; and
Transparency about the numerous spraying operations that have occurred in the province of Quebec from 2009 until late 2021.

In addition a separate inquiry, dated Oct. 20, 2023, has been sent asking if they were aware about the numerous flight operations that were conducted between 2009 and late 2021 in the province of Quebec that were intended for the purpose of spraying unidentified substances by undisclosed operators.

4) Department of National Defence (DND), Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), & Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF):

Media inquires were sent to the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Royal Canadian Air Force (Bagotville division) which is part of the Canadian Armed Forces.

The response of the DND is provided in section 2.5 of Part 2 of this series and the RCAF has yet to respond.

In both media inquires, this author inquired about the suspicious flights that appeared to have their transponders turned off, but no information has been forthcoming regarding these specific flights.

As such, it has yet to be determined whether military flights (with transponders off) were conducted in the region were the author resides, or whether other illegal flights have occurred.

Should either the DND or the RCAF provide additional information regarding these flights, it will be appended to Part 4 of this series.

5) ATI Request to Global Affairs Canada regarding reports and notices of the Treaty between Canada and the United States on Weather Modification Activities

On September 15, 2023 an ATI request was mailed to Global Affairs Canada requesting reports and notices about weather modification activities that took place in all Canadian provinces from January 1, 2022 until December 31, 2022 in relation to the Agreement Between Canada and the United States of America Relating to the Exchange of Information on Weather Modification Activities (the E103819-CTS 1975 No. 11 Treaty).

On October 20, 2023 an email was sent to the Access to Information and Privacy Coordinator at Global Affairs Canada for a follow-up on the status of this request. The ATI file number that has been generated for this request is A-2023-00766.

A July 17, 2023 reply from Global Affairs Canada reads as follows (with red highlighting for emphasis]:

Access to Information (ATI) Request to Transport Canada

As was previously mentioned, an ATI request that was previously submitted has detailed highly suspicious flights that were involved in the spraying of unknown substances in various regions of Quebec province from April 15, 2009 until late November, 2021.

The ATI request (Request Number: A-2022-00373) was made by the Geoengineering Free Canada (GFC) coalition a while back requesting the following:

“Records regarding use of substances in the atmosphere and weather modification (“chem trails”), after 2000.”

It should be observed that the request did not specify any province in particular.

The request produced an unclassified 162-page report (in French language) which can be accessed and viewed on the GFC website.

It must also be noted that the ATI request was made with a correspondence preference of English, but the results were only delivered in French.

The resulting 162-page document consists of multiple letters (ranging from April 15, 2009 until November 15, 2021) produced by Transport Canada which authorises flights for "spraying operations of substances" (French: "opérations d'épandage de produits") over various regions of the province of Quebec.

The letters appear to all pertain to spraying operations designated exclusively for the province of Quebec.

What is particularly suspect of the information revealed in the report (apart that only records for Quebec appear) is the fact that the names of the parties or companies involved in conducting these spraying (flight) operations are redacted as are the substances used in them.

Usually with ATI requests, names of individuals are redacted for privacy reasons. But in this case we have the names of the companies involved in the spraying operations that are redacted, and thus not disclosed.

In addition, as the letters do not reveal which particular substances were used in these spraying operations, there is no way of knowing whether or not they are of a toxic nature which could thus pose risks to the population and natural environment (including water supplies) over which they were sprayed.

The letters also contain conditions under which the sprayings are to occur, with many related to the safety of the operations – in accordance with the purview of Transport Canada, as stated in their reply above.

Among them, the municipalities of the affected areas were to be notified. Given the number of flight operations conducted over these many years and over multiple regions, it remains difficult to ascertain whether this condition was met, lest an undertaking be done inquiring to the respective municipalities on the matter.

Here is a screenshot image of page 2 of the document which shows the regions that were affected by spraying operations conducted between April 15 to October 15, 2009:

It also remains unclear as to whether residents of these regions were informed about these spraying operations and consented to them.

Hopefully, responses to the media requests to Transport Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) will shed light on the matter.

On Nov. 30, 2023 (a full 40 days after my media inquiry), I followed up for a second time with Transport Canada to ask for an update, but they have yet to reply.

Reply from the Minister of Environment and Climate Change regarding Substances used in sprayings

An inquiry was sent on June 12, 2023, by an individual to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Steven Guilbeault requesting information about whether substances used in aerial sprayings are determined to be toxic or capable of becoming toxic under under subsection 76(1) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA).

This provision of the CEPA Act reads as follows:

“Request to assess substance
76 (1) Any person may file in writing with the Minister a request that the Ministers assess a substance to determine whether it is toxic or capable of becoming toxic.”

