(then Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for ISED, David Lametti, met with SNC Lavalin President Neil Bruce)
(McGill University Law Professor, David Lametti, Who is on leave while he sits as the Attorney General of Canada)
(February 13, 2019, McGill University is “gifted” $200M)
(The $200M gift to McGill came from John McCall MacBain, European Climate Foundation founder, and Chairman of the Board of the Trudeau Foundation).
1. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for previous article on Bill C-74, deferred prosecution agreements, and anti-corruption laws. CLICK HERE, for previous article on who SNC Lavalin is connected to.
CLICK HERE, for David Lametti’s McGill Law Faculty page. CLICK HERE, for the Canadian bar Association’s announcement of David Lametti becoming Attorney General on January 14, 2019. CLICK HERE, for McGill’s $200 million “gift”. CLICK HERE, for David Lametti saying no decision is ever final, and justifying decision to allow SNC-Lavalin access to the DPA. CLICK HERE, for JWR shuffled out as Attorney General. CLICK HERE, for Jody Wilson Raybould resigns from Cabinet.
CLICK HERE, for John McCall MacBain is Chairman of Trudeau Foundation. CLICK HERE, for the McCall MacBain Foundation. CLICK HERE, for the European Climate Foundation. CLICK HERE, for the McCall MacBain $928,000 bribe to Trudeau.
2. Timeline of SNC-Lavalin Events
May 30, 2017, SNC-Lavalin lobbies David Lametti
January 14, 2019, Jody Wilson Raybould removed as Attorney General
January 14, 2019, David Lametti becomes Attorney General
February 9, 2019, Lametti sees nothing wrong with SNC-Lavalin getting the deferred prosecution, to allow it to keep accepting Canadian Government contracts
February 12, 2019, JWR resigns from Cabinet altogether
February 13, 2019, McGill is gifted $200 million
March 3, 2019, Lametti says no decision (SNC implied) is ever final and can always be reviewed
The implication is obvious here. Jody Wilson Raybould wasn’t willing to grant a deferred prosecution agreement to SNC-Lavalin. This would have allowed the company to still be granted Canadian contracts. So she was replaced by someone more “willing”.
Note: See the first link for more information on the DPA, or deferred prosecution agreement. This was created by an amendment to bill C-74.
3. Lametti Whitewashed Interference Scandal
“Interference is perhaps the wrong word in that it implies something illegal is going on,” he said.
Lametti, who became attorney general after Wilson-Raybould was removed from the post six weeks ago, acknowledged in the same interview he had not known when he took over the role and got briefed on the matters facing him that she had already made the decision not to offer a remediation agreement.
Such a deal would have allowed SNC-Lavalin to admit wrongdoing and pay a fine, but avoid the ban on bidding for government contracts that comes with a conviction for the corruption and fraud charges it currently faces.
“You do have an ongoing obligation as attorney general in terms of your relationship to prosecutions and the prosecution service to be open to new facts,” he said. “I can’t speak to the actual facts [of the SNC-Lavalin affair] but I know that in principle, an attorney general has to remain open so, in that sense, no decision is ever final.”
Last Monday, interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose wrote to the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner and to the lobbying commissioner, asking them to investigate Liberal fundraising practices — and in particular, whether people might be using donations to the charitable Trudeau Foundation to gain influence with the government.
“Given that Prime Minister Trudeau is a former member of the Trudeau Foundation,” she wrote, “that his brother Alexandre Trudeau is a current member of the board of directors of the foundation, that the Minister of Industry appoints two directors of the Trudeau Foundation, and that the Foundation has two representatives of the Trudeau family, any efforts by Mr. Trudeau to use his position as Prime Minister to encourage donations may be a violation of the definition of a conflict of interest.”
A National Post analysis of the Trudeau Foundation’s public disclosures has found that gifts to the foundation have increased significantly since Justin Trudeau’s April 2013 election as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. The amount of money contributed to the foundation by foreign donors has grown each year since Trudeau claimed the party’s leadership. Moreover, a significant proportion of the charity’s donors, directors and members have ties to companies and organizations that are actively lobbying the federal government.
Whether or not the foundation violates conflict-of-interest laws, its operations represent another challenge to the high ethical standard Trudeau has established for his government. The Open and Accountable Government guide, codified after Trudeau became prime minister in October 2015, specifies that when fundraising or dealing with lobbyists, “Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries must avoid conflict of interest, the appearance of conflict of interest and situations that have the potential to involve conflicts of interest.”
Would the Trudeau Government try to do an end run around Jody Wilson-Raybould’s refusal to grant SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement? Would replacing her with the more “easily swayed” David Lametti work? Was the “gift” to McGill University 4 days after the announcement really just a form of payment?
It seems on the surface a conspiracy theory. However, given all the things the Trudeau Foundation has been involved with, it’s no much of a stretch.
It wasn’t the Canadian Government that gave McGill University the $200 million. Instead, it was a member of the Trudeau Foundation, who has been illegally lobbying Justin Trudeau.
That hardly makes it better.
Also when searching, out came this little gem here:
This is Philippe Couillard, the former Premier of Quebec. He has some very interesting connections:
Member of Privy Council
Teaching health care governance at McGill University
Long time Liberal
Member of Trudeau Foundation
But hey, it’s probably all unrelated.
6. Not Likely To Be Prosecuted
Bribery of judicial officers, etc.
119 (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years who
(a) being the holder of a judicial office, or being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, directly or indirectly, corruptly accepts, obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for themselves or another person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by them in their official capacity, or
(b) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives or offers to a person mentioned in paragraph (a), or to anyone for the benefit of that person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by that person in their official capacity.
Marginal note: Consent of Attorney General(2) No proceedings against a person who holds a judicial office shall be instituted under this section without the consent in writing of the Attorney General of Canada.
Considering that the sitting Attorney General is a full fledged PARTICIPANT in this corruption, it is extremely unlikely he will agree to a prosecution.
This reeks of corruption, unfortunately, it’s kind of a rigged game.
Theoretically, Lametti could be removed, and a new Attorney General could open up a case. That is also unlikely, since Trudeau would have to do it. Perhaps his successor will.
7. Is This Flat Out Corruption?
Consider the facts:
SNC-Lavalin has at least two lobbyists: (a) Bruce Hartley; and (b) William Pristanski, who have been actively lobbying on SNC’s behalf in order to get a DPA for its criminal activity
David Lametti has previously been lobbied at least once by SNC-Lavalin.
Jody Wilson Raybould opposed allowing SNC-Lavalin access to a DPA (deferred prosecution agreement), as she felt it was inappropriate.
JWR is replaced by David Lametti, a law professor from McGill University, currently on leave.
4 days after announcing that Lavalin will be reconsidered for the DPA, McGill receives a $200M “gift” from John McCall MacBain.
John McCall MacBain sits on the Trudeau Foundation, as does Jacques Bougie (also on the Board of Directors for SNC-Lavalin).
McCall MacBain has also been investigated for illegal donations to Justin Trudeau.
Perhaps I’m missing something, but it looks pretty corrupt to me.
CLICK HERE, for CBC Propaganda #2, Europe Needs Open Borders. CLICK HERE, for CBC Propaganda #8, Border Walls Are Useless.
CLICK HERE, for UN supports migrant caravan invasion into USA. CLICK HERE, for more on US invasion through Mexico. CLICK HERE, for UN page on NGOs. CLICK HERE, for UN Refugee Agency, and NGO/Civil Societies. CLICK HERE, for UN New York Declaration (2016). CLICK HERE, for previous coverage of New York Declaration CLICK HERE, for the UN Global Migration Compact (2018) CLICK HERE, for UN book on people smuggling.
CLICK HERE, for Interpol and human smuggling. CLICK HERE, for UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols Thereto.
At least one organization, Advocates Abroad, is openly committing fraud in trying to get bogus “refugees” into Europe. This is done by concocting convincing stories with specific details in hopes of duping refugee agencies.
Ariel Ricker, the executive director of Advocates Abroad, a major non-profit NGO which provides legal aid to migrants, has been caught on tape openly discussing how she teaches refugees to lie to border agents. The video was released by Canadian right-wing activist, author and internet personality, Lauren Southern, and will be a part of her new documentary film project ‘Borderless,’ which takes on the European migration crisis.
One method she teaches migrants is to exploit the presumed Christian sympathies of the predominantly Eastern Orthodox Greece by pretending to have been persecuted for being Christian. She even describes telling them how to pray during interviews, ironically because doing so reflects “honesty.”
Advocates Abroad claim the video was selectively edited and manipulated to serve a particular agenda.
Interesting that Canada signed the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols Thereto.
The Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, adopted by General Assembly resolution 55/25, entered into force on 28 January 2004. It deals with the growing problem of organized criminal groups who smuggle migrants, often at high risk to the migrants and at great profit for the offenders. A major achievement of the Protocol was that, for the first time in a global international instrument, a definition of smuggling of migrants was developed and agreed upon. The Protocol aims at preventing and combating the smuggling of migrants, as well as promoting cooperation among States parties, while protecting the rights of smuggled migrants and preventing the worst forms of their exploitation which often characterize the smuggling process.
Canada claims to be against human smuggling. Yet we sign treaties (like the New York Declaration and Global Migration Compact), which facilitate human smuggling.
4. Interpol’s Take On Human Smuggling
For centuries, people have left their homes in search of better lives. In the last decade, the process of globalization has caused an unprecedented amount of migration from the least developed countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe to Western Europe, Australia and North America.
With this, we have seen an increase in the activities of organized criminal networks who facilitate irregular migration. By providing fake identification documents, organizing transport, and bypassing official border controls, criminals are making huge profits.
People smuggling syndicates are run like businesses, drawn by the high profit margins and low risks. They benefit from weak legislation and a relatively low risk of detection, prosecution and arrest compared to other activities of transnational organized crime.
Smuggling networks can be extensive and complex, and can include people who carry out a number of different roles:
A report published jointly by Europol and INTERPOL in May 2016 estimates that more than 90% of the migrants coming to the European Union are facilitated, mostly by members of a criminal network.
Worth pointing out: that while Interpol cites the UN’s policies against human smuggling, it neglects to mention that the UN’s policies around “rights” for illegals go a long way towards incentivizing mass illegal immigration.
It also neglects to point out the underhanded means which host countries have these forced on their populations by politicians.
5. Media Pussyfoots Around Illegal Immigration
(From a CBC article)
“Desperate migrants are choosing ever more dangerous sea routes to Europe and using smaller and less seaworthy boats, causing a sharp increase in drowning deaths, warns the International Organization for Migration.”
“Meanwhile in Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is ratcheting up his attacks on the European Union, calling it a “transport agency” for migrants that hands out funds and “anonymous bank cards” to “terrorists and criminals.”
“This is the kind of slippery slope which could again lead to a broken Europe,” Orbán declared today in an interview on Hungarian public radio.
The author of this trash deliberately and repeatedly skirted the main issue here: these hoards of “migrants” trying to get into Europe were doing so ILLEGALLY. Hence places like Hungary have every right to secure their borders.
(From one CBC interview)
“AMT: We all remember the Berlin Wall coming down. In fact it was 30 years ago this year. I’ve got a clip here that I’d like you to hear. These are two Germans talking about what it felt like to stand on top of the Berlin Wall after the crowds started streaming across the border.
AMT: Elisabeth Vallet, how did the fall of that iconic wall affect our ideas around the usefulness or function of walls?
ELISABETH VALLET: Well actually if you remember in 1989 it opened a almost a hippie era of international relations, where we believed that it was the end of borders me. Maybe even the end of state sovereignty or even the fading sovereignty of the state. We believed that peace would be dominating and that conflicts would be solved by the international community. It actually showed the good the positive aspects of globalization. And we overlooked the negative aspects of globalization. And when 9/11 arrived, it’s as if that negative aspect of globalization showed its face. And that’s when the only solution to that, governments came up with the one only solution which was building border fences, because there is no way to retain globalization, to contain globalization.”
In this garbage, the “expert” compares the Berlin Wall to border walls in general. The Berlin wall was built in the 1960s to keep Germans from fleeing, and in fact kept them prisoner. This is conflated with building walls to stop illegal immigration.
The above are just 2 examples of how media outlets (like the CBC) try to shade and distort the truth by downplaying how serious and criminal these actions actually are. They play to emotion and selectively avoid hard truths.
6. UN Openly Aids And Abets Refugee Fraud
(UN supports ongoing efforts to undermine US/Mexico border)
It involves some serious mental gymnastics to explain how the UN can both:
Support mass, uncontrolled entry into other countries
Oppose circumventing laws to get migrants into other countries
San Jose – The UN Migration Agency, IOM, continues to provide support and assistance to migrants who have joined the migrant caravans crossing Central America and opted to seek asylum in Mexico or return to their countries of origin.
In the Siglo XXI Migratory Station of Tapachula, managed by the National Institute for Migration (INM) of Mexico, IOM and the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs (SRE) have been supplying food and basic hygiene kits to over 1,500 migrants from the caravans seeking asylum in Mexico.
“IOM maintains its position that the human rights and basic needs of all migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status,” says Christopher Gascon, IOM Chief of Mission in Mexico. “In coordination with UNHCR we will continue to monitor the situation of the caravan counting on field staff, the Mexican Office of Assistance for Migrants and Refugees (DAPMyR), and partner NGOs, providing information regarding alternatives for regular and safe migration, as well as options for voluntary returns.”
“The caravan phenomenon in Central America is another expression of a migration process that the region has been facing for quite some time,” explains Marcelo Pisani, IOM Regional Director for Central America, North America, and the Caribbean. “It is a mixed migration flow, driven by economic factors, family reunification, violence and the search for international protection, among others.
That’s right. The UN admits that many of these cases are not refugees.
The United Nations willingly aids and abets efforts to overwhelm the US/Mexico border. Even knowing that the bulk of the asylum claims are bogus, the UN sees nothing immoral about perpetrating a fraud. Nor is there anything immoral about the burden dumped on the American public.
What is eerie is how coordinated these “refreshment aid packages” are delivered. Almost as if the UN planned this invasion from the beginning.
7. UN Erasing Borders With New York Declaration (2016) and Global Migration Compact (2018)
The New York Declaration (2016) was covered here previously.
5. We reaffirm the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. We reaffirm also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recall the core international human rights treaties. We reaffirm and will fully protect the human rights of all refugees and migrants, regardless of status; all are rights holders. Our response will demonstrate full respect for international law and international human rights law and, where applicable, international refugee law and international humanitarian law.
49. We commit to strengthening global governance of migration. We therefore warmly support and welcome the agreement to bring the International Organization for Migration, an organization regarded by its Member States as the global lead agency on migration, into a closer legal and working relationship with the United Nations as a related organization. We look forward to the implementation of this agreement, which will assist and protect migrants more comprehensively, help States to address migration issues and promote better coherence between migration and related policy domains.
