The US, UK, and Canadian governments are solely responsible for the increase in CO2 emissions since the 1990s. The US, UK and Canadian governments forced all automakers to equip all new vehicles with an ECM to keep the fuel efficiency of all vehicles low to guarantee a greater demand for fuel & therefore higher tax revenue for the US, UK and Canadian governments.

The increase in CO2 emissions since the 1990s are the direct result of an automobile’s ECM (engine control module), also commonly called an engine control unit (ECU) or Powertrain Control Module (PCM). An automotive computer that was developed and mandated by the US, UK and Canadian governments (the Crown in Canada) to control (regulate) a vehicle’s emissions system. The primary function of the ECM is to regulate the vehicle’s air/fuel mixture. To maintain a factory set air to fuel mixture ratio so that the vehicle fuel consumption is preset to a low fuel efficiency standards that directly results in higher CO2 emissions.

In the 1990s the US, UK and the Crown (foreign corporation sole entity)  controlled Canadian governments forced automakers to equip all new vehicles with an ECM to control the fuel efficiency of all vehicles by setting the air/fuel mixture ratio to a constant 14.7:1. The US (District of Columbia), Canadian (the Crown in Canada), and UK (City of London Corporation) governments all made it mandatory for all vehicles operating on US, UK and Canadian roads to be equipped with an ECM so that they can control the fuel efficiency of every vehicle driven today.

Governments sold this electronic control system to the public as an emission control system. Governments said it would control the air fuel mixture ratio to lower carbon emissions. In reality the ECM was made mandatory to guarantee a greater demand for fuel and therefore an increase in tax revenue for the governments. That means, for decades we have been forced to buy vehicles that are very fuel inefficient and as a direct result of government regulations unnecessarily emit more CO2 emissions.

Today we are being forced to pay the governments a carbon tax for something the governments caused.

A carbon tax will do nothing to lower CO2 emissions. Carbon tax has one purpose. A renewable source of revenue for the governments. Germany was the first to impose a carbon tax in order to obtain funding to bankroll its Fourth Reich EU.

There are several very cheap and viable solutions that would instantaneously lower CO2 emissions.

Simply by changing the factory set air fuel mixture ratio gasoline and diesel automakers can make their gas combustion vehicles more fuel efficient and lower CO2 emissions at the same time. Simply by increasing the air fuel mixtures to 17:1 or higher will automatically achieve much higher fuel mileage and at the same time lower CO2 emissions. How? A higher air fuel mixture ratio fuel burns much cleaner than the government mandated 14.7 : 1 air fuel mixture ratio and has a higher octane value. A leaner running engine (ie, an engine using more air than fuel) has a cooler combustion process than the typical ECM engine with a preset (never deviating) mixture of 14.7 air to 1 fuel. Running leaner is also better for the engines. Cooler running engines means a reduction in heat damage and failure.

“Gasoline in the liquid form does not even burn, much less, explode. Only the vapor that comes from the gasoline will burn. Therefore, to mix raw gasoline with air, and attempt to explode it in an internal combustion engine is a very wasteful, costly, and polluting practice. It also shortens the life of the engine and exhaust system.” Popular Science, December 1957

Another method that can be adopted by gasoline and diesel fuel automakers to lower CO2 emissions is to install a CO2 emission reducing device like the FuelReducer mpg+ on their vehicles. From 2006 to 2010 the FuelReducer mpg+ helped hundreds of people in the U.S. and Canada do just that – reduce CO2 emissions. It already has a proven track record.

The first FuelReducer mpg + was first manufactured and sold back in 2006. From 2006 to 2010 customers from across Canada and the U.S. reported an increase in fuel mileage and/or performance plus a reduction in carbon emissions. FuelReducer mpg + customers included the general public, car buffs, auto mechanics, a police department in Illinois, a plumbing service company in New Brunswick, a vintage Corvette club in the United States, after market and performance auto parts distributors in New Brunswick and throughout Southern Ontario and used car dealerships in Canada and the U.S.