In other words, it is the responsibility of the Minister to assess whether given substances are deemed toxic (or capable of becoming toxic) under their duties as set forth in the provisions of the Act.

The submitter received the following reply from the Minister (note: with name and personal details redacted to maintain privacy):

3.2 Lawsuits about Geoengineering in Canada

There haven’t been many cases about geoengineering cases in Canada for a variety of reasons.

DAN PELLETIER vs HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

But there has been one federal case that is particularly noteworthy.

Information about it can be accessed from an archived website called Canadian Aerial Discharge Class Action.

The mass-tort claim was filed in federal court on March 11, 2016. Its claim reads as follows:

“Nature of the Proceeding:
1. This is a mass-tort and environmental proposed class proceeding (“Class Proceeding”) in respect of the spraying into the atmosphere of substances and particulates by the Defendant, either directly or jointly with others, and which substances are toxic to human health and destructive to the environment.”

The Plaintiff was Dan Pelletier – an individual resident in Alberta.

The Plaintiff claimed on his own behalf (and on behalf of all those similarly situated) various orders, including “an interlocutory and final mandatory Order directing that the defendant (i.e. the Federal government) comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” and an interlocutory and final mandatory Order that the Defendant immediately cease and desist the ongoing aerial discharge of coal fly ash and/or other contaminants or substances”. The claim also alleges that the Federal Government, in participating in, or authorizing the aerial spraying, has committed various torts, including negligence, nuisance and trespass.

Section 7 (Life, liberty, and security of the person) of the Charter states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

In this regard, the Plaintiff submitted that the scope of the interests protected under the phrase “life, liberty and security of the person” encompasses freedom from threats to one’s physical integrity, including risks to health.

Coal fly ash was discussed in Part 1 of this series (see section 1.3 Tropospheric Aerosols, Contrails or Chemtrails?). As a reminder, coal fly ash is toxic waste produced by industrial coal burning that is alleged to produce toxic metals when distilled with water.

The claim describes the facts which resulted in contraventions of the Charter, and which gave rise to the alleged torts, as follows [with emphasis added]:

“4. On various dates, Plaintiff observed certain aircraft, including what to the Plaintiff appeared to be tanker aircraft and retrofit passenger aircraft, (collectively “Aerosol Injection Aircraft”, or “AI Aircraft”) discharging trails comprising of white particulate like matter (“Aerial Discharge”), and which Aerial Discharge would persist and often span across the horizon and across the length of the sky.
5. Plaintiff, more specifically, observed the AI Aircraft in the act of releasing such Aerial Discharges, or the lingering Aerial Discharges themselves, in the southern Alberta (i.e. Didsbury) area, and on a continuing and ongoing basis, including, but not limited to, on the following specific dates and times (all times unless otherwise stated, mountain time).”

The claim then lists various dates and times on which the Aerial Discharges are alleged to have been observed, ranging from the 12th of August, 2012 until the 7th of March, 2016..

Other facts stated that the aerial discharges were released from the troposphere and the stratosphere levels, typically forming “thin, hazy film across the sky that obfuscates the sun’s rays,” and “that the Aerial Discharges dissipate across ranges of altitudes, including very low altitudes containing air the Plaintiff and the potential members of the Class breath.”

Moreover, the Plaintiff pleads that:

“the Aerial Discharges are comprised of minute particles that are typically smaller than 2.5 microns, including nanoparticles (in the size of 1-100 nanometers), and that such minute particles are readily absorbed into the human body by way of respiration, through the eyes, and through the skin.”

In addition, the Plaintiff pleaded that based in part on testing and lab analysis undertaken by various concerned individuals and scientists, both within Canada and outside of Canada, the following chemicals and agents figured among the discharges:

coal-fly-ash
aluminum oxide
barium salts
strontium
arsenic
carbon nanoparticle molecules
minute synthetic filaments and fibers

The claim sought to find out who is engaged in the release of the aerial discharges over Canadian air space.

And the Plaintiff pleaded, more specifically, that [with emphasis added]:

“the Canadian military, and parties authorized or contracted by the Canadian military, perform the Aerial Discharges in Canadian airspace, and that such Aerial Discharges are and have been pursued pursuant to various programs and initiatives, including but not necessarily limited to, a joint US-Canadian military operation involving the release of chemicals and particulates into the atmosphere above Canada (“Project Cloverleaf”).”

Apart from highlighting the possible involvement or complicity of the Canadian military in performing the aerial discharges, “Project Cloverleaf” is mentioned.

