Solutions #14: Making More Informed Voting Choices

Justin Trudeau’s election in 2015 was due to a few things: nepotism, foreign money, a cooing media, and decent looks. By any objective measure, he has been a disaster.

To be fair, having a “conservative” in office would have led to most of the same harmful and destructive policies. Trudeau, to his credit, is openly a globalist, while conservatives are more stealthy about it. Nonetheless, we need people asking the right questions before they vote.

1. Previous Solutions Offered

CLICK HERE, for #1: Offering something to the other side.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Canada should leave the UN entirely.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Dumping multiculturalism and feminism.
CLICK HERE, for #4: More births instead of replacement migration.
CLICK HERE, for #5: Restore 1934 Bank of Canada Act
CLICK HERE, for #6: Abolish Human Rights Tribunals Entirely.
CLICK HERE, for #7: Abolish Gladue, fix underlying problems.
CLICK HERE, for #8: Banning (political) corporate welfare.
CLICK HERE, for #9: Putting a total moratorium on immigration.
CLICK HERE, for #10: How to do research, investigative journalism.
CLICK HERE, for #11: Have proper entry/exit border system.
CLICK HERE, for #12: Maintain spiritual foundation of the West.
CLICK HERE, for #13: Refusing forced vaccinations/medications.

2. Views/Bias Of The Author

Everyone has their own political slant. To get this out of the way: the views of the author more generally reflect the views and content that are addressed on the site. The site is nationalist leaning, and rejects conservatism and libertarianism, which are really just globalism.

Modern “leftism” (if that if even a proper term) is a globalist ideology. Although not a complete list, here are some of the things they support

  • Population replacement of Europeans
  • Erasure of traditional culture and heritage
  • Languages other than English and French
  • Identity politics for certain groups
  • Foreigners in the government
  • Foreigners in the military
  • Forced multiculturalism
  • Replacement of Christianity in the West
  • Globohomo agenda world wide
  • Mutilation of trans-children
  • Abortion becoming normalised and mainstream
  • Destruction of families
  • Pro climate change scam, carbon tax
  • UN and other “multilateral” institutions
  • Islamification of the West
  • Foreign aid handed out everywhere
  • Foreign interventions (but somehow not war)
  • Won’t discuss cause of foreign debt (Banking Cartel)
  • Government control over all major aspects of business
  • Limiting ability to send jobs overseas
  • Restricting free speech rights
  • Strong gun control, seizures

Modern conservatism (or “Conservative Inc.”) supports many of the same globalist ideologies and principles as the left, or liberals. Although the tone and rhetoric vary, a lot of the content is the same.

  • LEGAL population replacement of Europeans
  • LEGAL erasure of traditional culture and heritage
  • Languages other than English and French
  • Identity politics for certain groups
  • Foreigners in the government
  • Foreigners in the military
  • Globohomo agenda world wide
  • Mutilation of trans-ADULTS
  • LEGAL forced multiculturalism
  • Abortion becoming normalised and mainstream
  • Destruction of families
  • Pro climate change scam, but against carbon tax
  • UN, while claiming it won’t erode sovereignty
  • Islamification of the West (just not radicals)
  • Foreign aid for some places (like Israel)
  • Foreign wars that aren’t in Canadians’ interests
  • Won’t discuss cause of foreign debt (Banking Cartel)
  • Business interests topping interests of people
  • Offshoring/Outsourcing jobs overseas
  • “Monitoring” the situation of free speech violations
  • Sometimes stand on the side of gun owners

From the listings, it doesn’t seem like Liberalism or Conservative Inc. are all that different. Now that the views and biases are disclosed, let’s look at ways you can help make informed choices about who to vote for

3. Candidates Asking The Right Questions?

To be an effective representative, candidates must be addressing the right topics, and asking the right questions. However, far too many deflect. Here are some examples of topics that serious candidates should discuss if they really represent the interests of Canadians.

(a) Illegal border crossings into Canada: This should be a no-brainer to be against illegal aliens entering the country, but it’s not for many. Even those who call for closing the loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement are in favour of work permits for illegals. There is tepid opposition to using taxpayer funded social services. If a candidate is serious about stopping illegal crossings, why wouldn’t they support stripping away the financial benefits for doing so? And why aren’t they talking about the people fighting in court to rewrite laws, and those facilitating the illegal entries into Canada?

(b) True scale of immigration into Canada: Politicians typically mislead about the true scale of people entering the country LEGALLY. They mention the number of permanent residencies handed out (if that is even accurate), but deflect from the true scale of people entering. They don’t discuss the problems that multiculturalism and population replacement bring, nor the balkanization of communities.