56. We affirm that children should not be criminalized or subject to punitive measures because of their migration status or that of their parents.
77. We intend to expand the number and range of legal pathways available for refugees to be admitted to or resettled in third countries. In addition to easing the plight of refugees, this has benefits for countries that host large refugee populations and for third countries that receive refugees.
The UN Global Migration Compact (2018) was covered here, and again here. Sorry, but I don’t believe Michelle Rempel’s half-assed “rejection” of the Compact.
OBJECTIVE 5: Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration
21. We commit to adapt options and pathways for regular migration in a manner that facilitates labour mobility and decent work reflecting demographic and labour market realities, optimizes education opportunities, upholds the right to family life, and responds to the needs of migrants in a situation of vulnerability, with a view to expanding and diversifying availability of pathways for safe, orderly and regular migration
OBJECTIVE 11: Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner 27. We commit to manage our national borders in a coordinated manner, promoting bilateral and regional cooperation, ensuring security for States, communities and migrants, and facilitating safe and regular cross-border movements of people while preventing irregular migration. We further commit to implement border management policies that respect national sovereignty, the rule of law, obligations under international law, human rights of all migrants, regardless of their migration status, and are non-discriminatory, gender-responsive and child-sensitive.
OBJECTIVE 13: Use immigration detention only as a measure of last resort and work towards alternatives
29. We commit to ensure that any detention in the context of international migration follows due process, is non-arbitrary, based on law, necessity, proportionality and individual assessments, is carried out by authorized officials, and for the shortest possible period of time, irrespective of whether detention occurs at the moment of entry, in transit, or proceedings of return, and regardless of the type of place where the detention occurs. We further commit to prioritize noncustodial alternatives to detention that are in line with international law, and to take a human rights-based approach to any detention of migrants, using detention as a measure of last resort only.
OBJECTIVE 15: Provide access to basic services for migrants
31. We commit to ensure that all migrants, regardless of their migration status, can exercise their human rights through safe access to basic services. We further commit to strengthen migrant inclusive service delivery systems, notwithstanding that nationals and regular migrants may be entitled to more comprehensive service provision, while ensuring that any differential treatment must be based on law, proportionate, pursue a legitimate aim, in accordance with international human rights law.
OBJECTIVE 17(c) Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internetbased information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media
The United Nations is fully on board with erasing borders with their mass migration policies. The 2016 and 2018 agreements leave no doubt of that.
Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), or Civil Societies, are involved in bringing large numbers of people from the third world over to the first. Some do it out of guilt or conscience, while others do it for money.
Obvious question: Do these NGOs and the UN work together?
8. Many NGOs (Civil Societies) Work With UN
(NGO Branch Department of Economic and Social Affairs of UN)
(The UN “directly” collaborates with NGOs/Civil Societies)
Faced with many complex challenges in recent years, UNHCR has redoubled its efforts to strengthen its partnerships with UN organizations and NGOs, both international and national, seeking to maximise complementarity and sustainability in its work for refugees and others of concern.
Today, UNHCR works with more than 900 funded, operational and advocacy partners to ensure that the rights and needs of populations of concern are met. UNHCR continues to give high priority to its relations with partners, and strives to strengthen strategic and operational collaboration at global, regional and country levels.
The main goal of the organization’s vast network of partnerships is to ensure better outcomes for persons of concern by combining and leveraging complementary resources and working together in a transparent, respectful and mutually beneficial way. These partnerships also underpin UNHCR’s engagement in inter-agency fora and processes, where mutual understanding and strong alliances help ensure that refugees, IDPs and stateless persons are adequately prioritised.
(Page 8) Salt and Stein suggested treating international migration as a global business that has both legitimate and illegitimate sides. The migration business is conceived as a system of institutionalized networks with complex profit and loss accounts, including a set of institutions, agents and individuals each of which stands to make a commercial gain.
The model conceives trafficking and smuggling as an intermediary part of the global migration business facilitating movement of people between origin and destination countries. The model is divided into three stages: the mobilization and recruitment of migrants; their movement en route; and their insertion and integration into labour markets and host societies in destination countries. Salt and Stein conclude their theory by citing the need to look at immigration controls in a new way, placing sharper focus on the institutions and vested interests involved rather than on the migrants themselves.
Aranowitz puts forward a similar view and claims that smuggling could not have grown to such proportions if it were not supported by powerful market forces. Furthermore, Aranowitz argues that smugglers exhibit entrepreneur-like behaviour and circumvent legal requirements through corruption, deceit and threats. They specialize either in smuggling or in trafficking services, and the profit generated varies accordingly.
Interesting. The UN absolutely does recognize the “business” element of human trafficking, and likens it to any other type of business. It is driven by high demand.
However, the elephant in the room must be pointed out. The UN itself helps to drive such demand with its “one world” policies. By arranging accords (like New York or Global Migration Compact), the UN helps create these conditions. If it becomes mandatory that a host country MUST provide basic services, regardless of legal status, then people will flock to those countries. The UN also tries to facilitate housing and other social services at the expense of taxpayers.
To add insult to injury, these accords limit the ability of host Governments to jail illegals, and attempt to shut down legitimate criticism.
About the fake addresses, the video talks about 50 people using the same address (as one example) to claim residency.
The Rebel video makes a great point: If this Ministry can’t be bothered to properly follow up on obvious cases of citizenship fraud, how can Canadians expect them to properly screen and select “refugees” for entry into Canada?
The report shows that several people and possibly dozens managed to be accepted as Canadian citizens through fraud that went undetected, or through lax controls.
The report noted cases of people with serious criminal records who were accepted as citizens. It also found that between 2008 and 2015, 50 different applicants used the same single address on their citizenship applications during overlapping time periods during which time seven of the applicants became Canadian citizens. It took seven years before the scheme was found during an investigation.
The report also noted that in some 49 similar cases where an address anomaly had been detected, citizenship officials failed to follow-up on 18 of the cases to see if the applicants actually met residency requirements.
The report indicated that citizenship officers did not consistently apply their own standards to identify and deal with suspicious immigration documents including checking travel documents against the department’s database of lost, stolen and fraudulent documents.
Disclaimer: political parties lie all the time, so take this with a grain of salt.
The CPC claims it will focus on “UN selected” refugee claimants, while the PPC claims that “Civil Society Groups” should be making the selections instead. However, this omits several important facts:
First, neither party will address the corruption and fraud that goes on both within the UN and with Civil Societies. Finding corruption within the process is a very quick and easy thing to do.
Neither will acknowledge that the vast majority of these “refugees” will likely be Islamic, an ideology which is completely incompatible with Western society. There is this MINOR problem of Muslims trying to take over the world.
This United Nations v.s. Civil Societies is a false distinction, as many Civil Societies work with the UN.
Canadians don’t want, nor were ever asked if they would support hordes of refugees being shipped into Canada.
Trudeau and the Liberals are an easy target for criticism for lack of proper screening. However, PPC and CPC fail to indicate how they would properly screen to protect Canadians.
Another question they won’t address: will these “refugees” be expected to work and contribute at some point, or will they be permanent welfare cases?
However, it would be fair to point out that Stephen Harper, in 2015, suggested focusing on Christians and Yazidis refugees. This would have been a considerable improvement over importing more Islam (and hence more Islamic violence), into Canada.
12. Little Difference In NGO v.s. UN Selection
Just an opinion, but there doesn’t seem to be much of a difference between the 2 ideas.
Considering how many Civil Societies (NGOs) work with the UN, it seems an exercise in futility to try to separate them.
And given the rampant corruption, and total lack of respect for national sovereignty, BOTH seem like very bad options.
CLICK HERE, for SNC-Lavalin homepage. CLICK HERE, for the SNC Board of Directors. CLICK HERE, for Jacques Bougie, who is part of the Trudeau Foundation, and also sits on SNC-Lavalin Board of Directors. CLICK HERE, for Canada’s Infrastructure Banks, and Liberal connections. CLICK HERE, for Kevin Lynch call to Michael Wernick.
CLICK HERE, for a previous piece on Canadian Infrastructure Bank. CLICK HERE, for Canadian Infrastructure Bank Act CLICK HERE, for previous piece on “Deferred Prosecution Agreement”. CLICK HERE, for the Fall 2018 Economic Update (Pgs 37-42) CLICK HERE, for previous Unifor article, and $595 media buyoff. CLICK HERE, for Steering Committee (Social Finance) biographies.
CLICK HERE, for World Bank, list of debarred firms. CLICK HERE, for Act Respecting the Director of Public Prosecutions. CLICK HERE, for Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying in Canada. CLICK HERE, for Bruce Hartley, Liberal donor. CLICK HERE, for Bruce Hartley, Liberal donor. CLICK HERE, for William Pristanski, SNC-Lavalin lobbyist. CLICK HERE, for SNC Lavalin and Libya corruption.
2. Who Are The Board Members Of SNC-Lavalin?
Ian L. Edwards is the interim President and CEO. Prior to joining Lavalin, he worked at Leighton Asia, which had its own corruption scandal.
Kevin Lynch is the Chairman of SNC-Lavalin, but he has also held other interesting roles:
(1) former Clerk of Privy Council;
(2) former Secretary to the Cabinet;
(3) former Deputy Minister of Finance;
(4) former Deputy Minister of Industry;
(5) former Executive Director for Canada at the IMF;
(6) current Vice-Chairman of BMO Financial Group
Jacques Bougie, O.C., is member of Governance & Ethics Committee, with some connections of his own:
(1) Director of CSL Group Inc.;
(2) Director at McCain Foods Limited;
(3) former Board member at RBC;
(4) former Board Member at Bell Canada;
(5) former member of Trilateral Commission;
(6) Member of Trudeau Foundation
Isabelle Courville, Chair of the Human Resources Committee
(1) Chair of the board of directors of the Laurentian Bank of Canada;
(2) President of Bell Canada’s Enterprise segment from 2003 to 2006;
(3) Director of Canadian Pacific Railway Limited;
(4) director of the Institute for Governance of Private and Public Organizations;
(5) former member of APEC Business Advisory Council
Catherine J. Hughes, Member of the Audit Committee
Steven L. Newman, Chair of the Governance and Ethics Committee
(1) non-executive director of Tidewater, Inc.;
(2) Dril-Quip, Inc.;
(3) Rubicon Oilfield International Holdings GP Ltd;
(4) limited partner of Rubicon Oilfield International Holdings
Jean Raby, Member of the Audit Committee
(1) former adviser to the CFO of Nokia;
(2) member of the board of Fiera Capital Corporation;
(3) Co-CEO of Goldman Sachs (France, then Russia);
(4) Chief Financial and Legal Officer of Alcatel-Lucent S.A
Alain Rhéaume, Member of the Audit Committee
(1) Ministry of Finance of the Québec Government, 1974 to 1996;
(2) former public director of the Canadian Public Accountability Board;
(3) former Executive Vice-President of Rogers Wireless
Eric D. Siegel, ICD.D, Member of the Audit Committee
(1) former President and CEO of Export Development Canada (EDC);
(2) Director of Citibank Canada
Zin Smati,, Chair of the Safety, Workplace and Project Risk Committee
Benita M. Warmbold, Chair of the Audit Committee, has been in finance for decades. Here are some of her connections.
(1) Senior VP and COO of CPPIB from 2008 to 2013;
(2) Senior Managing Director and CFO of CPPIB from 2013-2017;
(3) Director at Bank of Nova Scotia;
(4) former CFO for Northwater Capital Management Inc
Kevin Lynch is Vice-Chairman of BMO Financial Group.
Jacques Bougie is a former Board Member at RBC.
Benita M. Warmbold is a former Director at Scotia Bank.
Eric D. Siegel is Director at Citibank Canada.
Isabelle Courville is Chair of BOD at Laurentian Bank.
Jean Raby is former Co-CEO of Goldman Sachs.
Alain Rhéaume is former Executive VP of Rogers.
Jean Raby is former advisor to CFP of Nokia.
Jacques Bougie is a former Director at Bell.
3. Access To Privy Council Via Kevin Lynch
(Kevin Lynch, Chairman of SNC Lavalin, among other roles, was Clerk of the Privy Council. He clearly still has access to the Council. Taken from his BMO profile.)
SNC Lavalin Chairman Kevin G. Lynch, who also serves as Bank of Montreal‘s Vice Chairman, placed a call on October 15th to Michael Wernick, during which he repeatedly threatened the Clerk of the Privy Council of a potential loss of 9,000 Canadian jobs — ominously suggesting that the decision was to be made at a looming board meeting. Lynch feared that his firm could be implicated in the widespread bribery of First Nations officials in British Columbia.
Wernick, who holds a bachelors degree in economics from the University of Toronto, did not apply scrutiny to that assertion, despite his training, before repeating the threat to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and others in the PMO.
Although Lynch had left the Privy Council a decade ago, he clearly still has some clout. A single phone call was enough to get Michael Wernick to attempt to get SNC Lavalin off the hook via the DPA (deferred prosecution agreement). Wernick doesn’t seem to see problem with SNC-L having such easy access to the Privy Council. However, the majority of Canadians do.
4. Jacques Bougie Sits On Trudeau Foundation
(Jacques Bougie, Member of the Governance and Ethics Committee for SNC Lavalin, also is part of the Trudeau Foundation)
Yet another obvious conflict of interest case. A board member of Lavalin also sitting on the board of the Trudeau foundation. Not that these two roles would ever get Goudie to lean on Trudeau for favourable treatment towards Lavalin.
5. Jacques Bougie Also Sits On McCain’s B.O.D.
(Finance Minister Bill Morneau is married to Nancy McCain, heiress to McCain’s Food’s Ltd. Jacques Bougie from SNC-Lavalin “also” sits as a Director for McCain’s.)
6. Bruce Hartley: SNC Lobbyist & Liberal Donor
(Bruce Hartley is a regular Liberal donor, according to Elections Canada.)
(Hartley is also a registered lobbyist for SNC-Lavalin)
Bruce Hartley, now a lobbyist for SNC-Lavalin, has donated 124 times since 2005 to the Liberal Party and its members. But now that he acts as a lobbyist, he certainly won’t get the Liberals (whom he supports financially) to do anything nefarious, would he?
Actually, he did. Hartley, in his capacity as an SNC-Lavalin employee, lobbied the Federal Government to introduce the “Deferred Prosecution Agreement” (or DPA). This DPA would allow companies like Lavalin to avoid a 10 year ban on receiving government contracts if found guilty of criminal activity
That’s right. A long time Liberal supporter gets a job as a lobbyist. He then turns around and uses that position to get the law changed to allow his new employer to get off the hook for what would have been a 10 year ban on Canadian contracts.