A simple search on the internet regarding this project reveals that it is a covert/secretive spraying program funded by the CIA with dark monies, at least according to an individual called A.C. Griffith who had [purported] associations with the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and had inside access to the program. In the linked interview, Griffith also mentioned that the program is run out of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (in Ohio) and that the ”scalar weapons systems” (technology) are being used as described by former U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Tom Bearden (both of these were mentioned in Parts 1 & 2) and “Project Cloverleaf” was also examined in section 2.4.2 of Part 2.

It remains obviously difficult to determine whether this “Project Cloverleaf” was indeed part of the aerosol discharges in the Dan Pelletier legal claim, and whether or not the Canadian military may have been involved or aware of it.

More case details

In a September 20, 2017 Motion to Strike by the attorneys of the Defendant, an affidavit (a sworn statement) was provided by Colonel Ning Lew who was the Chief of the Air Staff for the Canadian Armed Forces in which he stated, after reviewing the Amended Statement of Claim (of January 17, 2017), that the [Canadian] Department of National Defence (DND) is “not involved in any projects which include aerosol/chemical discharges into the atmosphere in Southern Alberta or any other part of Canada.”

Furthermore, Col. Lew added that to the best of his knowledge, the DND had similarly “not engaged the services of any foreign government” for such programs.

Lew also added that “there is no initiative by the name of “Project Cloverleaf” in which the DND is in any way involved [in].”

Several other refutations were provided in the Motion to Strike, including the absence of “material facts” to support the claim, that the Plaintiff could not have been able to confirm the type of retrofitted or tanker planes at such high altitude (up to 10km above the Earth’s surface), and the following statement [with emphasis added]:

“21. The allegations being put forth in this proposed class action are grounded in conspiratorial theories relating to biological weapon experimentation which took place in the United States and the United Kingdom some 40 to 60 years ago. The Amended Claim lacks any factual underpinning which would connect these activities to the Canadian Military or Government, or to the present day.”

Regarding the Defendant’s Motion to Strike, a Respondent Memorandum of Fact and Law (Court File No. T-431-16) was submitted on February 14, 2018 formally calling for the dismissal of the Amended Claim by the Defendant, and a Proposed Class Proceeding by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s responding “Fresh as Amended Memorandum of Fact and Law” was filed on February 28, 2020, and provides in part as follows [with hyperlink added for the Access To Information (ATIP)]:

“2. The Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Amended Claim should be denied in its entirety.
3. In respect of whether the Plaintiff has properly pleaded a reasonable cause of action: The pleadings allege the requisite material facts for each of the alleged causes of action. The material facts are reasoned, founded and supported by (a) in excess of 600 hi-resolution digital photographs,1 (b) the legal framework governing the conduct that is alleged, (c) an Access to Information Request (“ATIP”) response delineating the DND and the government’s actual participation in a stratospheric aerosol spraying program, for the purpose of assessing the viability of Solar Radiation Management (“SRM”) to mitigate the effects of global warming,2 at the very least on the experimental level,3 and by (d) numerous,4 and ever increasing,5 scientific, peer-reviewed articles, including one scientific, peer-reviewed article which evaluates the issue specifically from within Canada.6 The material facts are not speculative, and they do not constitute bald allegations. The government has and is participating in particulate aerial spraying. This is not “science fiction”; rather it is a carefully considered, and gravely troubling reality.”

To simplify the legal jargon from above, the Plaintiff further substantiates the claim with material facts which include:

high resolution photographs (of the sprayings);
references to scientific peer-reviewed articles; and
an Access to Information (ATIP) document (A-2013-01364 / CL3 dated March 13, 2014) that confirms the existence of a Canadian government and Department of National Defence (DND) stratospheric aerosol spraying program for the purpose of assessing the viability of Solar Radiation Management (“SRM”) to mitigate the effects of global warming – even if only conducted on an experimental level.

It should be noted that it was former B.C. Premier Bill Vander Zalm who had made this particular ATIP request.

Former B.C. Premier Bill Vander Zalm. Photo source: Abbotsford Today.

Part of the Feb. 28, 2020 Amended Memorandum of Fact and Law stated that “Canada held a meeting of, inter alia, Deputy Ministers, specifically to consider the spraying of sulfate aerosols into the Canadian stratosphere, and Canada is directly participating in a co-ordinated international program to better understand the unintended consequences of injecting aerosols and particulates into the atmosphere.”