(c) Outsourcing/offshoring Canadian industries: There is a lot of talk about the benefits of free trade (also called globalization or offshoring), but little about the harmful effects. Who cares about corporate profits when entire communities are gutted, when it becomes cheaper to ship their jobs and industries overseas? Sure, it lowers prices at Walmart, but there are larger social costs. These costs involve: trade deficits; job losses; outsourcing; wage stagnation; wage depression; increased foreign competition; higher unemployment; loss of control for critical industries, and more. Immigration and free trade (think CANZUK), are linked, in that it creates an INCREASED demand for work, but with a REDUCED supply of jobs available. Candidates who care about their people should address this openly and honestly

(d) International Banking Cartel: Politicians often play a sleight-of-hand with deficit/debt. They will talk about “eliminating the deficit”, without mentioning that it still doesn’t deal with the already accumulated debt. Even worse, if that they won’t address the banking cartel, which Canada has been part of since 1974. Yes, money is artificially created, but instead of borrowing from the Bank of Canada (borrowing from ourselves), subsequent governments borrow artificially created money from private banks, meaning we have to pay for it. Even left-wing politicians act as controlled opposition in avoiding the topic.

(e) Corruption behind corporate welfare: While some politicians lament the fact that Provincially and Federally, we still hand out tax-payer subsidies (corporate welfare), few will address the fraud, corruption, and cronyism that is essential to these handouts. The focus is on a symptom, not the disease. Theft is a crime, and it shouldn’t be considered less of one just because one of the thieves is an elected official.

(f) Climate Change Scam: Talk among major politicians seems to be over whether a carbon tax is needed, or what type or pricing is needed. What’s missing from the discussion is that the Paris Accord is a total hoax, a fraud meant to enrich a few. Talk about controlled opposition. No one mentions the climate bonds industry, or the predatory loans which carbon taxes finance. In relation to point “D”, we are going into debt — to private companies — to borrow money which we then give away, yet this isn’t addressed. And how does paying taxes improve the weather anyway?

This is by no means a complete list, just a few major points that potential voters need to think about when asking their candidates for information.

4. Arguing Over Trivial Matters

People running for various offices will disagree on many things. Often they will argue over DIFFERENT POLICIES. However, when one argues over different ways to implement the SAME POLICIES, it becomes a fair question as to how different they really are. Fierce debate over essentially the same positions is a dog-and-pony show, which doesn’t offer a real alternative to voters.

5. Opposition By Scandal

Don’t get the wrong idea. Governments in power do often have scandals, such as corruption, gross incompetence. While holding a government to account is important, it should not be the MAIN SOURCE of opposition. If someone seeks office, and their main points all have to do with pointing out current administration incompetence, then they likely have little to offer as a platform.

6. Check Who Really Funds Candidates

There are several ways to do this. Check them out to see if they have rich relatives. Check work history to see if there is a particular company or industry they will be pushing. See who lobbies them or donates to their campaign accounts. Effectively, do a background check on your candidates. At times, the candidate will shove it in your face. Take note.

To be fair however, Canadian politicians are influenced by a variety of foreign interests. The Prime Minister is (allegedly) the bastard son of the late Cuban dictator, Fidel Castro. The Deputy Prime Minister is the granddaughter of a Nazi collaborator. The Defence Minister is an Indian National, so is our Industry Minister. The former Immigration Minister is a Somali refugee who funnels tax payer money there. The Status-Of-Women Minister is a fake refugee and illegal alien from Iran. M103 was passed by a Pakistani Muslim who hates free speech. The Conservative Leader and (just departed) Green Party Leader are both Americans. The Bloc is a party that opposes Canada, and the People’s Party is headed by a former Quebec separatist. The NDP leader is a Khalistani separatist banned from entering India. There are plenty more.

Beyond national and ethnic loyalties, it’s also worth inquiring who finances their campaigns, and who is donating gifts. It will tell you far more than any brochure of platform.

7. Deflect With Personal Attacks

A person serious about running for office should be able to defend their ideas from criticism. However, when the person resorts to name calling, or continuously brings up the record of others — instead of answering direct questions — ask yourself if the person really believes in what they say. Also be aware of strawman arguments

8. Take The Time To Self-Educate

Unfortunately, it is true that the bulk of successful politicians are working for someone other than their constituents. It’s not fair, and it’s not something to be condoned. It’s quite understandable, the sentiment that voting is a waste.

There are a host of serious issues that either get downplayed, or ignored altogether. The media is complicit in helping this happen, and the public gets screwed.

However, this is (for now) the system of government we have. Learning more about the people who want to rule over you gives power. It creates awareness.

Protect yourself.

Canadian HoC Foreign Affairs Committee Endorses UN Parliament In 1993, And Again In 2007

(Canada’s House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee approved the idea of a UN Parliament in 1993, and again in 2007)

1. Important Links

https://canucklaw.ca/un-parliamentary-assembly-proposed-a-k-a-global-government/

CLICK HERE, for Wikipedia listings on topic.
http://archive.is/mslRy
CLICK HERE, for archive of 1993, 8th Report, Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade, House of Commons, Parliament of Canada, Spring 1993, chaired by Hon. Jon Bosley. (archive)
CLICK HERE, for February 1996 for UN Parliament.
http://archive.is/e9IMH
CLICK HERE, for the 2007 FAC Standing Report, Democratic Development.
CLICK HERE, for “conservative” Senator Douglas Roche.

