The Yellow Vests – Pros, Cons, and perhaps the reason

Sometime in November 2018 Canadians started to notice that more and more of their fellow Canadians started to wear Yellow Vests. I have also taken notice and have been watching this unfold over the past few months. This wearing of the “Yellow Vest” has become synonymous with the events taking place world wide – albeit, in Canada we are relatively peaceful. There have been truck/car rallies, placard waving, chants but the fundamental reasoning for all of this is that our elected officials have turned a deaf ear to Canadians.

Certainly, there have been those who would attempt to inspire violence – but in most cases violence does nothing but harm the intent of those organizing these events. And there will always be elements, in any movement and/or any political party, that are considered radical. In most cases, though, each of these groups have, as a foundation, a true honest intent of just trying to have their voices heard by those we elect. This all boils down to respecting the people.

This Yellow Vest movement has been particularly active in Western Canada where many are facing dire times. That is because the federal government, supported by a minimal group of environmentalists, has decided that there will be no new pipelines built for them to get their oil to tide water. This is a fundamental reason for Canada to have a federal government in the first place.

The federal government of Canada is to ensure that when it comes to the interest of all Canadians that one or more provinces cannot block the transportation of goods. It took a federal government to build the railway from coast to coast and pipelines aren’t any different – if anything they have less of an impact than the building of a railway. This is not to take away from rail – this is just to show what and why we have a federal government.

Now we find that this “Yellow Vest” movement has spread from the West to all other provinces and we understand that the people of Canada are very concerned about their sovereignty. They feel that the federal government has betrayed Canadians based on an open-door policy for immigration and under the United Nations (UN) Immigration and Refugee Compact. And yet what Canadians haven’t realized that this UN interference in Canada’s sovereignty has been going on for decades. That’s right Canada – you undermined your own sovereignty decades ago with the UNESCO designations. You undermined your own sovereignty decades ago with the past Immigration and Refugee Act, and you most certainly undermined your own sovereignty with the various “free trade deals.”

This movement of global trade has only increased the harm to our Canadian identity and this will certainly be exacerbated when and if Canada moves to 5G, let alone what is presently available regarding smart phones, etc. Unknown to the majority of Canadians is that Japan, Korea and China have a trilateral agreement in place. This should be sending red-flags to our federal government as it has to other nations. It has not and that is very concerning considering the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). Canada has already seen the effects of these agreements with the Green Energy Act in Ontario – therefore more research should be done regarding these purported trade deals prior to them being entered.

There are many issues that the Yellow Vest movement have – but the main reasoning for this movement is that government is not listening to the fundamental premise of Canadian’s – that Canadians demand referendum on the big issues as in immigration, international trade deals and what we will accept from the UN. This is our right as Canadians! Just because Pierre Elliot Trudeau violated that sanctity with his 1982 document (constitution) does not allow successive governments the same things – not if they fully understand that in violating Canadians they are, in fact, violating themselves.

In 2009 it was stated, in the UK House of Lords:
“The strengths are that it allows the people to have a final say on fundamental changes affecting the constitution. It has become standard in most democratic countries to require referendum before constitutional changes. How does, and how should, the referendum relate to the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy? I think this question has been answered by history. The debate as to whether referendums are compatible with a Diceyan constitution was raised by Wilson in the House of Commons in 1967 – but when it became opportune, he changed his mind. Referendums are no – to use a somewhat technical term – “a convention of the constitution”. Further the argument that they are not compatible with the doctrine of the Sovereignty of Parliament has been eroded by the practice of referendums in this country – as well as by extensive usage of referendums in New Zealand (a country without a written constitution and explicit adherence to the principle of the sovereignty of Parliament).” House of Lords, Select Committee on the Constitution, 12th Report of Session 2009-10, p. 192.

Canadian’s Constitutional rights involve Referenda and therefore Pierre Elliot Trudeau and successive governments have violated Canadian’s fundamental rights to referenda, particularly, when there is to be a major change to our constitution, including foreign trade and/or UN agreements. Now we all have a better understanding as to why there is a Yellow Vest movement and why Canadians are saying things need to change for the betterment of our sovereignty and for the future of Canada.

After all isn’t a Canadian’s fundamental identity – True North Strong and FREE!

SOURCE – Bob Yaciuk; Leader, Trillium Party of Ontario

This Media Release


  1. The author embraces listening to the people and treating them with respect at the same time dismissing those opposed as “ a minimal group of environmentalists.” This is a Trump like move, respect only those who agree with you.

    He dismisses the value of the United Nations and criticizes decades of past policies as needing to be thrown out. Sounds like Trump. Everyone else did everything wrong and his party will fix it. Perhaps this leader will soon present us with his alternative policies and solutions. Hopefully they will not be as divisive as Mr Trump’s.

    He does deviate from Mr. Trump in that he proposes to govern by referenda. Did his party consult with any of the electorate before adopting this policy in their platform?

  2. And, oh, one other thought!

    That “minimal group of environmentalists” includes First Nations and their territories who are to be consulted prior to any development of proposed activity in their traditional lands.

    In his study of Canadian policy, he might go back as far as the Treaties we signed with First Nations promising to share in the resources and riches of this land, only to break our word, steal everything from them including their children and leave them in true “dire times” for over a century. Does his party have a fix for these and subsequent policies that still deprive them of their rights to have a say on what happens on their land and to share in a meaningful way the prosperity obtained from the resources?