And the Vander Zalm ATIP document confirms this meeting in which Mr. Rob Fonberg, Deputy Minister of the [Department of National] Defence was a scheduled attendee [with emphasis added in red underlining]:

Moreover, the meeting presentation document at the time was labeled “SECRET” [with emphasis added in red underlining]:

Accordingly, the Amended Memorandum of Fact and Law also brings into question the aforementioned Cololnel Ning Lew’s written testimony that the DND was not involved in “any projects which include aerosol/chemical discharges into the atmosphere.”

They also state the following which emphasises that Col. Lew may not have been privy to the entirety of the program:

“34. Exhibit “A” to the transcript for the cross examination of Colonel Lew is a lengthy, March 14, 2014 ATIP response which documents Canada’s direct and intimate involvement in the actual “experimental modelling” of spraying of sulphuric aerosol particulates into the Canadian skies to assess the efficacy of SRM; that is, of spraying sulphur dioxide into the Canadian stratosphere, to reflect a portion of the sun’s rays. Approximately 15% to 20% of the ATIP response is redacted. Col Lew was unable to obtain information regarding this ATIP response, or its redacted portions.34 Contextually, the redactions appear to contain sensitive information associated with the experimentation and roll out of an aerosol spraying program, and, with geoengineering and with climate modification more broadly.”

At the very least it is confirmed that the DND – at least to the extent of its Deputy Minister Mr. Fonberg – was involved in the geoengineering governance project mentioned above.

Furthermore, page 38 (of the PDF) of the ATIP document shows a letter (a Memorandum to Deputy Minister, undated) from Environment Canada which confirms Canada’s involvement in an international climate modeling experiment as per the following paragraph:

“At present, there is a coordinated international climate modeling experiment underway: the Geo-Engineering Model Intercomparison Project (GEOMIP) which is aimed at improving our understanding of the efficacy and unintended consequences of SRM. Scientists at Environment Canada’s Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (CCCma) of the Climate Research Division are involved in this coordinated experiment. A research paper is also being prepared wherein initial results will be provided.”

Finally, in the Amended Memorandum of Fact and Law, the Plaintiff’s team submits that the motion “turns on whether or not Canada has participated in, co-ordinated and/or authorized the (near) daily atmospheric spraying of toxic coal fly ash and/or other chemicals and particulates, and whether this is capable of proof.”

In other words, the court should not accept the Defendant’s motion to strike since Col. Lew may not have had all of the information at the time of his sworn testimony, and that given the secretive nature of the geoeningeering project, it should be further examined whether proof exists about actual spraying of substances (as opposed to solely in an experimental, modeling, context) given the Plaintiff’s claims of being subjected to toxic and harmful aerosols.

The following excerpts from the Vander Zalm ATIP document also provide additional points of contemplation with regards to the Dan Pelletier case.

Page 22 of the Vander Zalm ATIP document showing a slide by Environment Canada about ‘Stratospheric Sulfur Aerosols’ as a means of SRM (Solar Radiation Management).

Page 27 of the Vander Zalm ATIP document showing the ‘Risks, uncertainties and need for governance’ regarding geoengineering. The slide notes the issue of “reversibility” as well as the “Oxford principle” which indicates that “there should be public participation in decision-making,” and that “research should be disclosed and results published openly.”

Page 46 of the Vander Zalm ATIP document showing the Question “Are there reports of any “rogue” geo-engineering activities by countries/groups/individuals?” The answer is redacted which seems to indicate that the answer is in the affirmative and that Environment Canada is aware of such “rogue” geoengineering activities. As was observed in the Amended Memorandum of Fact and Law, several other sections of the document were redacted.

How long did the case last and what was the result?

This legal case actually dragged on for four and a half years before it was dismissed on November 2, 2020 by the Honorable Mr. Justice Mosley.

This author understands that there is still the possibility to seek leave to appeal, where the Plaintiff is able to adduce fresh evidence that calls into question the decision of the Federal Court.

Fresh evidence could include, for example, in air physical samples of the aerial discharges, obtained directly from aircraft trails which could establish the toxic nature of the substances being sprayed.

3.3 Bills to Ban Geoengineering Activities and Weather Modification

Apart from the United Nations’ 2010 Moratorium on banning geoengineering activities to protect biodiversity which was adopted by 193 nations with the exception of Canada (despite being a a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity) and the United States, there appears to be only one country that has decided to opt for a ban on geoengineering with regards to Solar Radiation Management (SRM) – sometimes called Solar Geoengineering, namely Mexico.

Mexico bans Geoengineering

As per a January 13, 2023, official communiqué from the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (click here for an English translation), the Government of Mexico has decided to “prohibit and, where appropriate, stop experimental practices with solar geoengineering in the country,” in order to “to protect communities and environmental environments.”