CLICK HERE, for the actual link to the proposal.
http://archive.is/GMgwO
CLICK HERE, for supposed research data.
http://archive.is/KpIqW
CLICK HERE, for Canadian politicians who support this.
http://archive.is/P7ZS9

CLICK HERE, for First UNPA Int’l Meeting, 2007
http://archive.is/NKaj8
http://archive.is/kRdVJ
CLICK HERE, for Second UNPA Int’l Meeting, 2008
http://archive.is/z1jUo
http://archive.is/tNX9Z
CLICK HERE, for Third UNPA Int’l Meeting, 2009.
http://archive.is/5lMyX
http://archive.is/dXbo6
CLICK HERE, for Fourth UNPA Int’l Meeting, 2010.
http://archive.is/dXbo6
CLICK HERE, for Fifth UNPA Int’l Meeting, 2013.
http://archive.is/xloAX
http://archive.is/I4Mtb

2. Context For This Article

While the story of the United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) is still in the news, it is still a theory, at least for now.

However, Canada’s globalist politicians have been at it since well before 2007. In fact, Brian Mulroney’s Government originally approved the idea in 1993.

Why should Canadians care? Well, if you think getting fair and adequate representation from Ottawa is difficult, try getting it from a global government.

3. Timeline For UN Parliament

  • Spring 1993 – CDA HoC Foreign Affairs Comm endorses UNPA
  • July 1993 – Brian Mulroney replaced by Campbell as PM
  • October 1993 – Jean Chretien elected as PM
  • 1996 – Support in Chretien’s Gov’t for UNPA
  • 2002 – Sen. Douglas Roche endorses UNPA
  • January 2006 – Harper replaces Martin as PM
  • July 2007 – CDA HoC Foreign Affairs Comm endorses UNPA
  • August 2007 – Bernier replaces MacKay as FA Minister
  • November 2007 – First UNPA Int’l Meeting, Switzerland
  • November 2008 – Second UNPA Int’l Meeting, Belgium
  • October 2009 – Third UNPA International Meeting, USA
  • July 2010 – Trudeau endorses UNPA as an MP
  • October 2010 – Fourth UNPA Int’l Meeting, Argentina
  • October 2013 – Fifth UNPA Int’l Meeting, Belgium
  • September 2015 – Harper signs Agenda 2030
  • October 2015 – Trudeau replaces Harper as PM
  • 4. Quotes From 1993 Standing Comm Report

    The decline in Canadian support for things international – and the decline is palpable – is explained more by loss of self-confidence among Canadians than by lack of caring. There is no more important task before us than to recover some of that confidence and no more important means of doing so than through the empowerment of the United Nations. People must see that the centre can hold and that they have a role to play in making it so.

    By way of building the public and political constituency for the United Nations, the Committee recommends that Canada support the development of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (21) and that we offer to host the preparatory meeting of the Assembly in the Parliament Buildings as the centrepiece in our celebration of the 50th anniversary of the United Nations in 1995. We would further recommend that the Government work closely with the national organizing committee for the 50th anniversary and encourage the active participation of non-governmental organizations in the planning and holding of the Assembly.

    Conclusion
    .
    In closing this long letter the Committee wishes to commend the Government for being one of the few that has contributed energetically to keeping An Agenda for Peace alive. But alive is not good enough. Much more needs to be done. The proposals of the Secretary General should be the beginning of a vital international process of reform and renewal of the United Nations system. Canada should work hard to help make it so. The Committee intends to keep the empowerment of the UN high on its agenda and to hold additional hearings in the new session of Parliament. We would ask that the Minister respond in writing to this letter by early May.

    This is what it sounds like. The Mulroney Government, which calls itself “conservative”, has the Foreign Affairs Committee approve in principle participation in a United Nations Parliament.

    Note: Mulroney had a huge majority at that time, so there was no real need to get opposition approval on this. So no one can say he was pressured into doing it.

    5. Approval Of UNPA In 1996

    In recent years the demands on the United Nations have increased. In response, the organization has been given more autonomous powers and responsibilities. At the same time, it is necessary that the UN maintain support for its actions and decisions of the world’s citizens and governments. Creation of a UN Parliamentary Assembly is a vital first step in this process of democratizing the United Nations and ensuring its legitimacy in the eyes of world public opinion.

    The European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), demonstrate the important contributions that supranational parliamentary bodies can make to the work of international institutions. The history of both of these supranational parliaments also demonstrates the important, indeed essential, role in their creation to be undertaken by committed national parliamentarians.

    Under Andrº Ouellet, Canadian foreign policy was distinguished primarily by its emphasis on international trade issues. Trade promotion overshadowed some other progressive initiatives taken by Canada, notably Canada’s work at the UN on creation of an International Criminal Court, and the Canadian peacekeeping proposal (entitled Toward a Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations) which was presented at last Fall’s session of the UN General Assembly.

    As Foreign Affairs critic when the Liberals were in opposition, Lloyd Axworthy was a strong proponent of arms control and human rights issues and is a strong advocate of improved multilateral institutions. Many analysts expect that under Mr. Axworthy these international law and ‘world order’ issues will become a greater priority.