And here is another lobbyist, William Pristanski, who also lobbied to get the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) for Lavalin.
Reading through his profile with the Lobbying Commissioner of Canada, it seems Pristanski’s role was basically the same as Hartley’s.
7. SNC Lobbied Current Attorney General David Lametti
(then Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for ISED, David Lametti, met with SNC Lavalin President Neil Bruce)
(McGill University Law Professor, David Lametti, Who is on leave while he sits as the Attorney General of Canada)
(February 13, 2019, McGill University is “gifted” $200M)
(The people who “donated” $200M to McGill University were also caught “donating” almost $1M to Trudeau)
David Lametti is now the Attorney General of Canada, after Jody Wilson-Raybould resigned. Interesting to note that Wilson-Raybould thought that SNC-Lavalin “didn’t” deserve the deferred prosecution. Her successor, Lametti did. Could it be because of Lavalin lobbying him?
Within days of Lametti deciding that SNC-Lavalin was not worth prosecuting, McGill University (where Lametti teaches law), received a $200M “gift” from European Climate Founder McCall MacBain.
Note: Trudeau had also received 2 donations from them.
$500,000 in 2015 as a candidate
$428,000 IN 2016 as sitting Prime Minister
8. Lavalin & Libya Connections
The case against SNC and two of its subsidiaries stems from the company’s dealings in Libya between 2001 and 2011, when a senior executive established close ties with Saadi Gaddafi, son of dictator Muammar Gaddafi.
Court documents allege the company offered bribes worth $47.7 million “to one or several public officials of the ‘Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,’” as Gaddafi called the nation he ruled until he was overthrown and killed in 2011.
SNC and its subsidiaries SNC-Lavalin Construction Inc. and SNC-Lavalin International Inc. are also alleged to have defrauded various Libyan public agencies of approximately $129.8 million.
“Corruption of foreign officials undermines good governance and sustainable economic development,” RCMP Assistant Commissioner Gilles Michaud said Thursday. “The charges laid today demonstrate how the RCMP continues to support Canada’s international commitments and safeguard its integrity and reputation.”
Lavalin denies all the allegations, but interesting to see just how deep this runs. There are also allegations that Canadian taxpayers are on the hook for $30,000 for prostitution services for Saadi Gaddafi. He is the son of former dictator Mummar Gaddafi.
9. Fall 2018 Economic Update Social Finance Fund, A Potential Slush Fund?
While the $595 million media bailout received much attention in the media, far less was paid to the slush fund that was also announced to the Social Finance Program that was also launched.
In June 2017, the Government created a Social Innovation and Social Finance Strategy Co-Creation Steering Group, primarily comprised of experts from the charitable and non-profit sector, to provide recommendations on the development of a social innovation and social finance strategy. The Steering Group delivered its final report, Inclusive innovation: New Ideas and New Partnerships for Stronger Communities, in August 2018. One of the report’s key recommendations was to create a Social Finance Fund to help close the capital financing gap faced by organizations that deliver positive social outcomes, and to help accelerate the growth of the existing social finance market in Canada.
To help charitable, non-profit and other social purpose organizations access new financing, and to help connect them with private investors looking to invest in projects that will drive positive social change, the Government proposes to make available up to $755 million on a cash basis over the next 10 years to establish a Social Finance Fund. Additionally, the Government proposes to invest $50 million over two years in an Investment and Readiness stream, for social purpose organizations to improve their ability to successfully participate in the social finance market. It is expected that a Social Finance Fund like the one the Government is proposing could generate up to $2 billion in economic activity, and help create and maintain as many as 100,000 jobs over the next decade.
Some interesting connections to various speakers: CLICK HERE, for Climate Bonds Initiative. CLICK HERE, for Federation of Canadian Municipalities. CLICK HERE, for the Climate Innovation Program. CLICK HERE, for Farm Lead, a grain lobbyist. CLICK HERE, for the Global Commission on Adaptation. CLICK HERE, for the Asia Foundation, international development. CLICK HERE, for the Climate Group. CLICK HERE, for WISE, World Innovation Summit for Education, which is part of the Qatar Foundation. CLICK HERE, for the World Energy Council. CLICK HERE, for Protein Industries Canada. CLICK HERE, for Donald Weubbles’, Professor of Atmospheric Science.
Note: the above is only a portion of the organizations that speakers represented at the June assembly in Montreal. There are plenty more.
Several of the speakers all have connections to the climate change fraud, and are pushing the “sustainable development agenda”. Of course, this is on top of several sitting politicians.
2. Mission And Background
The Conference of Montreal, presented for the first time in 1995 by the International Economic Forum of the Americas, is committed to heightening knowledge and awareness of the major issues concerning economic globalization, with a particular emphasis on the relations between the Americas and other continents.
The Conference also strives to foster exchanges of information, to promote free discussion on major current economic issues and facilitate meetings between world leaders to encourage international discourse by bringing together Heads of State, the private sector, international organizations and civil society.
This all seems harmless enough. But who exactly are these speakers who will undoubtedly influence sitting Premiers and Cabinet Ministers?
The 2019 Montreal event was held June 10-13. While there were many speakers, let’s look at a few.
3. Climate Bonds Initiative, $100 Trillion Industry
Sean Kidney addressed the forum as one of the speakers. Now, what does his organization do exactly?
Climate Bonds Initiative is an international, investor-focused not-for-profit. We’re the only organisation working solely on mobilising the $100 trillion bond market for climate change solutions.
That’s right. This institution is looking to set up a $100 trillion bond market for the climate change industry.
From their 2nd half of 2018 report, on the bond market released their report. This addressed the “Sustainable Banking Network”.
In 2018, the Climate Bonds Initiative partnered with the Sustainable Banking Network Green Bond Working Group and IFC to develop a mapping of existing guidelines and green bond frameworks in emerging markets. Following a survey, case study interviews and a review of 13 country and regional green bond frameworks, the first ever Green Bond Market Development Toolkit was developed including:
Aligning with international good practices, learning from peers, and developing common approaches are ways that can be taken by SBN members to accelerate local green bond market development. Alignment with other jurisdictions also enables cross-border issuance and investment.
Local market conditions must be accounted for and local market players should be involved in the design of an appropriate national guidance. Countries may choose to adopt either a principle based approach or more stringent regulation. A phased approach may be suitable for many.
Market integrity and credibility are key components of green bond markets. Guidance should therefore include mechanisms for ensuring quality
SBN members have noted the value of harmonising where possible with global definitions of “green”, “social” and “sustainability” bonds and assets. Global definitions and common categories of what qualify as impact projects and sectors will build the credibility of bonds among international investors.
Not going to quote the entire report, but the summary is pretty short (4 pages), and well worth a look.
Worth noting though: what happens when the climate change industry goes under? Will all of those bonds become worthless? Do they grow in value only as long as people keep buying into it?
4. Global Commission On Adaptation
Edward Cameron is an advisor for the Global Commission on Adaptation. He also spoke to the Montreal Forum.
The Global Commission on Adaptation seeks to accelerate adaptation action and support by elevating the political visibility of adaptation and focusing on concrete solutions. The Commission will demonstrate that adaptation is a cornerstone of better development, and can help improve lives, reduce poverty, protect the environment, and enhance resilience around the world. The Commission is led by Ban Ki-moon, 8th Secretary-General of the United Nations, Bill Gates, co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Kristalina Georgieva, CEO, World Bank.
Okay, this Commission is basically an extension of the UN. It’s goal is increasing visibility of climate change agenda, and pushing for it to be increased in political spheres.
Amy Davidson, the Executive Director of the Climate Group, addressing the Montreal panel as well. Their business partners are here, and it surprisingly includes Facebook. Let’s look at the work her group does.
Accelerating climate action.
A world of no more than 1.5°C of global warming and greater prosperity for all.
HOW WE DO IT
-We bring together powerful networks of businesses and governments, which shift global markets and policies, towards this goal.
-We act as a catalyst to take innovation and solutions to scale. And we use the power of communication to build ambition and pace.
-We focus on the greatest global opportunities for change.
Here is an attachment of their press and briefings. To summarize, it is to push the climate change “mitigation and adaptation” on the rest of the world.
6. Global Optimism
Christiana Figueres is a Costa Rican citizen and was the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change from 2010-2016.
During her tenure at the UNFCCC Ms. Figueres brought together national and sub-national governments, corporations and activists, financial institutions and NGOs to jointly deliver the historic Paris Agreement on climate change, in which 195 sovereign nations agreed on a collaborative path forward to limit future global warming to well below 2C. For this achievement Ms. Figueres has been credited with forging a new brand of collaborative diplomacy.
Ms. Figueres is a founding partner of Global Optimism Ltd., a purpose driven enterprise focused on social and environmental change. She is currently the Convenor of Mission 2020, Vice-Chair of the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, World Bank Climate Leader, ACCIONA Board Member, WRI Board Member, Fellow of Conservation International, and Advisory Board member of Formula E, Unilever and ENI.
Okay, yet another organization pushing the climate change (or is it still global warming?) agenda. A secretary for the UN Convention on Climate Change.
7. How Will This Forum End?
To be fair, there are plenty garden variety corporate executives there. But the climate change hoax is being pushed by several speakers to an audience with real power.
Perhaps the most disturbing is the Climate Bonds Initiative. It is downright creepy to be pumping so much money and energy into what is obviously a fraud. Buying bonds or credit doesn’t reduce pollution, though it is a great way to take advantage of guilt ridden people.
The conference ended June 13. How many favours, or “investments” has Canada committed from the events of this gathering?
After all, the Federal Government did buy a pipeline that was stalled indefinitely in court challenges. Buying into these groups, including climate bonds, is not much of a leap.
Note: After talking with Elections Canada, and discussing time limits to file, it seems fair that portions of this get changed. I had some incorrect information last time. Furthermore, it seems wrong to go harder on one side than another.
1. Important Links
CLICK HERE, to search donations to politicians and parties registered with Elections Canada CLICK HERE, for portions of Canada elections act.
This piece focuses on who is behind the decisions.
2. Disclosure Laws
433 (1) If a registered party’s candidates for the most recent general election received at that election at least 2% of the number of valid votes cast, or at least 5% of the number of valid votes cast in the electoral districts in which the registered party endorsed a candidate, the registered party’s chief agent shall, for each quarter — in respect of a fiscal period of the registered party — that follows that general election, beginning with the quarter that immediately follows that general election and ending with the quarter in which polling day at the next general election is held, provide the Chief Electoral Officer with a return that includes the information required under paragraphs 432(2)(a) to (d), (i) and (l).
Period for providing return
(2) A quarterly return shall be provided within 30 days after the end of the period to which it relates.
Period for providing documents
432(5) The documents referred to in subsection (1) shall be provided to the Chief Electoral Officer within six months after the end of the fiscal period.
So there are different regulations depending on how established the party is.
Elections Canada currently provides access to quarterly reports for 5 parties: CPC, LPC, NDP, GRN, and BQ.
3. Current Fundraising Information?
Search the Conservative Party of Canada for donations from January 1, 2019 to July 4, 2019 on Elections Canada registry. You will get 12,629 individual donations.
Similarly, check the Liberal Party of Canada, and you will see 13,127 contributions for that same 6 month period.
The New Democratic Party lists 3096 individual donations in those same 6 months.
The Green Party of Canada lists 983 individual donations in the same 6 months (January to July 2019)
The People’s Party of Canada has no registered donations at all.
However, the People’s Party of Canada, despite being registered since January 2019, and boasting of enormous fundraising within hours of being able to issue tax receipts. If it can actually get the 2% threshold in the next election, quarterly reports will be required from then on.
In fairness, there are different standards for smaller parties than big ones. Parties who have actually participated with some electoral success are subjected to shorter reporting times.
4. Conservative Party Fundraising
Worth a note that Canada’s most influential family is known to contribute the Conservative Party. The above are just a few of the donations.
Arthur Porter has been a regular contributor to the Conservative Party. However, his controversial appointment to the SIRC quite understandably made headlines.
These are from Frank Gustra, a partner of the American “charity”, the Clinton Foundation. Gustra has many questionable ties to the Clintons.
The 2019 1st quarter report cites 8,010,860.61 in total revenue from 50,026 donors. Approximately $160/donation, although a lot of the names come up. However, there are a number of incidents which make the fundraising seem dodgy.
Conservative scandals: CLICK HERE, for Senators Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, and Patrick Brazeau suspended over their own illegal spending. (Not fundraising, but still disgusting) CLICK HERE, for Dean Del Mastro, criminally charged over Elections Act breaches. CLICK HERE for Doug Ford’s $1250/plate cash-for-access got attention. CLICK HERE for Andrew Scheer’s cash-for-access. CLICK HERE, for Scheer’s hypocrisy on cash-for-access. CLICK HERE, for the allegedly rigged Conservative nomination in 2017.
5. Liberal Party Fundraising
France Chretien Desmarais, daughter of Jean Chretien, has been known to donate to the LPC. Also worth noting that both Trudeau Jr. and Sr., and Paul Martin all have connections to the Desmarais family.
Paul Bronfman, who has suspected ties to the Liberal Party, is also a regular donor.
In the first quarter of 2019, the Liberals took in $3,857,163.00 from 33,321 donors, or an average of $116/donation. But like the Conservatives, there are plenty of corrupt incidents with the Liberals. Here are just a few.
Some Liberal Scandals: CLICK HERE for Trudeau’s cash for access scandal. CLICK HERE, for Joe Volpe taking donations from dead people. CLICK HERE, for Trudeau not fixing cash-for-access CLICK HERE, for Kathleen Wynne refusing to ban cash-for-access. CLICK HERE, for Trudeau getting an illegal vacation form Aga Khan. CLICK HERE, for illegal corporate donations to Liberals. CLICK HERE, for Trudeau charging charities $10-$20K per speech. CLICK HERE, collusion between Ontario Liberals and teachers’ union.
And there’s this, which is arguably vote rigging. CLICK HERE, on Bill C-76. Among other things it is supposed to stop interference by preventing foreign media from influencing Canadians. It also makes it easier for foreigners to vote in Canadian elections by dropping photo ID requirements.
6. NDP, Green Fundraising
In the first quarter of 2019, the NDP took in 1,226,869 from 13,713 donors, or an average of $90/donation
While there seems to be significantly less corruption in the NDP than the CPC or LPC, it is not without problems. CLICK HERE, for illegal union donations.
In the first quarter of 2019, the Greens took in 783,278 from 9,786 people, or $80/donation
Smaller parties, such as those receiving less than 2% in a general election, are required to file annual reports, which is much less of a burden than quarterly.
7. People’s Party Fundraising
Although it is denied that Bernier’s former employers are involved in the start-up of the new party, there are some interesting connections worth pointing out.