The only reason why I, Paul W Kincaid (designed, developed and marketed the FuelReducer mpg + from 2006 to 2010) stopped selling the FuelReducer mpg+ is I didn’t have any more funds to manufacture more.

I left Toronto, Ontario in 2010 to take care of my ailing mother in Sussex, New Brunswick. Because I didn’t get paid for it and I couldn’t get employment in Sussex I didn’t have money to manufacture a revised version of the FuelReducer mpg+ (image above) that would fit on a vehicle’s plastic fuel lines.

“When performing parliamentary duties & functions, a member shall not act in any way to further his or her private interests or those of a member of the member’s family” Parliament, CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

A reasonable person would conclude that there is a conflict of interest and a breach of trust by Justin Trudeau introducing and voting on legislation requiring vendors to purchase and use paper products and banning use of plastic products such as plastic grocery bags.

Justin Trudeau and his brother Alexandre Trudeau are benefitting financially from legislation Justin Trudeau introduced banning use of plastic grocery bags and other single use plastic products. Justin Trudeau is a shareholder and Vice-president of 9190-0563 QUÉBEC INC – PRODUCTION AND SALE OF FIREWOOD AND LUMBER

Lumber is used to make paper products like grocery bags, paper plates and other paper products that vendors are now being forced to buy and use because of Justin Trudeau’s legislation.

Breach of trust by public officer

122 Every official who, in connection with the duties of their office, commits fraud or a breach of trust, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person, is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Actus Reus

The indictable offence of “breach of trust” can include “any breach of the appropriate standard of responsibility and conduct demanded of the accused by the nature of his office as a senior civil servant of the Crown.”

The prohibited act must cause a personal benefit to the accused and must be contrary to the duties imposed upon them.

Furthermore, a reasonable person would conclude that the price of lumber is so high because lumber prices were inflated to benefit Justin Trudeau and his brother personally.

Justin Trudeau caused the price of lumber to skyrocket during the 2021 federal election. Justin Trudeau “committed to building 1.4 million homes within four years by easing regulations on construction and eliminating some red tape.”

“A re-elected Liberal government will build, preserve, or repair 1.4 million homes in the next four years” A Home. For Everyone: The Liberal Housing Plan“

Justin Trudeau’s 2021 election campaign plans to build, preserve, or repair 1.4 million homes within four years caused the demand for lumber to exceed supply. It’s a fundamental economic principle that when demand exceeds supply, prices tend to rise.

Justin Trudeau continues to be listed as a shareholder and the Vice-president of 9190-0563 QUÉBEC INC – PRODUCTION AND SALE OF FIREWOOD AND LUMBER

15 (1) No reporting public office holder shall (c) continue as, or become, a director or officer in a corporation or an organization

“a public office holder (Justin Trudeau, Vice-President of 9190-0563 QUÉBEC INC.) is in a conflict of interest when he or she exercises an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity to further his or her private interests or those of his or her relatives” DoJ

During the 2019 federal election campaign a female accuser blackmailed Justin Trudeau. No evidence has ever been found or presented that would verify that the female accuser was a student at WPGA. There is evidence that Justin Trudeau’s female accuser was a member of Justin Trudeau’s family. She used the 2019 federal election campaign to blackmail Justin Trudeau into paying her $2.25 million.

Blackmail is the crime of threatening to reveal embarrassing, disgraceful or damaging information about a person to the public, family, spouse or associates unless money is paid to purchase silence.

There is evidence Justin Trudeau’s female accuser distorted the truth in order to get paid $2.25 million to buy her silence. As you may recall it was alledged that Justin Trudeau had a sexual relationship with a student that was much younger than 17 years old.