    In the Spring of 1993, the House of Commons Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade (SCEAIT) brought forward a report on Canada’s role in the United Nations. One of the Committee’s three recommendations called for Canada to support creation of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA), and for Canada to host the preparatory meeting of the Assembly in the Canadian Parliament Buildings. Following release of the SCEAIT Report, an ad hoc committee of parliamentarians and non-governmental representatives was established to build political support for a UNPA. Lloyd Axworthy was among a handful of Liberals who participated in the ad hoc Committee’s two meetings. Unfortunately, very little was accomplished before the 1993 general election was called and the 1993 session of the House of Commons ended.

    The New Liberal Chretien Government shares the globalist appetite and ideas that the previous Mulroney Government did. More support for creating of the actual world government.

    6. Senator Douglas Roche & UNPA, 2002

    The arguments below contain these assumptions in their essence. However, it is understood (perhaps reluctantly) that world federalism and the end of the state system is not in the mainstream political agenda for a contemporary UN. The objectives of UN reform and addressing issues of international governance are reasonable and feasible in contemporary politics. Implications for a Kantian vision of world federalism can be bruited, but at this point not much more.1 A UNPA would not be a world parliament, although some supporters and detractors of a UNPA think of it as a step towards a form of world government or global federalism.

    World government is not a necessary criterion in discussing a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly. World government is not the case here. What is at issue is governance, by which is commonly understood to be the regulation of an increasingly complex and interconnected world comprising States, societies, corporations, individuals and epistemic communities.

    The question of a UNPA, then, becomes one relating to a UNPA within the UN system and a UNPA within both the growing interconnectedness of trans-national politics and existing networks of global governance. Governance, transparency, democracy, diplomacy and international norms of behaviour – how states behave when their affairs are so intertwined – these are the issues in the background when discussing the formation of a UNPA.4 Specifically discussed below are those aspects of these phenomena that today seem to drive the argument for a UNPA.

    Some nice double speak here. Senator Roche is trying to argue that a United Nations Parliament would not actually amount to a world government. Okay.

    7. Quotes From 2007 Standing Comm Report

    CHAPTER 8 CANADA’S ROLE IN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND MULTILATERAL APPROACHES TO DEMOCRATIC DEVELOPMENT
    [W]e need democracy as a basis of a safer world, we need democracy as the basis for a just system of international relations …
    Her Excellency Nino Burjandze, Speaker of the Parliament of Georgia

    The Committee has already made reference in previous chapters to Canada’s welcomed multilateralist approach to democratic development and to its valued contribution to multilateral bodies. We believe that should be continued, and enhanced where most effective, as part of the evaluation of all Canadian support for international democratic development that we have recommended.
    The Committee observes as well that international organizations are increasingly expanding their work into all areas of democratic development and governance. For example, in our meeting at the Commonwealth Secretariat, its Secretary General told the Committee that the Secretariat is trying to work both at the cultural level and with parliaments and political parties on understanding the role of the opposition and on introducing accountability measures. Mr. Christopher Child, Advisor and Head of the Democracy Section, commented that “we’d like to do much more party training.” Strengthening party systems has also become an important area of work for the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Systems (IDEA). The role of political parties in democracy-building was the subject of the Council of Europe Forum for the Future of Democracy which took place in Moscow in October 2006 with the involvement of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly to which Canada sends observers.

    The World Bank, to which Canada is an important contributor through the Department of Finance, is not allowed by its Charter to take into account the nature of the political regime, hence its role in “political development is obviously constrained,” as Sanjay Pradhan, Sector Director in the Public Sector Governance Unit told the Committee in Washington, D.C. However, within a broader conception of good governance that is linked to democratic development: “We are doing a lot in terms of accountability of the state to its citizens.” So the Bank works on things that might be considered “building blocks” of democracy. Mr. Pradhan distributed a paper “How Ongoing Operations of the World Bank Currently Strengthen Participation and Accountability,” which lists six major program areas for Bank interventions. One of these includes “parliamentary capacity development.”

    Mr. Steen Lau Jorgensen, Director of the Bank’s Sustainable Development Network, elaborated that the Bank has programs directly involving local communities in development decisions, thereby increasing the effectiveness of projects. In the Bank’s experience, more open countries do much better in achieving their development goals. The Bank therefore has an interest in building the capacity of civil society and it now even gets close to election-related processes, as in Ivory Coast where it is helping with the compiling of a national registration list. In this case, the Bank is working with the EU and the UN and through the country’s prime minister’s office. Registration is not just about elections but about establishing citizen’s eligibility for social services.

    As Mr. Jorgensen put it, there has been a “fundamental change in mindset” towards seeing poor people as citizens having rights and responsibilities. The Bank’s consequent shift away from major infrastructure projects since the late 1980s has been approved by its Board. The Bank sees this as linked to development effectiveness, which incorporates a good governance and anti-corruption agenda. For example, in the public procurement process, the Bank has established oversight through a “Procurement Watch” mechanism, and it now has a “zero tolerance” policy on corruption in World Bank-supported projects. Mention was also made of a “Global Integrity Alliance” as part of an anti-corruption strategy involving leaders in the recipient countries.