The communiqué also notes that Mexico is a party to the Convention on Biological Diversity of the United Nations (UN) and is thus an adherent to the aforementioned 2010 Moratorium.

They also note state that the “opposition to these climate manipulations is based on the fact that there are currently no international agreements that address or supervise solar geoengineering activities which represent an economically advantageous and risky way out for the supposed remediation of climate change.”

Their release also points out that there are enough studies that show that:

“there would be negative and uneven impacts associated with the release of these aerosols, which cause meteorological imbalances such as winds and torrential rains, as well as droughts in areas of the tropics; In addition, they generate impacts on the thinning of the planet’s ozone layer.”

“The Government of Mexico reiterates its unavoidable commitment to the protection and well-being of the population against practices that generate risks to human and environmental security, working in a coordinated, rigorous and responsible manner for the well-being of the people of Mexico,” concludes the communiqué.

United States

Though the Biden Administration has announced its plan to push forward with Stratospheric Aerosol Injections (SAIs) which involve the release of sulfur dioxide despite it known to have harmful effects on the environment and human health, some states in the U.S. have introduced legislation to ban such kind of geoengineering activities.

Before looking at these bills, however, it should be noted that in response to a Congressional mandate, The White House has released a Report on Solar Radiation Modification (related critique here by Dr. Ana Maria Mihalcea).

Rhode Island

Earlier this year, representatives in Rhode Island have submitted a House bill titled THE ATMOSPHERE PROTECTION ACT (PDF here) to the General Assembly.

The intent of the bill is to “preserve the safe, healthful, resilient and peaceful uses of Rhode Island’s atmosphere for people, the environment, and agriculture, and to improve climate efforts, by prohibiting hazardous atmospheric polluting activities, providing enforcement and penalties for violative activity.”

Moreover, the assembly finds that “that many atmospheric activities involving the intentional release of hazardous emissions harm human health and safety, the environment, agriculture, aviation, security, and the economy of the State of Rhode Island.”

In terms of its findings, they list the specific activities of:

stratospheric aerosol injections (SAIs)
solar radiation management (SRM)
weather modification
cloud-seeding
carbon dioxide removal (CDR)

The explanation of the bill reads as follows (on page 11):

Illinois

Weather modification legislation to ban cloud seeding was introduced earlier this year the Illinois State Legislature.

Illinois Senate Bill 134 creates the Weather Modification Act which provides that any form of weather modification shall not be allowed in the State, including the seeding of clouds by plane or ground.

The Act defines seeding as “a type of weather modification that aims to change the amount or type of precipitation that falls from clouds.”

The Act is short and simple, fitting in a single page:

3.4 Summary & Conclusion

3.4.1 Summary

This Special Investigation series on Geoengineering and Weather Modification in Canada consists of four parts. The first three parts amount to over 235 pages.

The last one, Part 4, will consist of follow-ups, updates, addenda, so as to provide continued coverage on this issue that affects all Canadians and is thus in the public interest.

Overall, the series aims to increase awareness and comprehension about geoengineering and weather modification, its history and purposes, its potential benefits, as well as its negative impacts and implications.

Another important aim is to simplify the complex topic at hand so as to make more easily understandable to most individuals who may not be familiar with geoengineering and weather modification and their respective applications and activities.

It is only with a better understanding of the related issues that we can identify problem areas, formulate better and safer practices which use such activities, report suspicious events which appear to bring about negative consequences, and perhaps even help to establish policies at all levels (national, provincial, and municipal) that are more considerate and mindful of their related impacts going forward.

And it is through an approach of transparency, openness, and common sense by which such ambitions and endeavours can be brought about in a responsible, respectful, and prudent manner.

If certain activities – as with unproven and controversial methods like Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Stratospheric Aerosol Injections (SAIs) – are carried out which cause damage to the natural environment and human health, some of these may be irreversible and thus quite detrimental to Canadians and Canada as a nation.

Once damage is done, how easiy can it be reversed, if at all?

The vast majority of Canadians are concerned with health and the natural environment.

This includes our water supplies and agricultural land from which a large portion of our crops and food supplies originate, and our rich forests and national parks which are endowed with natural beauty and splendid biodiversity.

Accordingly and inevitably, the impacts of geoengineering- and weather modification-related activities are of direct concern in these respects.

Appendix F of Part 2 explored the effects of toxic substances on human health and the natural environment that are known to be used in these kinds of activities. For instance, we know that silver iodide is being used in cloud seeding operations in Alberta.