“She was much, much younger than that,”

Twitter provided the evidence that Justin Trudeau’s female accuser distorted the truth in order to get paid $2.25 million. A Twitter tweet claimed Pierre Trudeau was the one who had sexually assaulted/abused a very young girl. Cathy O’Brien informed her followers on her Twitter account that Pierre Trudeau sexually abused her when she was 9 years old. Screenshot above states:

“Justin’s father Pierre Trudeau sexually abused me when I was 9 at Gov mansion on Mackinac Island when Mitt Romney’s father George Romney was Gov of MI.”

RCMP, Elections Canada, MPs & journalists can find out who blackmailed Justin Trudeau into paying $million for a NDA during the 2019 federal election campaign. Search government registery & agencies for the name of a Justin Trudeau WPGA “female” student or family member who bought a new house or luxury car or who received a $2.25 million bank deposit on Oct 9, 2019 or soon thereafter. FINTRAC is a very good place to start. All banks are required to report all financial transactions (electronic funds transfers) over $10000. Filter your search by looking for transfers from Justin Trudeau’s BMO blind trust or the Trudeau Foundation on October 9, 2019 or thereafter.

When you find the $2.25 million transaction report it immediately to Elections Canada. The transaction is evidence that Justin Trudeau offered a bribe during the 2019 election campaign. Justin Trudeau could “automatically” lose his seat in the House of Commons for a conviction of “offering bribe” during the 2019 election campaign.

With bribery, instead of someone making a threat to extract something they want, they generally pay someone to get what they want.  In Justin Trudeau’s case Justin Trudeau paid a female accuser/blackmailer $2.25 million for a NDA. The NDA was paid for by Justin Trudeau to influence voters choices in the 2019 election campaign.

The Canada Elections Act creates a prohibition against offering or accepting bribes, gifts or other advantages that might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence the election-related choices made by individuals, whether those are the candidates or the electors themselves, during an election period.

Paying $2.25 million during the 2019 election campaign to influence the election-related choices made by voters was essentially Justin Trudeau “offering bribe”.

Canada Elections Act

Corrupt practice

(2) Every person is guilty of an offence that is a corrupt practice who

(h) being a candidate or an official agent of a candidate, commits an offence under subsection 282.7(1) (offering bribe);

Consequences of illegal, corrupt practices

“A person found guilty of any corrupt electoral practice under the Canada Elections Act within the previous five years, … is disqualified from seeking election for seven years following the date of the conviction.” House of Commons of Canada

The convicted election campaign candidate will not be entitled to

(a) be elected to or sit in the House of Commons

Only days before Barry and Honey Sherman were targeted and killed Justin Trudeau was attempting to quash an Apotex lawsuit against the Lobbying Commissioner regarding the election campaign fundraiser Barry and Honey Sherman hosted for Justin Trudeau that allegedly ran afoul of lobbying rules.

Government documents provides material evidence that Justin Trudeau did in fact attempt to have the Apotex lawsuit quashed. Justin Trudeau used public funds to attempt to quash the Apotex lawsuit. $400,000 was misappropriated by Justin Trudeau for his own benefit.

“An unanticipated court action against the Office resulted in unplanned legal costs of almost $300,000 in 2017–18. These additional costs have been paid through access to a special purpose allotment of $400,000 for litigation.”

“In December 2017, the Office received access to a special purpose allotment of $400,000 for third party legal fees associated to legal challenges.” Lobbying Commissioner

The $400,000 in third party legal fees that the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying received was for the Apotex lawsuit against the Commissioner of Lobbying. The third party legal fees were Justin Trudeau’s. Third Party definition

“A person who is not a party to a lawsuit, but who is usually somehow implicated in it; someone other than the principal parties”

Budgetary report confirms the PMO paid the Lobbying Commissioner $400,000 to obstruct justice. To defeat a court order requiring the Commissioner to unredact Justin Trudeau’s REDACTED name in documents justifying a RCMP investigation of Justin Trudeau’s Aug 26, 2015 election campaign fundraiser.

The RCMP investigation was commenced as a result of a Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying (OCL) tape recorded interview with Barry Sherman on Nov 3, 2016. During the tape recorded interview, Mr Sherman openly discussed a fundraiser held at his house on August 26, 2015, which featured Liberal candidates Michael Levitt and Justin Trudeau.