    The role of a major international financial institution like the World Bank is noteworthy in another sense, since many believe that these powerful international organizations are not themselves sufficiently democratically accountable to the publics in the countries which make up their memberships. Several of the Committee’s witnesses addressed the issue of the need to advance democratization processes from the local and national levels of governance, to the dimension of global governance. For example, John Foster of the North-South Institute referred to the Finnish-supported “Helsinki Process” which produced a 2005 Report, Governing Globalization-Globalizing Governance, that made recommendations for democratizing oversight of the global economy and strengthening the role of parliamentarians and civil society in that regard. He also made reference to the work of the Forum International de Montreal — which gets most of its funding from non-Canadian sources — and to the Spanish-based “World Forum of Civil Society Networks and its Campaign for an In-Depth Reform of the System of International Institutions…”

    The presentation to the Committee by the World Federalist Movement — Canada also devoted a lot of attention to advancing democratization at the level of international institutions, in particular in the context of United Nations reforms. Indeed it noted that this Committee in 1993 had supported the concept of a parliamentary assembly at the UN, and it went on to state:
    In April 2007, the Committee for a democratic UN (an NGO organizing network working with parliamentarians) will present publicly the “International Appeal for the Establishment of a United National Parliamentary Assembly, at press conferences around the world. Following the Appeal launch in April, an international parliamentary conference is planned for October 2007 in Geneva.

    The World Federalist representatives urged the Committee to give favourable consideration to this international appeal. We note as well that the European Parliament has supported the establishment of UN Parliamentary Assembly as part of overall UN reform, most recently in a resolution of June 9, 2005.

    In terms of working through international organizations, the biggest of all is of course the UN system. Most of the UN funding related to democratic development and governance goes through the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). Indeed, when the Committee met with the UNDP’s Pippa Norris, Director of the Democratic Governance Group, Bureau of Development Policy, and other senior staff (many of them Canadians) at the UN in New York, it was noted that this group is the largest within the UNDP.

    Ms. Norris shared with the Committee the group’s Strategic Plan, 2008-2011, and explained that its mandate in the area of democratic governance comes from various UN sources including the Millennium Declaration and a General Assembly resolution in 2000, the 2002 statement Democratic Governance Practice in UNDP, and a recent high-level panel report Delivering As One. Documents provided to the Committee included the UNDP’s Global Programme on Parliamentary Strengthening, on Support for Arab Parliaments, on Strengthening the Role of Parliaments in Reconstruction and the Prevention of Conflicts, and the annual report of its Democratic Governance Thematic Trust Fund. There was also a briefing note on CIDA-UNDP collaboration in Afghanistan. On gender issues, the Committee was told that an international knowledge network on women and politics was to be launched in February 2007, centred on an on-line tool to help education in this area. In addition, the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) does a lot of work on civic education for women. On electoral assistance, it was noted that collaboration between Elections Canada and UNDP goes back as far as Cambodia in 1993. However, another Canadian staff member Elissar Sarrouh (Policy Advisor, Public Administration Reform) — who formerly worked at the Parliamentary Centre — added that Elections Canada is always short of resources. So when countries express interest in having Canadian expertise, sometimes the resources are not there.

    On the UN’s work on election processes, the Committee also met with Craig Jenness (again, a Canadian), Director of the Electoral Assistance Division within the Department for Political Affairs, who explained that this takes the form both of direct electoral support, and work on electoral best practices. Rather than election observation, the UN focuses either on providing assistance to electoral offices in host countries, or on assisting with electoral operations as part of peacekeeping missions in places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Haiti. The budget is relatively small, with a dozen people at headquarters, although a large roster of people — including many Canadians — work around the world. Also, there is a small trust fund to allow the quick deployment of people when necessary to places like Nepal. Some 102 UN member states — and four non-member states have requested electoral assistance since 1992, and over 30 countries are now receiving or have requested such assistance — most of them in Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

    One important reason UN help is requested is that this helps legitimate the result and get it accepted — for example, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The UN does not work with countries unless asked by the host government or there is a Security Council mandate. The UN tries to not run elections themselves, but to assist the host government in setting up the necessary structures to do so. In post-conflict situations, a problem that often comes up is that everyone wants to win an election, but it is often difficult to convince the losers that there is a real role for oppositions. According to Mr. Jenness, “parliamentarians can help” with that since they can talk to colleagues in other countries on a peer-to-peer basis.

    Before turning to UN’s innovation of a “Democracy Fund” in 2005, and Canada’s potential role in that, it is important to recognize that notwithstanding all of this work, many questions still surround the UN’s involvement in democratic development, as well as that of international organizations such as the Community of Democracies or alternatives, which can be more explicit than the UN about their pro-democracy aims since their memberships are limited to at least nominally democratic states.