The effects of increased exposure to radiation is also something that was explored in Part 2 which is integral to some geoengineering-related activities.

The extent and frequency to which these activities are being conducted in Canada and elsewhere calls for a more serious examination.

Hopefully, this series can serve as a stepping stone for this subject that preoccupies us in present times.

3.4.2 Conclusion

As was mentioned in the Introduction of this series, the term geoengineering in and of itself is at times found to be one that is surrounded with “conspiratorial” aspects, and is one that is at times considered controversial. The same can be said about the term chemtrails.

In a conversation this author had with the Director of ZeroGeoEngineering.com, she mentioned that from her years of experience in the field – in which she exchanged with various parties such as politicians – she noticed that members of the mainstream press and those serving in political offices have been “forewarned” to shun anyone who comes to them with terms such as chemtrails and even geoengineering.

It is as if anyone who dares to engage in conversations or actions related to these issues are to be immediately discredited or dismissed as foolish conspiracy theorists.

Whether or not that has merit is difficult to ascertain. But, the fact remains that this topic is one that is surrounded with a certain level of angst, skepticism and secrecy. The topic may even be considered taboo or off-limits for some.

Thankfully, there are means by which people can become better informed on the topic, so as to be articulate and taken seriously.

That being said, what has been learned so far from this special investigation series? And what have we yet to learn or determine?

What do we know?

It has been well established that geoengineering and weather modification exist, have been happening for several decades in Canada and elsewhere, and are also a means of weather warfare which are employed by military outfits around the world, particularly by the United States.

The following list of facts have been established as per the information researched, obtained, presented, cited, and referenced in this series. They could easily be cited or referred to in legal cases, courts of law, and by law enforcement agencies.

Weather modification activities have been taking place in Canada since at least the 1950s.
Cloud seeding operations using silver iodide were employed in the province of Quebec in 1959 under Operation Umbrella. That particular operation resulted in depriving the local population – particularly children – from sufficient exposure to sunlight (and a lack of natural vitamin D) causing disgruntled parents to press the Quebec Minister of Natural Resources to cease the cloud seeding program.
Cloud seeding operations have been conducted in the province of Alberta for many years which continue to this day with the use of silver iodide.
Though Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) states the use of silver iodide (as a cloud seeding agent) is considered “to have negligible environmental or human health impacts,” at least two scientific studies indicate serious health risks.
Other substances that are known to be used in geoengineering- and weather modification-related activities, (as has been established and revealed in numerous patents) including aluminum oxide, barium, strontium, sulfur dioxide, and lithium, are known contributors to serious health and medical conditions in humans and animals, in addition to bringing about adverse impacts to the natural environment.
As has been revealed in an Access To Information (ATI) request, aerosol spraying operations have been conducted in various regions of the province of Quebec since at least April 15, 2009 until November, 2021. Regarding these operations, the substances used have yet to be identified, the reason(s) or purpose(s) are undisclosed as are the parties who have conducted them.
Since 1975, there exists a treaty between Canada and the United States regarding weather modification activities.
In Canada, a Weather Modification Information Act exists, as do related Regulations as well as an Environmental Protection Act (CEPA).
Subsection 76(1) of CEPA requires the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada to assess substances to determine whether they are toxic or capable of becoming toxic.
Despite being a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Canada has decided to not adhere to the United Nations’ 2010 Geoengineering Moratorium for which over 190 member states have agreed to to disallow geoengineering activities to take place which could affect biodiversity. (the United States also did not participate in the Moratorium).
More than 60 senior climate scientists and governance scholars have signed the Solar Geoengineering Non-Use Agreement which includes 18 Canadian academics.
259 EMF scientists from 44 nations and 15 Supporting Scientists from 11 nations have signed an International Appeal calling for the protection of electromagnetic field exposure which includes 11 signatories from Canada.
A large number of patents exist that are concerned with geoengineering and weather modification-related activities.
Weather warfare military operations that make use of weather modification geoengineering techniques have been used for several decades, particularly by the U.S. military.
Clandestine experiments conducted by the U.S. military have occurred over several U.S. states and even over certain Canadian provinces and their respective populations.
Numerous whistleblowers have come forward to detail and denounce covert, illegal, and harmful geoengineering- and weather modification-related activities. These include some that are not anonymous such as a former member of the United States Air Force (USAF), an aircraft technician from Germany, a Canadian-born medical doctor, a highly-acclaimed FBI Special Agent, and an Environmental Law specialist. Each of these have brought a substantial amount of credible and verifiable information related to these activities.
100% of Canadian airspace is controlled by a private entity called NAV CANADA. The Chairman of the Board of NAV CANADA is also the Chairman of the Board for Aireon, a private company based in the United States that is partly owned by NAV CANADA and has ties to suppliers in the U.S. Defense industry.
The ownership of NAV CANADA has not been revealed (despite multiple attempts by this author requesting the related information).
Neither NAV CANADA nor Transport Canada have been forthcoming in revealing information or statistics relating to how many Canadians have inquired about suspicious flights related to aerosol sprayings despite media inquiries to this effect.
A 2012 Access to Information (ATIP) request – submitted by the former Premier of British Columbia, Bill Vander Zalm, which produced a 162-page document reveals that Environment Canada (as it was called at the time) was either involved in or at least aware of ““rogue” geoengineering activities conducted by countries/groups/individuals,” but have not disclosed them (see page 46 of the document) to the public. A portion of this document is redacted.
The country of Mexico has banned geoengineering.