Because the OCL launched a RCMP investigation of the August 26, 2015 fundraiser for Justin Trudeau based on the content of the Nov 3, 2016 tape recorded interview Apotex filed a lawsuit seeking a transcript of the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying interview with lobbyist Barry Sherman, or a copy of the recording.

The Lobbying Commissioner didn’t have the money needed to fight the Apotex lawsuit. This was made known on December 1, 2017. Just 12 days before Barry and Honey Sherman were murdered.

Justin Trudeau responded by giving the Office of Commissioner of Lobbying $400,000 in public funds to quash the Apotex/Barry Sherman lawsuit & a court hearing that was to be held February 2018 to address the Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd refusing to comply with a court order that “redacted” documents that detail the taped interview between OCL & Barry Sherman must be uncensored & handed over to Apotex.

The court order was made as a result of the Commissioner of Lobbying redacting Justin Trudeau’s name from material evidence in an ongoing RCMP investigation. Complying with the court order would have proven the Lobbying Commissioner REDACTED Justin Trudeau’s name from the transcript in order to conceal OCL finding that Justin Trudeau broke the law:

“There is basis to conclude that the private interests of (REDACTED) were advanced to a high degree, and that a sense of obligation was created by Mr. Sherman’s contribution to the 2015 election campaigns,”

The above statement informs Canadians that the REDACTED name wasn’t Barry Sherman because his name is included “unredacted” in the statement above. The REDACTED name could only be either 2015 election campaign candidates Michael Levitt or Justin Trudeau because the August 26, 2015 election campaign fundraiser that was being investigated by the RCMP was for Liberal candidates Michael Levitt and Justin Trudeau. Phil McIntosh, director of investigations at the Office of the Lobby Commissioner stated:

“while conducting the administrative review, the directorate found evidence indicating that Mr. Sherman engaged in political activities that risk creating a sense of obligation on the part of one or more public office holders” through the fundraising event held at his home on Aug. 26, 2015.

The Lobbying Commissioner receiving access to a special purpose allotment of $400,000 for third party legal fees associated to legal challenges eliminated Michael Levitt as the name of the person the Lobbying Commissioner REDACTED.

Despite having received $400,000 in misappropriated public funds the Lobbying Commissioner couldn’t quash the Apotex lawsuit and a court order requiring her to unredact Justin Trudeau‘s name – the third party and “a defendant” in the Apotex lawsuit.

On December 13, 2017 “Apotex lawsuit plaintiff Barry Sherman” and his wife Honey Sherman were targeted and killed.

NOTE:

The Canadian Jewish News reported August 21, 2015, 5 days before Barry and Honey hosted the 2015 election campaign fundraiser for Justin Trudeau that:

Sherman said he spent an hour with Trudeau last week, discussing various issues, including Israel. He felt Trudeau fully appreciates the threats facing Israel, including “the existential war facing the west from extremists.”

2 days before Barry Sherman hosted the August 26, 2015 election campaign fundraiser for 2015 federal election campaign candidate Justin Trudeau Apotex registered to lobby the Government of Canada.

Compelling evidence indicating that Mr. Sherman engaged in political activities that created a sense of obligation on the part of 2015 election campaign candidate Justin Trudeau (REDACTED).

Why Apotex lawsuit plaintiff Barry Sherman and his wife Honey Sherman were targeted and killed

Canada Elections Act

Prohibition

• 477.9 (1) No candidate shall accept any gift or other advantage that might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence them in the performance of their duties and functions as a member of the House of Commons if the candidate were to be elected, during the period that

  • (a) begins on the day on which they are deemed to have become a candidate; and

gift or other advantage means

• (a) an amount of money if there is no obligation to repay it; and

• (b) a service or property, or the use of property or money, that is provided without charge or at less than its commercial value.