    In observing that “the UN has often been in a situation where it has been an advocate of democracy”, Jane Boulden, Canada Research Chair in International Relations and Security Studies at the Royal Military College of Canada, told the Committee:
    There are a number of member states that are not happy about the fact that the UN should play a role in advocating democracy, even when it comes to post-conflict situations where parties have agreed to democracy as part of the peace agreement.
    This relates partly to the ongoing questions about sovereignty. With the responsibility to protect, for example, there’s been an increasing acceptance that sovereignty is not sacrosanct, and for those who are resistant to these ideas, the idea that democratization or democracy is an important universal value is seen as yet another hook that western states can use as a criterion for intervention in states.

    If democracy is to be put forward as a universal value, we need to be able to make that case more effectively than we are now. That’s a factor the United Nations is grappling with, but I think it goes across the board for states as well. On this point, the questions of perceptions relate as well to the image or the perception in a number of states that the UN engages in a number of double standards. Why do we, through the United Nations, react to some conflicts and by extension then deal with some post-conflict scenarios with resources and commitment, and not others? When we feed that into the broader question about whether democracy is a western value or not, you can see how the whole package becomes an issue.

    Scepticism about UN multilateralism combined with the need to engage the United States multilaterally has led to various alternatives being suggested. For example, two prominent U.S. scholars have recently made a detailed proposal for the establishment of a 60-member “Concert of Democracies.”

    Yet to get around the fact that the UN includes many non-democracies, there has already been the creation of the Community of Democracies in 2000, with Canada as a founding member, and which met for the first time at the UN in 2004 as a UN “Democracy Caucus”. The Committee was told during our New York meetings in February 2007 that the 100-member “Caucus” is currently chaired by Mali, which is also an active member of the Group of New and Restored Democracies. His Excellency, Cheick Sidi Diarra, Ambassador and Permament Representative to the UN of Mali, was among a group of UN ambassadors and permanent representatives with whom the Committee met. We have already referred in Chapter 4 to Canada’s participation in the Community of Democracies (CD). One of our Canadian witnesses, Jeffrey Kopstein argued that, given the UN’s weaknesses and limitations, the CD should be bolstered. In Washington, where we met with Richard Rowson, President of the CD’s Council, Theodore Piccone, Director of the Democracy Coalition Project (and representative of the Club of Madrid in Washington) argued that “Canada should be a member of the [CD] Convening Group,” and that notwithstanding our multi-lateralist reputation, Canada “has been mostly at the margins in this regard.”
    Others were less convinced of the CD’s effectiveness. Richard Haas, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, told the Committee that the CD defines its democracy membership criteria too broadly and is too large to be a meaningful actor. Thomas Melia, Deputy Director of Freedom House told the Committee in Washington that the Convening Group of the CD represents in part the strategic interests of the member governments. For example, Morocco is a member although it does not meet the democracy criteria. Mr. Melia also had some cautionary words on trying for global coordination, stating that “a lot of effort can be diverted into coordination.” Instead he saw the need for “complementarity,” and “the way to pursue that is to build one’s niche.”
    Gareth Evans, President of the International Crisis Group, has also cautioned:

    Don’t pin too many hopes on Democracy Caucuses and similar grand international strategies. While in principle an attractive idea, there are simply too many institutional and interest differences between democratic countries for a united front to be sustained on anything very much, and it is not at all clear that the tentative moves to create such mechanisms have so far placed any useful pressure on non-democracies, or generated any net positive returns.

    At the same time, Mr. Evans, who remains a strong believer in a strengthened and reformed UN system, points out that individual democratic countries, notably those with great-power interests such as the U.S., are often not the best placed to promote democratic development. Even if, as several U.S. witnesses told the Committee, Canada is sometimes able to do things that the U.S. cannot, Canada cannot go it alone in this field either. Mr. Evans argues that: “One way to have an impact without such visible badging [association with Western big-power interests] is working through collaboration with multilateral coordinating mechanisms in the UN and elsewhere — the new UN Democracy Fund now getting off the ground will hopefully prove of real utility in this respect.”

    The Committee shares that hope. Indeed, there is no substitute for action by the UN, for all its faults, since it is the only truly global body. We, too, want to see it reformed and made into a more credible instrument for advancing democratic development. With respect to the UN Democracy Fund (UNDEF) set up as a result of the September 2005 UN Summit, it is supported through voluntary donations not assessed contributions. The largest donor by far is the U.S., and the second largest donor has been India, the world’s most populous democracy, with a contribution of US$10 million. That amount was matched by Japan in early March 2007, adding to UNDEF’s funding capacity of about US$ 65 million, and making it the Fund’s 28th donor country. So far Canada is not among these.

    When the Committee met with UNDEF representatives, Acting Executive Director Magdy Martinez-Soliman and Senior programme Officer Randi Davis (a Canadian) in New York in February 2007, Mr. Martinez-Soliman observed that the Fund is the first UN organization to use the word “democracy” in its title.377 Moreover, parliaments have been one of the better allies of the new fund; UNDEF staff having met with delegations from India, the United Kingdom, the European Union, the United States and others, now including Canada. The visit of the Committee was prominently noted on UNDEF’s web site (http://www.un.org/democracyfund/). It was made clear to the Committee that Canada’s involvement would be welcomed, especially as Canada’s democracy is looked upon favourably by many countries in the world.