What should we know?

With the known facts having been laid out, it now remains to be determined whether either covert, illegal, unlawful, immoral, unethical, and/or dangerous geoengineering and weather modification activities have taken place, or are still taking place in Canada and elsewhere.

Section 2.4.2 Why are they spraying? of Part 2 of this series outlined, as per an interview with an insider informant, the possible of the existence of a worldwide covert spraying operation that seeks to use various forms of Solar Engineering or Solar Radiation Management (SRM) to mitigate the effects of Climate Change. While it is difficult to prove the existence of such a program, some evidence does seem to suggest it as a distinct possibility. As such, it should be more formally and thoroughly looked into or investigated by qualified teams and law enforcement, preferably at the national level.

While these interrogations may seem more speculative in nature, they remain, nevertheless, important to determine; for, if they do exist and are proven so, then laws have been breached and formal investigations must take place.

Many Canadians, including this author, have legitimate concerns and worries about aerosol sprayings that are occurring across Canada and other countries.

Many have made inquiries to the respective authorities, only to be largely shunned and in some cases, ridiculed.

As a journalist, this author has made numerous media inquiries to various Canadian authorities on the subject.

This author has posed many pertinent questions regarding geoengineering- and weather-modification activities in Canada seeking honest and transparent information to better shed light on the stated issues of concern.

But many critically important questions remain unanswered and thus are thus suspect, revealing a lack of transparency on these matters of importance to all Canadians.

While some answers have been informative and forthcoming in these respects, others have yet to be revealed.

If any future replies from these agencies are received, they will be appended to Part 4 of this series.

All Canadians are free to make their own queries.

Please note that this author is trying to keep this series ALIVE in an ongoing endeavour.

As such, Part 4 (Addenda, Follow-Ups & Updates) will include additional information as this matter continues to develop and evolve.

So, be sure to revisit PART 4 once in a while for updates.

Feel free to email the author with any additional information you feel is relevant.

3.5 Take Action: What you can do at the local level about Geoengineering & Radiation Levels

While more tips and tools will be added in Part 4 in the future, here are some measures citizens can take with regards to concerns about Geoengineering and Weather Modification and help mitigate their negative impacts.

The first step, of course, is to be informed. So be sure to check out each part of this series:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3 (this post)
Part 4 (coming soon)

Contact your Elected Representative

If you have concerns about suspicious flights or aerosol sprayings in your region (or other geoengineering/weather modification activities), you can contact your local representatives by phone or email or even attend a town council meeting (for the most part, these are open to residents).

When doing so, it is best to remain polite and respectful. Try to be constructive; that is to say, explain what you would like to be done or accomplished.

In addition, you should clearly state your concerns and provide related information and proof or evidence of any suspected wrongdoing.

Provide relevant/supporting information and documentation. These can include photographs, scientific studies, test samples, and the like.

With regards to geoengineering- and weather modification-related activities, t is preferable to use the proper terminology. For instance, instead of using the term chemtrails, it is better to use the correct terminology such as Cloud Seeding or Stratospheric Aerosol Injections (SAIs). This adds more credibility and increases the likelihood of being taken seriously.

Make Access to Information (ATI) requests

Any citizen in Canada can make an Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) request.

These request can be done either Online or via Regular Mail using a printable PDF form.

The fee is usually $5 and if you submit your request via regular mail, you can simply insert a $5 note along with your filled-in form in your envelope. The mail-in option is simpler and requires less personal information to be revealed and submitted.

Two samples that were prepared by this author can be viewed here and here.

To determine who you should send your information request to, all you need to do is consult the List of access to information and privacy coordinators by institution web page.

Before submitting a request, you can search existing records to see if any exist that are similar in nature to the one you are seeking.