CLICK HERE, for the Institute of Humane Studies, which Charles Koch sits on the Board of Directors. CLICK HERE, for Michel Kelly Gagnon studies at Institute for Humane Studies. CLICK HERE, for CPC’s patronage appointment of Michel Kelly-Gagnon, a former co-worker of Maxime Bernier at MEI.
(Charles Koch Foundation. It sponsors many things, including economic freedom and liberalized/free trade globally)
(The Atlas Network, which has 13 partners across Canada)
(6 of Atlas’ partners, which includes Fraser Institute, and Canadian Taxpayers Federation)
(6 other Atlas partners, including Montreal Economic Institute. The 13th partner is World Taxpayer’s Federation)
(Helene Desmarais is Chairwoman of the Montreal Economic Institute. Her husband is Paul Desmarais Jr., co-owner of Power Corp)
(From Maxime Bernier’s Profile Page, MEI Executive VP)
(Helene Desmarais donates to Bernier’s 2008 re-election, and to his 2017 race for CPC leadership)
(PPC Spokesman Martin Masse also worked for MEI)
(Board of Directors For Institute For Humane Societies)
(Source: Atlas. MEI patronage appointment by new Industry Minister)
The connections to Atlas and Koch are there, at least from his time immediately prior to politics. It will be interesting to see what those donation reports look like. It is also worth asking whose policies are promoted.
8. Who Is Behind Them?
It is difficult not to be jaded in this political system.
There are donation limits, and those limits theoretically keep the game clean. However, there is an untold amount of cronyism, nepotism, and cash-for-access that thoroughly corrupts politics.
Why obsess over election contributions? Quite simply, I want to see which “public figures” are bought and paid for, and by whom. Checking out their financials is a much better representation (in my opinion) than their actual platform and promises.
(Former Manitoba Premier Gary Doer replaces former Saskatchewan Premier Roy Romanow on Air Canada Board of Directors)
(Trilateral Commission: Doer and Andre Desmarais have seats)
(Emőke J.E. Szathmáry is on Power Corp B.O.D.)
(Emőke J.E. Szathmáry is a director on: the International Institute for Sustainable Development, the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, the Prime Minister’s Advisory Committee on Science and Technology)
1. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for Part 1: Desmarais, Power Corp, Bombardier & Loblaws.
CLICK HERE, for the Power Corp Board of Directors CLICK HERE, for Roy Romanow, former Saskatchewan Premier, joining Air Canada Board of Directors in 2010. CLICK HERE, for the Trilateral Commission, which Gary Doer and Andre Desmarais both sit on. CLICK HERE, for Air Canada placing Bombardier order. CLICK HERE, for Bombardier thanking Canadian taxpayers for bailout, by laying off 7,000 of its staff. CLICK HERE, for 2003 bankruptcy protection for Air Canada. CLICK HERE, for 2009 Air Canada bailout. CLICK HERE, for 2013 Air Canada bailout.
CLICK HERE, for the International Institute for Sustainable Development, which wholeheartedly endorses Agenda 2030. CLICK HERE, for the Trudeau Foundation. CLICK HERE, for the Trudeau Foundation B.O.D.
2. From Last Time
Pierre Beaudoin is the Chairman of Bombardier. He also sits on the Board of Directors for Power Corp. Explains how Bombardier was able to keep securing bailouts.
Anthony Graham is Vice Chairman, and a director of Whittington Investments, which owns Weston-Loblaws. Could be how Loblaws secured a $12 million subsidy for its new fridges.
3 former NDP Premiers: Roy Romanow (Saskatchewan); Gary Doer (Manitoba); and Bob Rae (Ontario) all have connections to Power Corp and/or Air Canada. Interesting.
Just for good measure, here is former Deputy Prime Minister and former Quebec Premier Jean Charest.
In 2016 Air Canada placed an order for 45 CS-300 airliners, with an option to buy another 30. Quotes from the article:
Air Canada announced Wednesday that it would order 45 CS-300 airliners with an option for another 30 jets.
“We are delighted to announce this important agreement with Bombardier for the purchase of CS-300 aircraft as part of the ongoing modernization of Air Canada’s narrowbody fleet,” Air Canada president and CEO Calin Rovinescu said in a statement.
The 45-plane order is worth as much as $3.7 billion. The option for 30 additional CS-300 aircraft could add as much as $2.5 billion to the deal.
Gary Doer and Pierre Beaudoin sit on the Board of Directors for Power Corp, owned by the Demarais family. Doer sits on the B.O.D. for Air Canada as well, and Beaudoin is the Chairman of Bombardier. Almost like this deal was pre-arranged.
In fairness, this announcement came in 2016, prior to Doer joining Air Canada’s Board of Directors. Still, one has to wonder about all the connections. Doer did just replace Romanow on Air Canada’s B.O.D.
Having people sit on executive boards for multiple companies creates a significant conflict of interest. It also creates an atmosphere where crony capitalism and corruption can thrive. Who loses? Customers and taxpayers.
Like Bombardier, Air Canada has had several bailouts over the years. And all of this costs the public heavily. See the links in Section 1 above for more details.
If only there was some common link between Air Canada, Bombardier, and Loblaws. No, there couldn’t possibly be.
4. Power Corp & Agenda 2030
Emőke J.E. Szathmáry also sits on the Board of Directors for Power Corp. And if we scroll down on her biography, we get some interesting insight on the woman.
She is on a number of other boards. Some open call for acting in support of Agenda 2030, global sustainability.
The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) is an independent think tank championing sustainable solutions to 21st century problems. Our mission is to promote human development and environmental sustainability.
Our big-picture view allows us to address the root causes of some of the greatest challenges facing our planet today—ecological destruction, social exclusion, unfair laws and economic rules, a changing climate. Through research, analysis and knowledge sharing, we identify and champion sustainable solutions that make a difference. We report on international negotiations, conduct rigorous research, and engage citizens, businesses and policy-makers on the shared goal of developing sustainably.
Interestingly, the IISD implies that the leaders of G20 nations know that “climate change” is a hoax. Despite pledges to phase out subsidies to coal energy, they have actually increased.
Geneva, June 25, 2019 – G20 governments have more than doubled the amount of financial support they provide to coal power plants in just three years, despite pledging a decade ago to phase out subsidies to all fossil fuels and help prevent catastrophic climate change.
In a new report, ‘G20 coal subsidies: Tracking government support to a fading industry’, researchers found that despite a historic fall in total investment in coal, the average annual amount G20 governments spent to help build and sustain coal-fired power plants increased from $17 billion to $47 billion between 2014 and 2017.
The links are articles are too numerous to go through here, but they are worth at least skimming. This entire organization is devoted to advancing Agenda 2030.
5. Power Corp & Trudeau Foundation
Edward Johnson is both Vice-Chair of the Board of the Trudeau Foundation, and formerly Vice President and General Counsel for Power Corp.
Oliver Desmarais is Senior Vice President for Power Corp. That is no surprise. But the interesting detail is where he did his articling (apprenticeship) in law. The firm Heenan Blaikie — which went under in 2014 — is the same firm both Jean Chretien and Pierre Trudeau worked at.
Note: Bruce McNiven, who is a Director at the Trudeau Foundation, also worked at Heenan Blaikie.
Megan Leslie, is a former Deputy Opposition leader in the House of Commons (NDP). While being a Director for the Trudeau Foundation, she is also a Senior Consultant on Oceans Governance for WWF-Canada. This is the same organization Gerald Butts works for.
Bessma Momani is another Director of the Trudeau Foundation. She covers Arab-Canadians and “trans-nationalism” issues. Didn’t Justin refer to Canada as a “post-national state”?
Marc Renaud is yet another Trudeau Foundation Director with a very interesting side gig. He has served as an advisor for UNESCO, the OECD, the European Union. The EU wants to stamp out individual nations in Europe, and UNESCO is the UN Global Citizens nonsense, which pushes the gender agenda.
Worth a mention Alexandre Trudeau, Justin’s jihad sympathizing brother, is named as a founding member.
One more who needs a shoutout is ex-Saskatchewan Premier Roy Romanow. Yes that same Roy Romanow who was a director for Air Canada. Likewise, former Governor David Johnson sits as a Director.
The Trudeau Foundation cites 4 important areas:
human rights and dignity,
Canada and the world, and
people and their natural environment
So, What Does Trudeau Foundation Do?
The Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation supports research and engagement in the humanities and social sciences, and fosters a fruitful dialogue between scholars and decision makers in the arts community, business, government, and civil society organizations. The Foundation:
Encourages emerging talent by awarding scholarships to the most talented doctoral students in Canada and abroad;
Entrusts fellows and mentors distinguished for their knowledge and wisdom with the mission to build an intellectual community to support the work of the scholars; and
Creates and maintains an international network of fellows, scholars, and mentors
CLICK HERE, for a listing of Chapter 11 cases against Canada. CLICK HERE, for NAFTA cases in the US. CLICK HERE, for a search engine to track jobs lost due to NAFTA.
CLICK HERE, for a study form the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) in Washington, DC, Estimated 879,000 jobs lost in US due to NAFTA. CLICK HERE, for EPI study: jobs and trade lost to Mexico. CLICK HERE, for a 2013 EPI study on impacts of NAFTA. CLICK HERE, for EPI study on US trade deficits. CLICK HERE, for EPI study, 3.4M US jobs lost to China (2001-2017).
CLICK HERE, for an article from the Council on Foreign Relations, on the 2018 NAFTA update. CLICK HERE, for 1992 Presidential debate on trade. CLICK HERE, for a politicalresearch.org article on NAFTA and illegal immigration.
2. Lawsuits Against Canada, Chapter 11
$0, fees unpaid
Detroit Int’l Bridge
Dow Agro Sciences
Ely Lily and Co.
Merrill & Ring
Mesa Power Group
Mobil Inv. & Murphy Oil
Pope & Talbot
St. Mary’s VNCA
$0, no standing
United Parcel Services
For these “finished” claims, Canada has had to pay out $709 million, plus a substantial amount in paying its own lawyers. Also, consider the following:
-DowAgro sale, under the terms of the settlement, is still allowed to use its pesticide in Canada.
-Ethyl Corp still allowed to use MMT additive.
Lost, awaiting damages
Lone Pine Resources
Resolute Forest Products
Tennant Energy Ltd
Potentially another $896 million
To summarize, Canada has already paid out $709 million in various actions under Chapter 11 of NAFTA (plus the settlement from Ethyl Corp), and may be on the hook for $896 million more. And this doesn’t take legal fees and other court costs into account.
3. Job Losses Resulting From NAFTA
Research has been done on the effects of NAFTA. This released 2003 study, estimates that 879,000 jobs have been lost in the US as a direct result of NAFTA over a decade.
The conclusions were also troubling:
Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993, the rise in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico through 2002 caused the displacement of production that supported 879,280 U.S. jobs. NAFTA is a free trade and investment agreement that provided investors with a unique set of guarantees designed to stimulate foreign direct investment in Mexico and Canada. It has facilitated the movement of factories from the United States to Canada and Mexico. Most of these jobs were high-wage positions in manufacturing industries.
Proponents of new trade agreements that build on NAFTA, such as the proposed Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), have frequently claimed that such deals create jobs and raise incomes in the United States. These claims are based only on the positive effects of exports (known as “export effects”), ignoring the negative effects of imports (known as “import effects”). Such arguments are an attempt to hide the costs of new trade deals in order to boost the reported benefits.
The problem with these claims is that they misrepresent the real effects of trade on the U.S. economy: trade both creates and destroys jobs. Increases in U.S. exports tend to create jobs in this country, but increases in imports tend to reduce jobs by displacing goods that otherwise would have been made in the United States by domestic workers. Ignoring imports and counting only exports is like balancing a checkbook by counting only deposits but not withdrawals.
This is blunt and truthful. It is high paying jobs mainly in manufacturing that have been exported in the name of “free trade”, and has harmed the US workforce.
Now, here, is another study, released in 2011, dealing specifically with Mexico and NAFTA.
As of 2010, U.S. trade deficits with Mexico totaling $97.2 billion had displaced 682,900 U.S. jobs. Of those jobs, 116,400 are likely economy-wide job losses because they were displaced between 2007 and 2010, when the U.S. labor market was severely depressed.
There is a cost to these free trade agreements. Jobs are lost domestically when it becomes cheaper to ship them to another country. Often it is manufacturing, one of the better paid jobs, where higher education isn’t needed.
Abstract promises about increased jobs and exports misrepresent the real overall effects of trade on the U.S. economy. Trade both creates and destroys jobs. While exports tend to support domestic employment, imports lead to job displacement: As imports are substituted for domestically produced goods, production that supports domestic jobs falls, displacing existing jobs and preventing new job creation.
Simply out, there are winners and losers in trade deals. Countries win if they export more than they import, and vice versa. While some trade surplus or deficit is inevitable, it is sustained deficits that drain wealth from the country and put people out of work.
While Canada or Mexico may sit smugly and know that they benefit from the trade deal with the US, this must be considered. With ever proposed expansion of free trade and liberalized trade, there is nothing to stop jobs from Canada and/or Mexico from being exported elsewhere.
For example, the US lost 3.4 million jobs to China since 2001. Canada could end up in that situation one day.
4. Free Trade Drives Down Wages
Ross Perot ran for President in 1992. He faced the incumbent, George H.W. Bush (Republican), and Bill Clinton (Democrat). While he came in third, Perot drove home this hard truth about free trade: it drives down wages. It forces Americans to compete for third world wages.
To those of you in the audience who are business people, pretty simple: If you’re paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory South of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor, hire young — let’s assume you’ve been in business for a long time and you’ve got a mature work force — pay a dollar an hour for your labor, have no health care — that’s the most expensive single element in making a car — have no environmental controls, no pollution controls and no retirement, and you don’t care about anything but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south.
“Why won’t everybody go South?” They say, “It’d be disruptive.” I said, “For how long?” I finally got them up from 12 to 15 years. And I said, “well, how does it stop being disruptive?” And that is when their jobs come up from a dollar an hour to six dollars an hour, and ours go down to six dollars an hour, and then it’s leveled again. But in the meantime, you’ve wrecked the country with these kinds of deals. We’ve got to cut it out.
Perot is completely right here. It will raise the wages in Mexico, while driving down American wages. And to reiterate, Canadians should not think they are immune from this sort of practice.
Debate persists regarding NAFTA’s legacy on employment and wages, with some workers and industries facing painful disruptions as they lose market share due to increased competition, and others gaining from the new market opportunities that were created.
But it is the common worker with a family to provide for who will really feel the pinch. It is cold comfort to be out work and be told “well, it raises trade and GDP”.
5. NAFTA Causes Carnage To Middle Class
Yet another EPI article. This one sums up the problems of NAFTA in very blunt terms.