Corrupt practice

(2) Every person is guilty of an offence that is a corrupt practice who

(h.01) being a candidate, knowingly contravenes subsection 477.9(1) (accepting prohibited gift or other advantage);

Consequences of corrupt practices

(3) Any person who is convicted of having committed an offence that is an illegal practice or a corrupt practice under this Act shall, in addition to any other punishment for that offence prescribed by this Act, in the case of an illegal practice, during the next five years or, in the case of a corrupt practice, during the next seven years, after the date of their being so convicted, not be entitled to

• (a) be elected to or sit in the House of Commons; or

Justin Trudeau paying $millions to a female accuser during the 2019 federal election is defined by Canada’s laws as “offering bribe”. Justin Trudeau paid $millions to a female accuser for one purpose – “to influence the election-related choices made by individuals”.

The Parliament of Canada has passed several statutes touching on bribery and corruption in elections. These laws were enacted to ensure that fair elections are held, free from corruption, intimidation and other actions which may deter an elector, a candidate or an official involved in the election process.

Where an election candidate (Justin Trudeau) has engaged in bribery or some other form of corruption in being elected, severe penalties are provided for, including: several years’ disqualification from candidacy and voting in subsequent elections; fines, imprisonment, or both; a voided election; the loss of the right to sit or vote in the House.

The Canada Elections Act creates a prohibition against offering or accepting bribes, gifts or other advantages that might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence the election-related choices made by individuals, whether those are the candidates or the electors themselves, during an election period.

“Section 502 of the Canada Elections Act sets out other situations in which a conviction automatically results in the loss of the right to sit in the House of Commons.” Parliament of Canada

Canada Elections Act

Corrupt practice

(2) Every person is guilty of an offence that is a corrupt practice who

(h) being a candidate or an official agent of a candidate, commits an offence under subsection 282.7(1) (offering bribe);

Consequences of illegal, corrupt practices

(3) Any person who is convicted of having committed an offence that is an illegal practice or a corrupt practice under this Act shall, in addition to any other punishment for that offence prescribed by this Act, in the case of an illegal practice, during the next five years or, in the case of a corrupt practice, during the next seven years, after the date of their being so convicted, not be entitled to

(a) be elected to or sit in the House of Commons;

During the 2019 federal election a female accuser claimed Justin Trudeau had sexually assaulted a female student while Justin Trudeau was a teacher at West Point Grey Academy. The person Justin Trudeau bribed to keep quiet was accusing Justin Trudeau of committing the offence of “statutory rape”.

Any teacher who has a sexual relationship with a student is committing statutory rape. In Canada there is no statute of limitations on bringing a criminal charge for sexual assault. A student/child who was the victim of rape could report it after reaching adulthood.

To avoid a criminal investigation and criminal charges Justin Trudeau paid $millions to obtain a NDA and silence the person accusing Justin Trudeau of committing “statutory rape” at West Point Grey.

Justin Trudeau offering/paying a bribe during the 2019 election warrants an investigation and conviction by Elections Canada. Elections Canada need only to serve Justin Trudeau’s BMO trust fund with a financial warrant to obtain evidence that a bribe was paid during the 2019 federal election. Look for a multi-million dollar transfer on Oct 9, 2019 or thereafter.

A conviction of “offering bribe” could result in Justin Trudeau losing his seat in the House of Commons and Justin Trudeau being barred from campaigning in any election for the next 7 years.

“A person found guilty of any corrupt electoral practice under the Canada Elections Act within the previous 5 years is disqualified from seeking election.”

The 2019 federal election was held within “the previous 5 years”.

The RCMP are involved in the targeted murders of Barry and Honey Sherman. The RCMP became involved the day the Lobbying Commissioner had the RCMP investigate Justin Trudeau’s August 26, 2015 election campaign fundraiser.