    The idea for UNDEF was explained as a U.S. initiative proposed as part of the UN reform debate along with priorities such as human rights, management reform and a Peacebuilding Commission. (The Committee also met separately with Canadian Carolyn McAskie, UN Assistant Secretary-General in charge of the Peacebuilding Support Office.379) UNDEF currently works mostly through civil society organizations as well as partnerships with other UN organizations, including peacekeeping missions. Its first funding tranche in August 2006 involved some 70 NGOs, including in Canada the Parliamentary Centre and a journalists group in Toronto. Importantly, UNDEF funding also comes from the South; it is not in the “import-export” business in terms of democracy, and does not offer a democratic model for others to copy. Significantly, too, UNDEF does not require host government permission when it decides on funding projects. It operates with the support and legitimization of the Secretary-General and the states that make up its board, composed of the six largest contributors. UNDEF is also one of the earliest examples of the “One UN” model proposed by the report of a recent High Level UN Panel on Coherence, Delivering as One,380 that was also referred to in the Committee’s meeting at the UNDP.

    UNDEF is still a fledgling organization with only six staff (as of February 2007), and has just starting work on the ground, although it already has some 125 projects in 110 states and territories. Its regional priority is Africa (37% of project funding), followed by least developed countries outside of Africa. Project decisions are made on the basis of detailed proposals after consultation with the UN’s Department of Political Affairs and other UN organizations active in each country, following which a short list is made and presented to the board, which makes an even shorter list for presentation to the Secretary-General. With no formal advertising, UNDEF received over 1,300 applications in its first two weeks of operation — although about 700 of these did not meet its criteria. (Even when UNDEF did not fund projects, however, it has shared its database of proposals with other UN bodies, so these projects may get funding from elsewhere.)

    The UNDEF governance structure is bi-level: one composed of UN member states, and one of NGOs, respecting geographic balance, and with an advisory board that includes international democracy experts such as Guillermo O’Donnell cited by the Committee in Chapter 1. Asked why UNDEF has accepted funding from states such as Qatar that are not fully democratic, Mr. Martinez-Soliman responded that UNDEF does not judge the degree to which its donors are democratic, but poses the larger questions of: Do the citizens within a state think it is democratic, and do other states think so?

    Mr. Martinez-Soliman added that UNDEF has about 15 projects that work directly with political parties in countries such as Bolivia, Serbia and Peru. There are obviously sensitivities involved in such work. Observing that some countries have tightened their legislation on the transfer of foreign money to NGOs, in order to prevent these countries from shutting the door, UNDEF specifies that NGOs must be recognized either nationally or internationally. UNDEF also works in partnership with global and regional interparliamentary forums — for example, the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), particularly on the issue of support for increasing the number of women parliamentarians, and including the Assemblée parlementaire de la francophonie.

    The Committee was told, by our Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations John McNee, that Canada’s official position on UNDEF remains one of “wait and see.” We agree that UNDEF is a work in progress. But at the same time, it is part of UN reform and a global UN effort to take democratic development seriously. Surely that goal merits Canadian support. We note as well that among UNDEF’s donors are five of Canada’s G7 partners and its Commonwealth partner, Australia. Accordingly, we believe that Canada should consider whether to become a UNDEF donor.

    Finally, there is a recurring theme that has struck the Committee during its meetings with international organizations supported by Canada that are involved in democratic development: namely, the impressive number of Canadians who are working in these organizations, often at senior levels. This is a great pool of expertise and experience upon which to draw. While some of these Canadians may be attracted back to Canada by the new Canada foundation for international democratic development that we proposed in Recommendation 12, it is also a good to have Canadians in positions of influence inside the multilateral organizations that Canada funds.

    The Committee believes that a greater effort should be made to tap into the knowledge accumulated by Canadians working in multilateral organizations. This could enrich Canada’s own approach to democratic development as it is elaborated through an enlarged Democracy Council and through the independent Canada foundation that we have proposed.

    The Foreign Affairs Committee of Stephen Harper’s Government also approved the idea of participating in a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly in July 2007. It seems that all of these successive administrations are globalists.

    8. Recommendations From 2007 Report

    Recommendation 19
    The independent evaluation of all Canadian support for democratic development that we have recommended should also assess the effectiveness of multilateral channels to which Canada provides funding. That evaluation should guide appropriate funding levels.

    Recommendation 20
    Recognizing that the future challenges of democratization processes involve governance at the level of international organizations, as well as in national and local settings, the Canada foundation for international democratic development should include these dimensions within its mandate, and should consider related proposals for support from Canadian non-governmental bodies and civil-society groups working in this area.

    Recommendation 21
    As part of the essential role of a reformed and strengthened United Nations in global democratic development, the Parliament of Canada should give favourable consideration to the establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly.

    Recommendation 22
    In light of the establishment of the United Nations Democracy Fund (UNDEF) as part of UN reform proposals in 2005, Canada should consider whether to become a donor to UNDEF.

    Recommendation 23
    Taking into account the expertise and experience on democratic development that has been accumulated by Canadians working in this field through multilateral organizations, Canada should make an effort to tap into this pool of knowledge in furthering its own approach to democratic development.