Pushes wages down
Destruction of farms and small businesses
Sets standards for globalization
The article is directly on point.
NAFTA affected U.S. workers in four principal ways. First, it caused the loss of some 700,000 jobs as production moved to Mexico. Most of these losses came in California, Texas, Michigan, and other states where manufacturing is concentrated. To be sure, there were some job gains along the border in service and retail sectors resulting from increased trucking activity, but these gains are small in relation to the loses, and are in lower paying occupations. The vast majority of workers who lost jobs from NAFTA suffered a permanent loss of income.
Second, NAFTA strengthened the ability of U.S. employers to force workers to accept lower wages and benefits. As soon as NAFTA became law, corporate managers began telling their workers that their companies intended to move to Mexico unless the workers lowered the cost of their labor. In the midst of collective bargaining negotiations with unions, some companies would even start loading machinery into trucks that they said were bound for Mexico. The same threats were used to fight union organizing efforts. The message was: “If you vote in a union, we will move south of the border.” With NAFTA, corporations also could more easily blackmail local governments into giving them tax reductions and other subsidies.
Third, the destructive effect of NAFTA on the Mexican agricultural and small business sectors dislocated several million Mexican workers and their families, and was a major cause in the dramatic increase in undocumented workers flowing into the U.S. labor market. This put further downward pressure on U.S. wages, especially in the already lower paying market for less skilled labor.
Fourth, and ultimately most important, NAFTA was the template for rules of the emerging global economy, in which the benefits would flow to capital and the costs to labor. The U.S. governing class—in alliance with the financial elites of its trading partners—applied NAFTA’s principles to the World Trade Organization, to the policies of the World Bank and IMF, and to the deal under which employers of China’s huge supply of low-wage workers were allowed access to U.S. markets in exchange for allowing American multinational corporations the right to invest there.
Who actually benefits from NAFTA, or similar types of deals? Not the workers, who are now forced to compete for third world wages. Not communities, who see major employers pack up and leave for better opportunities.
6. NAFTA Makes Illegal Immigration Problem Worse
NAFTA, however, did not lead to rising incomes and employment in Mexico, and did not decrease the flow of migrants. Instead, it became a source of pressure on Mexicans to migrate. The treaty forced corn grown by Mexican farmers without subsidies to compete in Mexico’s own market with corn from huge U.S. producers, who had been subsidized by the U.S. Agricultural exports to Mexico more than doubled during the NAFTA years, from $4.6 to $9.8 billion annually. Corn imports rose from 2,014,000 to 10,330,000 tons from 1992 to 2008. Mexico imported 30,000 tons of pork in 1995, the year NAFTA took effect. By 2010, pork imports, almost all from the U.S., had grown over 25 times, to 811,000 tons. As a result, pork prices received by Mexican producers dropped 56%
When nations are reduced to “economic zones”, it forces workers to compete against those in other nations for the same piece of the pie. If jobs are eliminated on a massive scale, then the pressure is on to find work. For many Mexicans, it has meant going to the US, often illegally.
Note: this not to condone illegal immigration. However, it becomes more understandable when factors like these are considered.
The “surplus labour” sure helps large employers, and further helps to drive down wages, which of course is the entire point.
7. NAFTA Makes US Trade Deficit Worse
Here is a 2003 study on the trade deficit the US has experienced due to NAFTA.
As mentioned earlier, it is true Canada currently benefits from the US trade deficit. But as free trade expands, Canada (and other nations) could easily find themselves in the same dilemma as the US.
Sustained trade deficits bleed money from a nation.
8. NAFTA Can Override Environmental Protections
Think this is crazy? Consider some of the court action Canada has faced
CLICK HERE, for Ethyl Corp wanting $201M over MMT additive ban. CLICK HERE, for SD Myers wants $53M for PCB ban. CLICK HERE, for Pope & Talbot’s $500M softwood lumber suit. CLICK HERE, for Sun Belt wanting $1.5B-$10B for lost water rights.
9. Is NAFTA Worth The Price?
Yes, it has led to economic growth and more trade. That much is indisputable. But it isn’t fair to omit some of the real costs to engaging in these free trade deals, such as TPP, or FTAA.
CLICK HERE, for the case R. v. Morris,  O.J. No. 4631. CLICK HERE, for the Canadian Criminal Code, robbery section. CLICK HERE, for the Canadian Criminal Code, firearms section. CLICK HERE, for a National Post article covering a case where an Ontario criminal court judge wants to expand “Gladue” to include blacks. CLICK HERE, for a similar article. CLICK HERE, for a University of Toronto research paper on race, crime and incarceration.
CLICK HERE, for race-based discounts in criminal court. CLICK HERE, for child-killer Terri McClintic going to a “healing lodge”. CLICK HERE, for incarceration rates among Aboriginals.
2. Quotes From Ruling
In a way this is not surprising at all. The 1997/1999 Gladue rulings created essentially a “discount” for Aboriginal offenders specifically on the basis of “historical oppression”.
Now, there is a case that is pending before the Ontario Court of Appeals, which could see the same provisions apply to blacks as well. This is a (potential) expansion of a horrible idea: race-based-discounts in the criminal justice system.
People should be outraged by this. Your crime, seriousness, and past (if any) criminal record should impact your sentence. Not your race, ethnicity, or skin colour. It is the anti-thesis of equality under the law.
 A jury found you guilty of a number of offences. I convicted you of possession of an unauthorized firearm, possession of a prohibited firearm with ammunition, and carrying a concealed weapon. The jury acquitted you of assaulting a peace officer with intent to resist arrest.
 The basic facts of your crime are straightforward. On December 13, 2014, the police received a call about a home invasion in Scarborough. As the police officers sent to investigate drove to the scene, they came upon four Black males walking in the parking lot. The officers were in plainclothes and drove unmarked police cars. One officer stopped the young men. You were one of them. You ran. As you ran, D.C. Moorcroft, who was not the officer who stopped you but was also driving into the lot, accelerated to stop you.
Police were responding to a home invasion. When they arrived, there just happened to be 4 black men in the area, and the defendant took off.
Of course, it is just a coincidence that he had a gun on him. Now it is apparently a charter violation that a police car was used to stop him.
 I must now sentence you for your offences. Let me go over what the Crown and your defence lawyers said should be the sentence. These positions were pretty far apart. The Crown asked for 4 to 4.5 years in jail. Your lawyers argued that the sentence should be 1 year before credit was given for the Charter breaches.
There is something here we are not being told. The Crown (supposedly) wants 4 to 4.5 years for gun possession for a first time offender? What else went on that is not included?
 Let me briefly explain to you what I did in Jackson. I began my judgment in that case by saying sentencing is a very individual process. The criminal law has recognized that there are cases where, in order to determine a fit and proportionate sentence, consideration must be given to an individual’s systemic and social circumstances. These circumstances may extend beyond a person who is being sentenced to include factors such a systemic discrimination and historical injustice. This has been recognized by the criminal courts, particularly in the case of Indigenous offenders. While the distinct history of colonial violence endured by Indigenous peoples cannot simply be analogized to Black Canadians, I found that the ability to consider social context in a sentencing decision is extended to all under section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code. This allowed me to consider the unique social history of Black Canadians in sentencing Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson was a Black male offender not too much older than you, who pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of a prohibited gun. His lawyers presented a great deal of evidence to me on systemic anti-Black racism and its role in Mr. Jackson’s life. I took note of this evidence. I also took judicial notice, independently of these materials, of the history of colonialism, slavery, policies and practices of segregation, intergenerational trauma, and both overt and systemic racism that continue to affect Black Canadians today. With an understanding of these social factors I was able to better appreciate the circumstances that led Mr. Jackson to come before me. I sentenced him accordingly.
Gladue was horrible for exactly this reason. Instead of holding people accountable to as similar a standard as possible, some get to play the “oppression card” and get much lighter sentences. It stands the idea of equality before the law completely on its head.
The ruling would then go on to quote some social worker at length about the struggles that blacks face, and how its circumstances must be considered.
 Giving your acts a contextual analysis in light of the wealth of evidence provided to me on this sentencing, I do not find this to be a weighty aggravating factor in your case. I appreciate that accused people should not flee from police. Especially carrying a loaded firearm. But it is understandable to me that you ran. It was not a coldly calculated act to escape but one based upon emotion and a state of mind that has been shaped both generally and specifically by the historical racism suffered by Blacks and by you. In other words, not every flight from the police should be treated the same. Here there is a connection in the evidence between your act of flight and the systemic factors. I find it would be wrong to punish you more severely for this. When I view how anti-Black racism and historical injustices have contributed to your actions, the needs of general deterrence and denunciation normally raised by this act of flight is tempered. Given that the choice you made to do so was affected by these factors, the moral blameworthiness of your actions is also lessened.
 In addition, in assessing the seriousness of the offences, when I look at potential aggravating factors that often exist in the case law, here, there is no evidence that your possession of the gun is connected with other crimes such as crimes of violence or drug trafficking.
 There are also some very traditional mitigating factors. You are a first offender. You were young when you committed these crimes. You were 22 years old. You have supportive family and friends. There is a side of you that speaks well to your rehabilitation. I have mentioned them before. Your warmth, kindness, and respectfulness.
Being a young, first time offender is a legitimate reason to cut someone a break. No argument on that point.
But that is where the agreement ends. All this nonsense about historical racism and systemic factors (repeated throughout the ruling), was nauseating to read.
 Sentencing must always be an individual process. In these cases judges gave sentences of 1 year, 15 months, 18 months, just under 2 years. Some of these sentences were permitted to be served in the community rather than in jail. The cases are: R. v. Ishmael, 2014 ONCJ 136; R. v. Garton, 2018 ONSC 544; R. v. Rutledge, 2015 ONSC 6625; R. v. Shunmuganathan, 2016 ONCJ 519;
R. v. Nuttley, 2013 ONCJ 727;
R. v. Kelsy,  O.J. No. 3879;
R. v. Cadienhead,  O.J. No. 3125;
R. v. Williams,  O.J. No. 3352 (S.C.J.);
R. v. Brown,  O.J. No. 4681 (S.C.J.);
R. v. Carranza,  O.J. No. 6041 (S.C.J.)
Fair enough. The Judge was looking for a little consistency.
82 Now I want to talk about that elephant in the room. I know you are in custody on other charges. What those charges are were not explained to me by either the Crown or your lawyers. However, I do know from some of the materials filed what the charges are said to be. Of course, there is a charge of breaching your bail. There are also some other offences. But they are not gun offences. Your surety surrendered your bail so you are in custody on the charges I am sentencing you for. To someone hearing this, I am sure they will say you have not behaved well while on bail. They may be right. But you are presumed innocent of these alleged new offences. I am sentencing you as a first offender. Someone without a criminal record. The new charges do not change that. The presumption of innocence is the foundation of our criminal justice system. While it may be hard for many to understand, I cannot let that foundation be eroded or chipped away by taking into account the new charges.
So, “first-timer” comes with a few caveats: Morris breached his bail, and is facing additional charges. However, the Judge has decided to ignore this in sentencing him as a first-timer.
It would be nice to know how exactly bail was breached, and what exactly the other charges are. But they are not mentioned.
 I also find that the anti-Black racism evidence presented on the sentencing is relevant in assessing the weight I should give this. Racism can operate very subtly. It can be there lurking in the background of people’s minds, unconsciously influencing their judgment and making them act in certain ways towards certain people.
 I want to be clear that I am not painting the police with the brush of overt racism in this case. I do not have the evidence to support that. But I am troubled. If I asked myself: If it was someone other than a young Black man running away from the police that night, would D.C. Moorcroft have driven in the aggressive way that he did? Would Mr. Morris and the car have collided? I am troubled because in all honesty, I cannot conclude it would have happened in the same way.
So, racism happens, but I have no evidence that there was any in this case. Therefore, I will still bring it up as a mitigating factor.
This Judge talks in circles about how there is all this systemic racism, and how it can be very subtle. Yet he notes that there is no proof that there was racism in this case. So what is the point then?
 After mitigation for the Charter violations, I have sentenced you to a jail sentence of 12 months. You have done a lot of dead time. The sentence will be based upon the credit you will receive for that dead time. I will credit you 1.5 to 1 for that pre-trial custody. The evidence shows that you received no real programming, had a difficult time in jail, and at times experienced physical discomfort in jail due to your medical conditions. You also did not receive consideration for parole or remission while in pre-trial custody. I find it right to give this enhanced credit. Therefore, 243 days of pre-trial custody will be used up. You will be sentenced to a further 1 day in jail on each charge concurrently. I also made a DNA order, s. 109 weapons prohibition, and the forfeiture order.
So not even a year. Just 8 months.
3. University of Toronto Article On Race & Crime
Although not specific to this case, this article by Akwasi Owusu-Bempah is an interesting read. If nothing else, it shows the extent that this academic will go to avoid the obvious conclusion:
SOME GROUPS JUST COMMIT MORE CRIME
Yes, that’s it. Groups are not equal when it comes to committing crime. That is the hard truth that lawyers, judges, politicians, academics and social workers refuse to address.
On the topic of “disparity”, it’s worth noting that males make up over 90% of prison inmates. However, there is no push claiming discrimination against them. Oh, the double standards.
Instead, he will talk in circles. Owusu-Bempah will blame mistrust, victimization in black and Aboriginal neighbourhoods, racial bias (without proving it), and Court discrimination (again, without proving it). Although the author touches the topic of crime rates, he avoids making any definitive statements. It’s like he is deliberately avoiding the obvious answer.
Abstract and Keywords Canada effectively bans systematic collection and dissemination of racially disaggregated criminal justice statistics. A significant proportion of Canada’s racial minority populations perceive bias in the criminal justice system, especially on the part of police. Aboriginal and black Canadians are grossly overrepresented in Canada’s correctional institutions. Some evidence suggests that both Aboriginal and black populations are overrepresented with respect to violent offending and victimization. Social conditions in which Aboriginal and black Canadians live are at least partially to blame for their possibly elevated rates of violent offending. Evidence indicates that racial bias exists in the administration of Canadian criminal justice. At times, this discrimination has been supported by court decisions. Discrimination and disparity are at times acknowledged by government, but they are seldom wholeheartedly addressed. There is a lack of political will to address issues of racial minority overrepresentation in relation to manifestations of racial discrimination or to the societal conditions that lead to criminal offending.