Library of Parliament > Research publications > The Federal Lobbying System: The Lobbying Act and the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct:

Under the Lobbyists Registration Act, when staff from the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists received a request or complaint from the general public, media, a member of Parliament or an organization, or when officials of the branch believed there was a possible contravention of the Act or Code, the branch would assemble and review factual evidence to determine whether a formal investigation was warranted. Where there was an indication of a possible contravention of the Act, the matter was turned over to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).

The RCMP started investigating Justin Trudeau and his August 26, 2015 election campaign fundraiser/fundraisers after the Lobbying Commissioner found evidence that federal laws were broken by Mr. Sherman’s contribution to the 2015 election campaign:

“There is basis to conclude that the private interests of (REDACTED) were advanced to a high degree, & that a sense of obligation was created by Mr. Sherman’s contribution to the 2015 election campaign” Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada (OCL)

A Nov 3, 2016 OCL taped recorded interview with Barry Sherman was the primary material evidence OCL used to have the RCMP launch a “full investigation” of Justin Trudeau’s Aug 26, 2015 fundraiser. OCL determined the tape recording provided evidence Justin Trudeau broke federal laws. Apotex filed a lawsuit against the Lobbying Commissioner regarding the Lobbying Commissioner redacting Justin Trudeau’s name in the transcripts of that Nov 3, 2016 taped recorded interview.

The Toronto Police know that the RCMP were involved in the targeted murders of Justin Trudeau’s August 26, 2015 election campaign fundraisers Barry and Honey Sherman. So does the Crown. The Crown sealed the Toronto Police murder investigation files and evidence to protect the suspects who committed the targeted (contracted) murders for Justin Trudeau’s benefit.

Crime scene evidence: restraint marks, Honey Sherman’s bloody lip & nose, the surreptitious entry, the person who entered the Shermans’ home Dec 14, 2017 for 29 minutes & the ongoing RCMP investigation of Justin Trudeau’s election campaign fundraiser/fundraisers implicats RCMP officers in their murders.

The Toronto Police investigators reported that both Barry and Honey Sherman had restraint marks on their wrists. What caused the restraint marks”? Zip ties. Zip tie handcuffs are used by police forces throughout Canada and by the RCMP to restrain people.

The restraint marks and Honey Sherman’s bloody lip and nose supports assertion that she was forcibly restrained by police officers.

Crime scene evidence suggested the murderers gained access to the Sherman home by the front door. Toronto Police stated that there was no forced entry. That means it is plausible that Honey Sherman let her murderers in after her murderers identified themselves as police officers.

 

The Keable Commission supports the assertion that RCMP officers are viable suspects in Barry & Honey Sherman targeted murders. 15 RCMP officers were charged and tried for: conspiracy, B&E, kidnapping & forcible detention. Indicted RCMP officers claimed they “were just following (PM Pierre Trudeau) orders.

Former Toronto police Chief Mark Saunders said he has had to be careful with what he said about the case because he knows “for a fact” that the Shermans’ killers are watching his televised remarks.

Toronto Police Chief Mark Saunders also stated that his officers interviewed the mystery man who spent 29 minutes inside the home of Barry and Honey Sherman while they lay dead in the basement.

“I can tell you we knew who the person was, why they were there, (the person) was interviewed,”

Note, only one person entered the home yet Police Chief Saunders said Toronto Police knew why “they” were there – “they” means the person of interest was part of an unnamed entity. Reasonable suspicion the RCMP was that unnamed entity. The RCMP were at the time investigating Justin Trudeau’s fundraiser. Wiretapping is a tool in RCMP investigations, especially when it involves the Prime Minister of Canada. It is highly plausible that a RCMP officer entered the Shermans’ home to remove wiretaps and/or any incriminating evidence.

Parties to offence

Where two or more persons are playing an active role in the commission of a crime, each becomes a co-principal to that offence. When this is the case, it is not necessary to determine exactly which person committed which element of the offence. Rather, every act done to commit the offence is deemed to have been committed by all co-principals. A person can be a principal to an offence despite not actually committing the offence with their own hands. This occurs where they instead direct an innocent agent to commit the offence in their place.