Take Water and Soil Samples and get them Analysed by a Lab

In the Soil and Water Sample Tests sub-section of Part 2, information was provided regarding the possibility of taking water and soil samples and getting them tested by laboratories for toxic metals that are often associated with aerosol sprayings.

Water sampling and testing is common for new home buyers who wish to get the water of their new residence tested for chemicals and to make sure it is potable and clean enough for consumption.

Laboratories involved in testing these samples offer the service. The fees can set you back north of $100 or so, but when we are talking about health, most people don’t mind the cost.

Water and soil testing is particularly important to those who have their own garden and grow their own food and have concerns about their quality.

GeoengineeringWatch.org offers a few tips about water testing such as not immediately after sprayings, but a few/several days later; but it is probably best to consult with and follow the advice or guidelines from the testing laboratory.

In Canada, you can check the business listings of your province for available water testing labs. Not all of them may test for soil samples though; so, be sure to ask if they offer this service.

Caro Analytical Services based in Vancouver, B.C. appears to offer very detailed analyses and reports. Here is an example report from water and soil samples taken in August of 2023.

Use Flight Tracking Software

As was described in Part 2 of this series, you can use flight tracking software such as Flightaware.com and FlightRadar24.com to monitor or track flights you think may be suspicious.

These tools are fairly easy to use and you can simply enter your nearby airport code to see a map of your surroundings along with which flights are flying in your vicinity.

Write or Call your local Member of Parliament of the Premier of your Province

All Canadian citizens and residents are allowed to contact their elected Members of Parliament (Mps) or even the Premier of the province in which they reside.

When doing so, be sure to use the proper titles and respectful language.

More than likely, you will receive a reply from a representative or agent of the MP or Premier in lieu of themselves (for they receive copious amounts of correspondence which makes it nearly impossible for them to reply to each one personally).

If the answer you receive is incomplete or unsatisfactory, you can follow-up with additional replies.

Be persistent if you must.

These are public servants that work for you, not the other way around. You pay their salaries (and hefty benefits) with your tax dollars.

ZeroGeoengineering has a template specifically for Canada (click here for the U.S.) that can be used to send a letter to your legislator. You can adapt it to your particular needs.

This author will likely create a more detailed template in the near future and make it available either here and/or in Part 4.

Concerns about 5G and Radiation Levels.

First, have a look at section 2.7 – 5G, Radio Frequency & Microwave Radiation used in Geoengineering of this series to familiarise yourself with the related concepts and terminology.

In that section there were links to several 5G Tower Locator sites that can help you find 5G towers and antennas close to your residence, school, or workplace.

That section also contained information about EMF Detector Meters or Testers which can be used to measure radiation levels.

You can take measures of levels of radiation and compare them to the acceptable standards/levels determined by the authorities in your jurisdiction. If the levels are in excess, you should document them (for instance, you can take pictures of the EMF Meter with your cell phone) and these could be used as evidence to provide to local representatives if you wish to inquire further or make complaints.

To conclude this subsection, the idea is to be proactive. In French we say “On est jamais aussi bien servi que par soi-même.” which means you are never better served than by yourself.

If you are concerned about your health and well-being and your surrounding natural environment, it is up to you to ensure that you are well-informed and cognizant of its prevailing conditions and take remediating actions.

In Outro – Plea to readers for your support

As an independent journalist, I take great care and pride in providing my audience with quality investigatory work and writings.

This is the kind of work that is seldom reported on in as much detail by the mainstream media, for they also tend to avoid the subjects and sometimes controversial topics that I, myself cover.

As an independent, I get paid very little for this work, for the bulk of my revenue comes from Substack subscriptions, and I am mostly surviving and supporting my family by means of personal savings.

You can support my work by considering a paid subscription to my Substack – Dan Fournier’s Inconvenient Truths (for only $5 a month, or $50 a year). For one-time donations, you can also buy me a coffee.

If you are unable to support my work financially, it is greatly appreciated if you can share it on your social media feeds, for this brings additional exposure (and much needed eyeballs) which can lead to new paid subscribers.

Your comments are most welcome and appreciated and can be given in the Comments section below.

I sincerely thank you for your time and support.

May God bless you all.

Note: As of November 14, 2023, this series is also referenced in NEWSPASTE.

Tweet this article

Share this article on Facebook

Disclaimer:

None of the contents of this article is to be taken as medical or health-related advice. Seek independent professional consultation before making health-related decisions. See the author’s About page for full disclaimer.

Dan Fournier's Inconvenient Truths

Discussion about this post