Oh, the mental gymnastics of the author are blatant:
Minorities “perceive” bias against them
There is overrepresentation
Bias in administration
Government acknowledges disparity
No political will to address overrepresentation
Societal conditions lead to offending
The author mentions overrepresentation regarding offending, but immediately lumps it in with “victimization”, as if to muddy the waters
Lack of available objective data, yet we are able to make conclusions based on much more subjective things, such as perceived bias
Right, not elevated rates, but “possibly” elevated rates
Connections among race, crime, and criminal justice are often portrayed in Canadian media images and are captured in the popular imagination. Yet, in comparison to the United States and Great Britain, these phenomena receive relatively little attention from Canadian academics and policy makers. A lack of readily available criminal justice data disaggregated by race makes it particularly difficult for researchers to examine the nature of these racial differences. Thus, we are unable to determine the extent to which higher rates of offending among certain racial groups and discrimination in the administration of criminal justice contribute to the apparent overrepresentation
There’s a lack of data, but this author will still make claims about bias and discrimination, without actually proving it. He will also tap-dance around the obvious: If a group commits crime at a much higher rate, doesn’t that justify higher incarceration rates?
Nonetheless, available evidence indicates that a significant proportion of Canada’s racial minority populations and a sizable proportion of the white population perceive bias in the criminal justice system. These public perceptions are supported by data that show that certain racial minority groups, particularly Aboriginal and black Canadians, are grossly overrepresented in Canada’s correctional institutions. Further evidence indicates that racial bias does exist in the administration of Canadian criminal justice, and, at times, this discrimination has been supported by court decisions. We cannot discount, however, the probability that increased rates of offending among certain racialized groups contributes to their overrepresentation in correctional statistics. As we show in this essay, research suggests that Aboriginal and black Canadians are overrepresented with respect to violent offending and victimization. The Canadian federal government itself has pointed out that the social conditions in which Aboriginals live is at least partially to blame for their rates of violent offending (Department of Justice 2009). We have previously made the same connection with respect to black Canadians (Wortley and Owusu-Bempah2011a).
Owusu-Bempah contradicts himself here. He claims there is “perceived” bias from many people. Not “actual” bias, but perceived bias. He then goes on to say that there is overrepresentation among certain groups.
He then offers a perfectly reasonable explanation for the higher incarceration rate: increased offending.
Just a thought. If a certain group commits crime at a higher rate, then it is not bias or discrimination that there would be more of them involved with the courts.
Unfortunately, there is an apparent lack of political will to address issues of racial minority overrepresentation in the Canadian criminal justice system. Ambivalence to address these issues relates both to the manifestations of racial discrimination in the system, as well as to the societal conditions that lead to criminal offending. Discrimination and disparity may be at times acknowledged, but they are seldom wholeheartedly addressed. When addressed, the means are seldom thoroughly evaluated for effectiveness, and, when evaluated, the results are rarely made public.
Difficult to believe, but this is just the next paragraph. Owusu-Bempah claims there is no political will to address racial minority overrepresentation. Yet, he previously commented that there was a higher rate of offending.
This seems like a solution in search of a problem.
Many have argued that relatively high rates of homicide and gun crime among African Canadians and Aboriginals in Canada are reflective of their overrepresentation in street gangs. Unfortunately, official police statistics on Canadian gangs are almost nonexistent
Yeah, good job.
Canada’s reluctance to acknowledge and document race is most evident in the operation of its criminal justice system and in its criminal justice policies. Unlike in the United States and the United Kingdom, where race-based criminal justice statistics are readily available to the public and researchers alike, the Canadian criminal justice system does not systematically collect or publish statistics on the race of individuals processed through the system. The debate over the collection of racial data from the criminal justice sector in Canada can be traced back as far as 1929 (Roberts 1992). Discussions about the collection, or more accurately, the public release of these data have emerged more recently in the context of broader debates about race, crime, and the administration of criminal justice—particularly related to the circumstances of Aboriginal and black Canadians (Hatt 1994; Johnston 1994; Gabor 1994; Roberts 1994; Wortley 1999; Owusu-Bempah and Millar 2010). On the one hand, allegations of racial discrimination have been leveled against the justice system to explain the overrepresentation of certain racial minority groups in the few available sources of police and correctional data. On the other hand, it has been suggested that racial minorities are disproportionately involved in criminal activity, which accounts for their disproportionate involvement with the criminal justice system as reflected in the data. Unfortunately, our ability to test either of these claims is limited by the absence of available data, despite numerous calls for its collection. Several major attempts have been made in Canada to collect racial and ethnic data, particularly in the policing sector (Fine 1990; Wortley and Marshall 2005; Leclair InfoCom 2009); these attempts, however, have not paved the way for systematic data collection
The author addresses crime rates, but gives a wishy washy answer. There’s not enough data to tell one way or another whether it is: (a) discrimination; or (b) actual crime, that results in the disparities. Yet, feelings about perceived bias and virtue signalling bureaucrats apologizing are apparently good evidence.
There is an interesting point to be taken from this: if there was concrete data on race and crime rates, then the debate could be put to bed once and for all.
The article keeps repeating the same idea and muddying the waters: we don’t have data, so we can’t be sure what causes discrepancies in the representation.
If the author wanted a reference point, why not check the data from the US and UK? After all, he knows it is there.
There were 698,737 arrests in 2017/18, a fall of 8% on the previous year – both years’ figures exclude Lancashire Police (see ‘Things you need to know’)
-Black people were over 3 times as likely to be arrested as White people – there were 35 arrests for every 1,000 —Black people, and 11 arrests for every 1,000 White people
-overall, men were over 5 times as likely to be arrested as women – there were 22 arrests for every 1,000 men, and -4 arrests for every 1,000 women
-Black women were more than twice as likely to be arrested as White women – there were 7 arrests for every 1,000 —Black women, and 3 arrests for every 1,000 White women
And a few pages later,
there were 698,737 arrests in England and Wales in 2017/18 (excluding the Lancashire police force area), at a rate of 13 arrests per 1,000 people
there were 62,501 fewer arrests in 2017/18 compared with the previous year, a fall of 8% (excluding Lancashire Police from both years)
Black people were over 3 times as likely to be arrested as White people – there were 35 arrests for every 1,000 Black people, and 11 arrests for every 1,000 White people
people with Mixed ethnicity were over twice as likely to be arrested as White people – there were 25 arrests for every 1,000 people with Mixed ethnicity, and 11 arrests for every 1,000 White people
So the UK Government is willing to be quite open and blunt about the disparities in race and offending. And what about the US.
5. Crime Data From US FBI
CLICK HERE, for FBI Uniform Crime Reporting, Table 21. This is compiled from 2016, though the stats over the years don’t change much.
Looking at Table 21C (people aged 18 or over)
Worth noting the US black population is about 13% commits:
52% of homicides
28% of rapes
51% of robberies
32% of aggravated assault
36% of violent crime
41% of weapons carrying
30% buying stolen property
…. and so on.
Are blacks greatly overrepresented in US prisons? Absolutely. And for a very good reason — disproportionate amount of violent and serious crime.
Are US sentences in general too harsh? A fair point, but a topic for another day. This post concerns treating people equally.
6. Gladue 2.0 Addresses Wrong Problem
With this proposed change, the scope of Gladue will be broadened. This means that it will not be restricted to Aboriginals.
The claim is that this will reduce overrepresentation in the courts and prison system. Problem is: it focuses on making prisons look like a random sample of society, rather than a reflection of who is actually committing the most serious crime.
It’s what liberals do not want to acknowledge:
SOME GROUPS JUST COMMIT MORE CRIME
It is not necessarily due to “oppression” or “systemic bias”, or any other such nonsense. It is caused by these groups, on average, behaving differently. While it is obviously desirable for society to reduce crime and their prison populations, this is a backwards approach.
Should the Ontario Court of Appeals (and possibly the Supreme Court of Canada) confirm this nonsense, racial equality dies. Your skin colour will determine your punishment, not your crime. Though arguably that was the case with Gladue.
Keep in mind, it is the Supreme Court of Canada that upheld Gladue in the first place (appealed from BC). There is nothing to indicated they wouldn’t extend their ruling to this.
(Pierre Beaudoin, Bombardier Chairman, sits on Power Corp BOD)
(Anthony Graham, is Vice-Chairman of Whittingham Investments Ltd, which happens to own the Weston-Loblaw Group. Graham also sits on Power Corp Board of Directors)
(Hélène Desmarais, Chair-Woman of Montreal Economic Institute)
1. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for Globe & Mail article on the Desmarais family, 2004. CLICK HERE, to search Elections Canada donors.
CLICK HERE, for the Trilateral Commission. CLICK HERE, for Abeldanger blog, citing Desmarais tentacles in Canadian politics. CLICK HERE, for memorial on Paul Desmarais Sr. CLICK HERE, for Andre Desmarais, Jean Chretien’s son-in-law. CLICK HERE, for Canada Steamship lines. CLICK HERE, for a biography on Paul Martin. CLICK HERE, for the oil-for-food-scandal CLICK HERE, for a Maclean’s article on Desmarais from 2006 CLICK HERE, for a Financial Post article on the politicians who attended Paul Desmarais Sr.’s funeral. CLICK HERE, for Gary Doer, former Manitoba Premier (NDP), who sits on PowerCorps Board of Directors
CLICK HERE, for Pierre Beaudoin, Bombardier Chairman, who also sits on PowerCorp’s Board of Directors. CLICK HERE, for Bombardier bailout, and Pierre Beaudoin’s bonuses. CLICK HERE, for Andrew Coyne estimates Bombardier received $3.7B. CLICK HERE, for Fraser Institute claims Bombardier has been bailed out 48 times by Industry Canada, going back to 1966.
CLICK HERE, for Loblaws receiving $12M bailout from taxpayers to buy energy-efficient fridges. CLICK HERE, for an article on fridge subsidies and vote buying.
CLICK HERE, for biography on Paul Desmarais Jr., son of the legend. CLICK HERE, for Hélène Desmarais, wife of Paul Jr. CLICK HERE, for Maxime Bernier’s profile. CLICK HERE, for the Montreal Economic Institute.
2. Desmarais And Trilateral Commission
Linda Koch Lorimer and Andre Desmarais both sit on the Trilateral Commission, which promotes global trade in:
(a) The Americas
(c) Asia-Pacific Rim
Among the other members on the Trilateral Commission:
Rona Ambrose – MP, former Conservative Party leader
Total compensation for the Montreal-based manufacturer’s top five executives and board chairman Pierre Beaudoin was US$32.6 million in 2016, up from US$21.9 million the year before, according to a proxy circular ahead of Bombardier’s annual meeting on May 11.
CEO Alain Bellemare received US$9.5 million, up from US$6.4 million in 2015, including US$5.2 million in share and option-based awards and a US$1 million salary. His annual bonus almost doubled to US$2.36 million.
. Beaudoin’s total compensation increased to US$5.25 million from US$3.85 million a year earlier.
That’s right, Bombardier gets bailed out by taxpayers. And Pierre Beaudoin, Bombardier’s Chairman, is also on the Board of Directors for Power Corp, with all its ties to politicians. No corruption here.
From the Fraser Institute:
Bombardier Inc., which recently announced it would lay off 1,700 people, has been one chronic seeker and a regular recipient of such taxpayer assistance. The Montreal-based aerospace company is thus a useful example of corporate welfare in action, the tax dollars at stake, and the regular, inflated claims about the beneficial effects of such subsidies.
Bombardier’s corporate welfare began, at least federally, in 1966 when it received its first disbursement of $35 million from the federal department, Industry Canada. In the decades since, various Bombardier iterations received over $1.1 billion (all figures adjusted for inflation) in 48 separate disbursements from just Industry Canada. That includes two 2009 cheques worth $233 million.
Let’s connect the dots:
The Desmarais family owns Power Corp.
Andre Desmarais is on the Board of Directors.
Andre Desmarais is son-in-law of ex-PM Jean Chretien.
“Many” Canadian politicians connected to Power Corp.
Pierre Beaudoin is also on Power Corp B.O.D.
Pierre Beaudoin doubles as Bombardier Chairman.
Pierre Beaudoin in in position to have Canadian Government bail out Bombardier whenever needed. He also increases his own bonuses.
Bombardier is repeatedly bailed out.
Beaudoin is able to cash in from these bailouts.
5. Power Corp & Loblaws Bailout
Remember: Anthony Graham is Vice-Chairman of Whittington Investments, which owns Loblaws. He also is on Power Corp’s Board of Directors.
This one is straightforward to connect.
The Desmarais family owns Power Corp.
Andre Desmarais is on the Board of Directors.
Andre Desmarais is son-in-law of ex-PM Jean Chretien.
“Many” Canadian politicians connected to Power Corp.
Anthony Graham is also on Power Corp B.O.D.
Anthony Graham doubles as Vice-Chairman of Whittington Investments, which owns Loblaws.
Anthony Graham is in position to have Canadian Government bail out Loblaws.
Unclear how much Graham’s bonus will be.
6. Desmarais And Brian Mulroney
Mulroney said he felt confident that Desmarais died knowing he had led a productive life and made a remarkable contribution to his country. “He was a close and intimate friend of mine for 48 years,” Mulroney said. “I feel very sad, but I feel very happy for a life really well lived. Paul’s life was unconventional because it really was a love story: for his wife, his kids and his country. So, he’s happy. He knows he had a good life and a productive life.”
From the (CBC article), Paul Desmarais Sr. and Brian Mulroney have been close friends for decades.
7. Desmarais And Jean Chretien
André Desmarais is currently Deputy Chairman, President and Co-Chief Executive Officer of the company his father took control of in 1968, Power Corporation, based in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. He is also Executive Co-Chairman of Power Financial. Power Corporation is a diversified international management and holding company, which has holdings in leading financial services, renewable energy, communications and other business sectors.
He married France Chrétien Desmarais, the daughter of former Prime Minister of Canada Jean Chrétien, on May 23, 1981. They have four children.
In August 2016, The Wall Street Journal mentions that André Desmarais and his brother Paul Jr. “are readying their 34-year-old sons (Olivier Desmarais and Paul Desmarais III) to take over Power Corp
Jean Chretien is connected to Desmarais by way of marriage. His daughter, France, married Andre Desmarais, son of Paul Desmarais Sr. They have 4 children together.
8. Desmarais And Paul Martin
Martin began his career as a special assistant to Paul Desmarais, a friend of his father’s and a man often referred to as Canada’s wealthiest citizen. Desmarais was the force behind the creation of the Power Corporation, an immense conglomerate with stakes in the pulp and paper industry, the media, public transport, and insurance services. By 1969 Martin had risen to a vice presidency at the Montreal–based giant, and four years later Desmarais put him in charge of one of its subsidiaries, Canada Steamship Lines Ltd. (CSL). Martin worked to improve the flagging finances of the shipping company, and in 1981 he and a business partner bought CSL for $116 million. They had to borrow the funds for the purchase, and interest rates were above 20 percent at the time. On the day that Martin signed the loan papers, a well–known Wall Street analyst predicted that rates might rise as high as 30 percent. “I gambled everything that interest rates had reached their peak,” Martin recalled in an interview with Anthony Wilson–Smith in Maclean’s. “If they had continued to rise, I was cooked.”
Paul Martin was an employee of the Desmarais family for many years in Canada Steamship Lines (CSL). Martin eventually bought out the company.
9. Desmarais’ Influence At His Death
MONTREAL — Tributes poured in for the late Paul Desmarais on Tuesday in a commemorative ceremony that featured a veritable who’s who of politicians and businessmen past and present. Four Canadian prime ministers, a former French president and five Quebec premiers were among those who attended the tribute to the late business tycoon at the Notre-Dame Basilica. Prime Minister Stephen Harper remembered Desmarais as a humble and generous man who was passionate about Canada.
From the Financial Post article:
Tuesday’s crowd also included Quebec Premier Pauline Marois and predecessors Daniel Johnson, Lucien Bouchard, Bernard Landry and Jean Charest.
Also present were ex-media mogul Conrad Black, former Bombardier president Laurent Beaudoin, ex-Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe, former federal Liberal leader Bob Rae and his successor, Justin Trudeau.
The Ontario-born businessman remained a staunch Canadian federalist after he moved to Quebec, where he became one of the country’s wealthiest and most powerful figures.
Desmarais had incredible influence in both Federal and Provincial politics. Several Premiers and Prime Ministers all had direct connections to him. He even had ties to politicians in France.
10. Desmarais and Montreal Economic Institute
An interesting bit of information worth mentioning. There is yet another connection to Desmarais.
Paul Desmarais Sr. had 2 sons: Andre and Paul Jr. Andre married France Chretien, daughter of former Prime Minister Jean Chretien. Paul Jr. is married too. His wife, Hélène Desmarais, is the Chair-Woman at the Montreal Economic Institute, a think-tank promoting liberalized economic policies.
MEI had a new Executive Vice-President in 2005. His name: Maxime Bernier.
In 2006, Bernier left to get into politics. He is now a 4 term MP, and 3 time Cabinet Minister. He now heads his own “populist” party, promoting MEI style economic liberalism.
Mr. Bernier has a long-standing interest in business and during his career worked for several financial and banking institutions before becoming Executive Vice-President of the Montreal Economic Institute in 2005.
11. Desmarais, Power Corp, Bombardier & Loblaws
Although this article could have been much, MUCH longer, it will stop here. Hopefully, there will be a followup. This doesn’t come close to covering everything.
But to summarize, many of Canada’s most powerful politicians are directly connected to the Desmarais family, and to Power Corporation. It is hard to overstate the influence the family has had in Canadian politics. These politicians, while from different parties, all cooperate in the same corporate, globalist agenda.
And while difficult to prove, it looks almost certain that corruption played a role in Canadian taxpayers having to bailout 2 companies: Bombardier and Loblaws.
CLICK HERE, for Part 1, proposed Canada/China Free Trade Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for WTO reference on Canada’s Multilevel Governance, Public Policy. CLICK HERE, for Bill C-57, World Trade Org. Implementation Act. CLICK HERE, for 1996 Trilateral agenda.
CLICK HERE, for an article on Investor State Dispute impacting poor countries. CLICK HERE, for Canadian Gov’t Link to Chapter 11 Cases. CLICK HERE, for NAFTA arbitrations against Canada CLICK HERE, for Ethyl Corp wanting $201M over MMT additive ban. CLICK HERE, for SD Myers wants $53M for PCB ban. CLICK HERE, for Pope & Talbot’s $500M softwood lumber suit. CLICK HERE, for USPS, $165M for unfair subsidies to Canada Post. CLICK HERE, for Sun Belt wanting $1.5B-$10B for lost water rights.
CLICK HERE, for the Multilateral Agreement on Investment document CLICK HERE, for a draft version of the MAI. CLICK HERE, for IMF blogs, which covers a variety of topics. CLICK HERE, for members of the Triateral Commission. CLICK HERE, for the Trilateral Commission. CLICK HERE, for biography of Roy MacLaren.
CLICK HERE, for job loss report from Economic Policy Institute, a US-based think tank. 900,000 due to NAFTA CLICK HERE, for EPI estimates for US job losses to China. 3.4 million (from 2001-2017)
2. Interesting Points From Bev Collins Video
-Semiconductor, aerospace, telecommunications industries were dismantled and sold off
-Mulroney gave QC special negotiating powers in event of succession
-Business Council on National Issues had $56M to market NAFTA
-600,000 jobs lost to free trade
-Small businesses gutted, corporations thrived
-92% of foreign investment came in to take over Canadian companies
-13,000 Canadian companies lost in meantime
-10,000 of those taken over by US transnationals
-1993 election, NAFTA huge issue, Mulroney/Campbell Gov’t wiped out
-Concern over water being sold off as commodity
-Liberals signed NAFTA “as is” in January 1994
-Roy MacLaren “both” Minister for International Trade and sat on the Trilateral Commission, a lobbying group.
-Canada push for a World Trade Body (Bill C-57)
-UN has 3 pillars:
Financial pillars (IMF)
World Trade Organization
-Costs Canada $275M/annually to sit on committee
-IMF supposed to arrange short term loans to 3rd World
-World Bank set up for long term development funds
-Canada funded 3 Rivers Gorges Dam in China
-Export Development Corporation spends $40B, unaudited, unaccountable
-“Investor State Suit” Clause allows Trans-Nats
-Ethyl Corp sued Canada b/c of MMT gasoline additive ban
-SD Myers sued Canada over PCB ban
-Pope & Talbot sued over softwood lumber quota
-Much of Ontario manufacturing base lost
-Multilateral Agreement on Investment launched not long after NAFTA
-lawsuit against MAI, Judge Dube friends with PM Jean Chretien
-29 MAI delegates shut out of talks
-MAI eventually destroyed, but content moved over to Free Trade Area of the Americas
-Prelude to mass migration. If goods and money are borderless, then isn’t this the next logical step?
-Canada can find its wages driven down
-Unions themselves now seen as barrier to trade
-WTO ruled against airline subsidizes
-43,000 agricultural producers lost to bankruptcy
-Many SK farms bought up at huge discount
3. Canada’s Bill C-57
From the WTO page:
In 1994 the Canadian Parliament adopted legislation to implement the Uruguay Round with virtually no opposition. The measure was easily passed by the House of Commons with a vote of 185-7. There was general acceptance that the World Trade Organization (WTO) was a necessity for Canada both to participate and to compete in the new international order. Not only did legislators believe that the WTO Agreement would enhance and facilitate Canadian exports, but there also was an expectation among parliamentarians that the new rules-based dispute settlement mechanism would act as a counter-force to US unilateralism in the international arena. Roy McLaren, the Minister for International Trade, explained that the arrangements would particularly benefit ‘small and medium-size trade players like Canada, which are inherently vulnerable to the threat of unilateralism by the economic giants’
McLaren was wrong. This arrangement does not benefit small and medium trade players like Canada. In fact, it will weaken Canada immensely, and lead to job losses and erosion of our sovereignty. Jere a few quotes from the WTO Agreement Implementation Act.
Prohibition of private cause of action under Agreement
6 No person has any cause of action and no proceedings of any kind shall be taken, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada, to enforce or determine any right or obligation that is claimed or arises solely under or by virtue of the Agreement.
This is a red flag. Nothing happens in Court unless the Attorney General of Canada signs off on it.
Non-application of Agreement to water
7 (1) For greater certainty, nothing in this Act or the Agreement, except the Canadian Schedule to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 set out in Annex 1A to the Agreement, applies to water.
This is promising though. Water was specifically excluded from NAFTA. Concerns were that once exports started, there would be no way to stop it.
Suspension of concessions to non-WTO Members
(2) The Governor in Council may, with respect to a country that is not a WTO Member, by order, do any one or more of the following: (a) suspend rights or privileges granted by Canada to that country or to goods, service providers, suppliers, investors or investments of that country under any federal law; (b) modify or suspend the application of any federal law with respect to that country or to goods, service providers, suppliers, investors or investments of that country;
(c) extend the application of any federal law to that country or to goods, service providers, suppliers, investors or investments of that country; and
(d) take any other measure that the Governor in Council considers necessary.
In short, this allows Canada to screw over non-WTO countries. Great way to force 3rd World nations in jumping on board. This is economic extortion.
4. Chapter 11, National Treatment Clause
This clause has been the basis of many lawsuits, since the text states that foreign companies must be treated the same as domestic companies.
Article 1102: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
2. Each Party shall accord to investments of investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments of its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
3. The treatment accorded by a Party under paragraphs 1 and 2 means, with respect to a state or province, treatment no less favorable than the most favorable treatment accorded, in like circumstances, by that state or province to investors, and to investments of investors, of the Party of which it forms a part.
4. For greater certainty, no Party may:
(a) impose on an investor of another Party a requirement that a minimum level of equity in an enterprise in the territory of the Party be held by its nationals, other than nominal qualifying shares for directors or incorporators of corporations; or
(b) require an investor of another Party, by reason of its nationality, to sell or otherwise dispose of an investment in the territory of the Party.
And “who” has been suing Canada under Chapter 11 of NAFTA?
Cases filed against the Government of Canada
Ongoing arbitrations to which Canada is a party
Lone Pine Resources Inc.
Mobil Investments Canada Inc.
Resolute Forest Products Inc.
Tennant Energy, LLC.
Westmoreland Coal Company
Concluded arbitrations to which Canada was a party
Centurion Health Corporation
Detroit International Bridge Company
Dow AgroSciences LLC
Eli Lilly and Company
Mercer International Inc.
Merrill & Ring Forestry L.P.
Mesa Power Group LLC
Mobil Investments Inc. and Murphy Oil Corporation
Pope & Talbot Inc.
S.D. Myers Inc.
St. Marys VCNA, LLC
United Parcel Service of America, Inc. (UPS)
V. G. Gallo
Windstream Energy LLC
Withdrawn or inactive claims
Contractual Obligation Productions, LLC, Charles Robert Underwood and Carl Paolino
GL Farms LLC and Carl Adams
William Jay Greiner and Malbaie River Outfitters Inc.
open access to information, about the various court proceedings. But do take a look. They almost all involve an alleged breach of the “National Treatment” Clause.
Now, this “only covers lawsuits against Canada. There have also been plenty of them against the US and Mexico for violating NAFTA.
5. Multilateral Agreement on Investment
2. Investment means: Every kind of asset owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by an investor, including: 1, 2
(i) an enterprise (being a legal person or any other entity constituted or organised under the applicable law of the Contracting Party, whether or not for profit, and whether private or government owned or controlled, and includes a corporation, trust, partnership, sole proprietorship, branch, joint venture, association or organisation);
(ii) shares, stocks or other forms of equity participation in an enterprise, and rights derived therefrom;
(iii) bonds, debentures, loans and other forms of debt, and rights derived therefrom;
(iv) rights under contracts, including turnkey, construction, management, production or revenue-sharing contracts;
(v) claims to money and claims to performance;
(vi) intellectual property rights;
(vii) rights conferred pursuant to law or contract such as concessions, licenses, authorisations, and permits;
(viii) any other tangible and intangible, movable and immovable property, and any related property rights, such as leases, mortgages, liens and pledges.
And remember that “National Treatment Clause”?
III. TREATMENT OF INVESTORS AND INVESTMENTS NATIONAL TREATMENT AND MOST FAVOURED NATION TREATMENT
1. Each Contracting Party shall accord to investors of another Contracting Party and to their investments, treatment no less favourable than the treatment it accords [in like circumstances] to its own investors and their investments with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, operation, management, maintenance, use, enjoyment and sale or other disposition of investments.
This would be the investment equivalent of NAFTA. All forms of investments would have to be given equal considerations. Although it was eventually stopped, the contents are still being considered for other opportunities.
6. Trilateral Commission
So, who founds the Trilateral Commission?
Where are they from?
Founding Members David Rockefeller was the principal founder of the Trilateral Commission in mid-1973. He served on the executive committee and was North American chairman from mid-1977 through November 1991. He is now honorary chairman and a lifetime trustee of the Commission.
Zbigniew Brzezinski played an important role in the formation of the Commission and served as its first director from 1973 to 1976. After serving in the Carter administration, Dr. Brzezinski rejoined the Commission in 1981 and served on the executive committee until 2009.
Other early North Americans leaders were Gerard C. Smith, first North American chairman; Jean-Luc Pepin, who headed the Canadian Group; and George S. Franklin, regional secretary. Richard Cooper, Henry Owen, and Philip Tresize were members of the first political, monetary, and trade task forces to report to the Commission.
Max Kohnstamm of the Netherlands was the first European chairman and Wolfgang Hager the first regional secretary. Georges Berthoin of France, one of the first members from the European Community and a former European chairman, is now an honorary European chairman. Otto Graf Lambsdorff, another original European member and former European chairman, served as honorary European chairman until his death in 2009. François Duchène, Claudio Sergré, and Don Guido Colonna di Paliano were the European authors of the first task force reports.
If nothing else, it is refreshing to be honest about who is founding it. Now to get to the trickier question of why it was formed.
I. What is the Trilateral Commission? When and why was it formed?
The Trilateral Commission is a non-governmental, policy-oriented discussion group of about 390 distinguished citizens from Europe, North America, and Pacific Asia formed to encourage understanding and closer cooperation among these three regions on shared global problems.
The idea of the Commission was developed in the early 1970s. This was a time of considerable discord among the United States and its democratic industrialized allies in Western Europe, Japan, and Canada. There was also a sense that the international system was changing in some basic ways with rather uncertain implications. Change was most obvious in the international economy, as Western Europe and Japan gained strength and the position of the U.S. economy became less dominant. The increase in global interdependence was affecting the United States in ways to which it was not accustomed.
When they talk about closer cooperation and understanding, these are really code words for “globalism”. Eliminate borders to trade, to financial services, and eventually, to people moving.
This all sounds lovely, but it is incrementally erasing nations. Not an accident, and quite intentional.
7. Commission/Parliament Conflict of Interest
Bev Collins is absolutely right about conflict of interest going on in the Canadian Parliament. Here are two egregious examples:
Roy Maclaren, is a former Minister of International Trade (1996-2000). He was also sitting on the Trilateral Commission the entire time it seems.
Bill Graham is a former Minister of Foreign Affairs, and also a member of the Trilateral Commission.
Canada’s Minister of International Trade, and also Minister of Foreign Affairs were also sitting on a Commission that promotes ever growing free trade agreements?! How does that look? But that’s hardly the whole picture.
NORTH AMERICAN GROUP
. Bertrand-Marc Allen, President, Boeing International, Arlington Graham Allison, Director, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; former Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government; former Special Advisor to the Secretary of Defense and former Assistant Secretary of Defense Rona Ambrose, former MP, former Interim Leader, Conservative Party; former Minister on the Status of Women, Environment, Health and Public Works, Ottawa Dominic Barton, Worldwide Managing Director, McKinsey & Company, London *Catherine Bertini, Professor, Public Administration and International Affairs, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University; Distinguished Fellow, The Chicago Council on Global Affairs Herminio Blanco Mendoza, Chairman, IQOM, Mexico City; former Mexican Secretary of Commerce and Industrial Development; former Chief NAFTA Negotiator Michael Bloomberg, Founder and CEO, Bloomberg LP, NewYork; fomer Mayor of New York City Esther Brimmer, Executive Director and CEO, NAFSA, Association for International Educators, Washington R. Nicholas Burns, Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy and International Politics and Member of the Board, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Jean Charest, Former Premier of Québec; former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, Montréal *Michael Chertoff, Chairman and Co-Founder, The Chertoff Group; former Secretary of Homeland Security; Former Judge, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; Former Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Justice, Washington Raymond Chrétien, Partner and Strategic Advisor, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Montreal, QC; Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Montréal Council on Foreign Relations (MCFR); former Associate Under Secretary of State of External Affairs; former Ambassador to the Congo, Belgium, Mexico, the United States, and France Timothy Collins, CEO and Senior Managing Director, Ripplewood Holdings, Inc., New York Richard N. Cooper, Maurits C. Boas Professor of International Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge; former Chairman, National Intelligence Council; former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Heidi Crebo-Rediker, CEO, International Capital Strategies, Washington; former Chief Economist, State Department Lee Cullum, Contributing Columnist, Dallas Morning News; Radio and Television Commentator, Dallas Luis de la Calle, Managing Director and Founding Partner, De la Calle, Madrazo, Mancera, S.C. (CMM), Mexico City; former Undersecretary for International Trade Negotiations Arthur A. DeFehr, CEO, Palliser Furniture Holdings Ltd., Winnipeg André Desmarais, President and Co-Chief Executive Officer, Power Corporation of Canada, Montréal; Deputy Chairman, Power Financial Corporation John M. Deutch, Institute Professor emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge; former Director of Central Intelligence; former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense and Undersecretary of Energy Paula J. Dobriansky, Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; Vice Chair, National Executive Committee, U.S. Water Partnership; former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Wendy Dobson, Professor and Co-Director, Institute for International Business, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto; former Canadian Associate Deputy Minister of Finance Gary Doer, former Canadian Ambassador to the United States, Winnipeg Thomas Donilon, Partner and Vice Chair, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington; Non-resident Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University; former U.S. National Security Advisor *Kenneth M. Duberstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, The Duberstein Group, Washington; former Chief of Staff to President Ronald Reagan Michael Duffy, former Executive Editor, TIME Magazine, Washington Douglas Elmendorf, Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge Richard Falkenrath, Chief Security Officer, Bridgewater Associates, Westport Dawn Farrell, President and CEO, TransAlta Corporation, Calgary Diana Farrell, Chief Executive Officer and President, JPMorgan Chase Institute, Washington; former Deputy Director, National Economic Council, and Deputy Assistant to the President for Economic Policy Martin S. Feldstein, George F. Baker Professor of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge; President Emeritus, National Bureau of Economic Research; former Chairman, Council of Economic Advisors Linda Frum, Member, Senate of Canada, Ottawa Juan Gallardo, Chairman of the Board, Grupo Embotelladoras Unidas, SA de CV, Mexico City *David R. Gergen, Professor of Public Service and Director of the Center for Public Leadership, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; CNN Senior Political Analyst Gordon Giffin, Partner, Dentons US LLP, Atlanta; former U.S. Ambassador to Canada Donald Gogel, President and Chief Executive Officer, Clayton Dubilier and Rice, Inc., New York Jamie S. Gorelick, Partner, WilmerHale, Washington; former Deputy Attorney General; former General Counsel, Department of Defense Bill Graham Chancellor, Trinity College, University of Toronto; former Member, House of Commons; former Minister of Foreign Affairs and former Minister of Defense, Ottawa Donald Graham, Chairman and CEO of Graham Holdings Company, former owner of The Washington Post Company, Washington Peter Harder, Member, Senate of Canada, Ottawa *Jane Harman, Director, President, and CEO, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington; former Member, U.S. House of Representatives Linda Hasenfratz, President and CEO, Linamar Corporation, Ontario Carlos Heredia, Associate Professor, Department of International Studies, Center for Research and Teaching in Economics (CIDE), Mexico City; Coordinator, Program for the Study of the United States, CIDE John B. Hess, Chairman of the Board and CEO, Hess Corporation, New York *Carla A. Hills, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Hills & Company, Washington; former U.S. Trade Representative; former U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development *Karen Elliott House, writer, Princeton, NJ; Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; former Senior Vice President, Dow Jones & Company, and Publisher, The Wall Street Journal Joseph K. Hurd, III, former Director, Emerging Business, Facebook, Menlo Park David Ignatius, Columnist, The Washington Post, Washington Merit E. Janow, Dean of the Faculty and Professor of Practice, International Economic Law and International Affairs, Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), New York; former Member, Appellate Body from North America, World Trade Organization P. Thomas Jenkins, Chair, Open Text, Waterloo; Chair, National Research Council of Canada Lewis Kaden, Chairman, Markle Foundation Board of Directors; Former Vice Chairman, Citigroup, New York Andy Karsner, Managing Partner of the Emerson Collective; Senior Strategist at X; former Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Juliette Kayyem, Lecturer in Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; Former Columnist, Boston Globe Timothy Keating, Senior Vice President, Government Operations, The Boeing Company, Arlington Colin Kenny, Member, Senate of Canada, Ottawa; former Special Assistant, Director of Operations, and Assistant Principal Secretary, to the Rt. Hon. P. E. Trudeau; Member, Special Senate Committee on Terrorism and Security, Special Joint Committee on Canadian Defence Policy; former Chair of Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence Robert M. Kimmitt, Senior International Counsel, WilmerHale, Washington; former U.S. Deputy Secretary of the Treasury; former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs; former U.S. Ambassador to Germany Henry A. Kissinger, Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc., New York; former U.S. Secretary of State; former Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs; Lifetime Trustee, Trilateral Commission Nicholas Kristof, Columnist, The New York Times, Scarsdale Stephanie Kusie, Member of Parliament, House of Commons, Ottawa Fred Langhammer, Chairman, Global Affairs, The Estée Lauder Companies, Inc., New York Hélène Laverdière, Member of Parliament, House of Commons, Ottawa *Monique Leroux, Chair of the Board of Investissement, Québec Andrew Leslie, Member of Parliament, House of Commons, Ottawa Marne Levine, former Chief Operating Officer, Instagram, Menlo Park Santiago Levy, Vice President for Sectors and Knowledge, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington David Lipton, First Deputy Managing Director, International Monetary Fund, Washington Linda Koch Lorimer, CEO, Abundantior; former Vice President for Global & Strategic Initiatives, Yale University *John Manley, Chair CIBC, CIBC Bank USA, and Chair CAE Inc. Judith A. McHale, President and Chief Executive Officer, Cane Investments, LLC, Hastings on Hudson; former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs; former President and Chief Executive Officer, Discovery Communications Thomas F. McLarty, III, President, McLarty Asssociates, Washington; former Chief of Staff to President Clinton Lourdes Melgar, Energy Scholar, MIT Center for International Studies, Mexico City Jami Miscik, President and Vice Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc., New York; former Deputy Director for Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency Andrea Mitchell, Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, NBC News, Washington Adm. Michael Mullen (Ret.), CEO, MGM Consulting, Annapolis; former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Heather Munroe-Blum, Chair of the Board, Canada Pension Investment Fund; Principal Emerita and Professor, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Toronto Lori Esposito Murray, Distinguished Chair for National Security, U.S. Naval Academy; former President & Chief Executive Officer, World Affairs Councils of America; former Special Advisor to the President on the Chemical Weapons Convention; former Assistant Director, U.S. Arms Control & Disarmament Agency John D. Negroponte, Vice Chairman, McLarty Associates, Washington; former Deputy Secretary of State; former Director of National Intelligence; former Ambassador to the United Nations, Honduras, Mexico, the Philippines and Iraq *Joseph S. Nye, Jr., University Distinguished Service Professor and former Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; former Chair, National Intelligence Council; former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs; former North American Chairman, Trilateral Commission *Meghan L. O’Sullivan, Evron and Jeane Kirkpatrick Professor of the Practice of International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; former Special Assistant to President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan; North American Chairman, Trilateral Commission Thomas R. Pickering, Vice Chair, Hills & Company, Washington; former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs; former U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation, India, Israel, El Salvador, Nigeria, Jordan, and the United Nations; former Senior Vice President, International Relations, Boeing Company John A. Quelch, Vice Provost for Education and Dean, School of Business Administration, University of Miami, Miami John Risley, Chairman and President, Clearwater, Bedford Andrés Rozental, former Mexican Deputy Foreign Minister; Nonresident Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Latin America Initiative, Brookings Institution, Mexico City David M. Rubenstein, Co-founder and Managing Director, The Carlyle Group, Washington *Luis Rubio, President, Mexican Council on Foreign Relations; Chairman, Center for Research Development (CIDAC), Mexico City Indira Samarasekera, Senior Advisor, Bennett Jones LLP, Vancouver David Sanger, Chief Washington Correspondent, The New York Times, Adjunct Lecturer in Public Policy, Harvard University, Cambridge Eric Schmidt, Technical Advisor and Board Member, Alphabet Inc., Mountain View Susan Schwab, Professor, Maryland School of Public Policy, University of Maryland, College Park; former U.S. Trade Representative Gerald Seib, Executive Washington Editor, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Jaime Serra, Chairman, SAI Law and Economics; Founder, Aklara, the Arbitration Center of Mexico, and the NAFTA Fund of Mexico, Mexico City; Deputy Chairman, North American Trilateral Commission Rajiv Shah, President, Rockefeller Foundation; Distinguished Fellow in Residence, Edward A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington; former Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development Wendy Sherman, Senior Advisor, Albright Stonebridge Group; Resident Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics; former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Jeffrey Simpson, Senior Fellow, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa; former National Affairs Columnist, The Globe and Mail, Senior Fellow, University of Ottawa, Ottawa Olympia Snowe, Former U.S. Senator; Senior Fellow, Bipartisan Policy Center, Portland Cecilia Soto Gonzalez, Federal Congresswoman, Mexico City Nancy Southern, President and Chief Executive Officer, ATCO Ltd. and Canadian Utilities Limited, Calgary *James B. Steinberg, former Dean, Maxwell School, and University Professor of Social Science, International Affairs and Law, Syracuse University, Syracuse; former Deputy Secretary of State, former Deputy National Security Advisor *Carole Taylor, Chancellor Emeritus, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver; former Minister of Finance, British Columbia; former Chair, CBC/Radio-Canada; former Chair, Canada Ports; public affairs broadcaster Luis Téllez Kuenzler, Special Advisor, KKR, President, NTT Everis; former Chairman of the Board, Mexican Stock Exchange, Mexico City; former Secretary of Communications and Transportation of Mexico G. Richard Thoman, Managing Partner, Corporate Perspectives, New York; Adjunct Professor of International Business, Columbia University; Professor of Practice in International Business, the Fletcher School, Tufts University; former President and Chief Executive Officer, Xerox Corporation; former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, IBM Corporation *Frances Townsend, Senior Vice President, Worldwide Government, Legal and Business Affairs, MacAndrews & Forbes Inc., New York; former Assistant to the President for Homeland Security Melanne Verveer, Executive Director, Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security, Georgetown University, Washington Guillermo F. Vogel, Director and Vice President of the Board, Tenaris, Mexico City *Paul A. Volcker, former Chairman, President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board; former Chairman, Wolfensohn & Co., Inc., New York; Frederick H. Schultz Professor Emeritus, International Economic Policy, Princeton University; former Chairman, Board of Governors, U.S. Federal Reserve System; Honorary North American Chairman and former North American Chairman, Trilateral Commission Yuen Pau Woo, Member of Parliament, House of Commons, Ottawa Robert Zoellick, Chairman, Alliance Bernstein, New York; former President, The World Bank Daniel Yergin, Vice Chairman, IHS, Cambridge
And no, job losses are not just an American problem. According to Statistics Canada, there were some very alarming trends across the developed world.
Shrinking employment in manufacturing is a common trend in almost all OECD countries. From 1998 to 2008, the United States lost close to one-quarter (4.1 million) of its manufacturing jobs. Elsewhere in the OECD, from 1990 to 2003, manufacturing employment fell by 29% in the United Kingdom, 24% in Japan, 20% in Belgium and Sweden and 14% in France.
Canada’s manufacturing industry lost 278,000 jobs (1 in 6) from 2000 to 2007, which reduced the sector’s share of total employment from 16% to 12%. That share then declined to 10% in 2009 after the 2008–2009 recession when manufacturers faced weaker demand and cuts to industrial capacity, resulting in the loss of 188,000 jobs.
Regions where employment is highly concentrated in the manufacturing sector—mainly in Quebec and Ontario—experienced the greatest manufacturing job losses. From 2000 to 2007, Canadian manufacturing workers aged 20 to 29 in these regions were the most affected by the employment decline in this sector, as they were up to twice as likely to experience a loss of income as those holding a comparable job in a region with a low concentration of manufacturing.
In addition, job security deteriorated in regions of high manufacturing concentration in 2007, leaving workers at greater risk of unemployment and more likely to be receiving Employment Insurance (EI) benefits. Manufacturing workers in these regions were 39% more likely to receive EI benefits than their counterparts in regions with a low concentration of manufacturing.
Why have all these nations taken huge job losses, especially in manufacturing? Could be because “free trade” allows companies to shop around for cheaper labour costs.
When 2 nations are very similar in their employment laws and standards, this can theoretically work. But the problem is that these deals create a “race to the bottom”, where cost cutting and the bottom line are the only considerations.
These deals give foreign companies rights to marketplaces and workforces that domestic companies do. This may sound great, but the reality is the undercutting domestic producers can put lots of people out of work.
As demonstrated by Chapter 11 of NAFTA, there is a lot potential for new litigation for companies not getting the results or the market share they want. Who pays for it? Taxpayers.
Politicians like Roy Maclaren or Bill Graham can also sit on corporate boards, while still claiming to advocate for the Canadian public. And these conflict-of-interests are hardly limited to Canada. It raises valid questions about who they really work for. Furthermore, for the Liberals to campaign on amending NAFTA (then scrap the promise), makes people wonder if they ever intended to keep the promise.
The well being of communities doesn’t get emphasized enough. Large employers essentially provide for many families, and help keep things stable. If it suddenly becomes advantageous to pack up and leave, then a lot of people get screwed over.
Is this a rejection of business or capitalism? No. However, there are other things to consider than simply profits and GDP.