    Exactly what it sounds like: create and participate in a United Nations Parliament.

    9. Trudeau Endorses UN Parliament

    Our current Prime Minister endorsed the concept back in 2010. It seems doubtful that he has changed his mind since.

    Interestingly, Green Party leader Elizabeth May (who also sits on the Trudeau Foundation) has endorsed this as well.

    10. CDA Globalist Gov’ts All In Support

    Successive Canadian Governments all support being part of a UN Parliament if it ever became a reality. Canada is pretty screwed.

    Guest Post #2: More Great Work From CdnSpotlight Reposted

    Another researcher getting into the muck and filth that is the Canadian Government and administration. Here is some of the work unearthed and exposed. Worth a good long read, for anyone who is truly concerned about the future of the nation. Here are just a few of the postings. Go check out more.

    In this previous post, CdnSpotlight’s work from Gab is shared on this site. Here is continuation of that fine research.

    6. Goldy Hyer

    Canada’s Deep State Part 6 – Goldy Hyder
    Another one of Dom’s buddies at Century Initiative is Goldy Hyder, currently Pres & CEO of the Business Council of Canada since 2018, previously:

    Hill+Knowlton Strategies Canada (Ottawa) 2001-2018, working his way up to Pres & CEO in 2013

    Hyder, a native Albertan, was PM Joe Clark’s chief of staff (when?) prior to joining Hill+Knowlton in 2001 but there’s no mention of dates exactly when that took place

    Recently named Vice Chair of ABLAC 2020 (Asia Business Leaders Advisory Council), a high-level group of Asian and Canadian business leaders convened annually by the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada (APFC) to identify and articulate opportunities for improved Canada-Asia business engagement.

    And guess who some of the APFC members are from Canada – recognize some names from my previous posts?

    Barton, Wiseman, Hyder, Fukakusa (CIB) & Sabia (Porno’s Advisory Council) – ain’t that cozy?

    For some lobbying in Harper’s Government.

    Duffy adviser offered to share secrets with Nigel Wright, defence alleges in cross-examination.

    Defence lawyer Donald Bayne suggested adviser Goldy Hyder was actually working closer with Wright and the PMO than he was with Duffy
    In April 2013, Sen. Mike Duffy engaged longtime Conservative insider and communications expert Goldy Hyder to advise him on how to handle his ongoing discussions with the Prime Minister’s Office over his expense claims.

    Hyder, a consultant, then contacted Nigel Wright, at the time the prime minister’s chief of staff, to say he had been engaged as a Duffy adviser. And, according to Duffy’s defence lawyer, Hyder offered to secretly share information with Wright.

    “Sen. Duffy thinks that Goldy Hyder is working on his behalf,” defence lawyer Donald Bayne told Wright in court, “but really Mr. Hyder is working for you to get to where you want to go.”

    “I never viewed it that way,” replied Wright. “He introduced himself as working for Sen. Duffy.”

    Duffy advisor offered to share secrets with Nigel Wright.

    Then there’s this moronic piece:

    Jaspal Atwal, Sikh Extremist Convicted In Assassination Attempt, Invited To Trudeau Receptions In India.

    The news comes as Trudeau tries to reassure Indian leaders that his government doesn’t support Sikh extremism.

    Goldy Hyder, President of Hill and Knowlton Strategies and a long-time Conservative insider who was in India for part of the Canadian trip, said the Atwal furor is taking away from the positives of the Trudeau tour.

    “I do think it’s unfortunate because it’s taking away from some of the things that are happening on this that, as a Canadian of a different (political) stripe, quite frankly, I’m pleased to see.”

    Hyder said he didn’t think the episode would harm Trudeau’s efforts to improve trade and cultural relations with India, largely because the mistake was fixed as soon as it was discovered.

    7. Jim Leech, ON Teachers’ Pension, CIB

    CANADA’S DEEP STATE Part 7 – Jim Leech – Ontario Teachers Pension Plan & Architect of the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

    Currently the Chancellor of Queen’s University after retiring in 2014 as Pres/CEO of the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP) 2001-2014, one of the world’s largest and most innovative pension funds. During his tenure as CEO, Teachers’ eliminated its funding deficit and was RANKED FIRST IN THE WORLD amongst peer plans for absolute returns and value-added returns over 5 & 10 years.

    Feb.10, 2017 – he was named Special Advisor “to the Prime Minister of Canada” on the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB), working in collaboration with the Privy Council Office, the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, and the Minister of Finance to expedite the swift and successful creation of the CIB

    Mr. Leech is also a SENIOR ADVISOR to MCKINSEY & CO. (location & date unknown) & long-term acquaintance of Dominic Barton & Mark Wiseman.

    Prior to his appointment as CEO, Mr. Leech headed Teachers’ Private Capital as Senior VP, the pension plan’s private investing arm where he oversaw the growth in private equity, venture capital, and infrastructure investments from $2B in 2001 to over $20B by 2007
    –> This is when he and the fund gained world-wide attention

    After retiring from OTPP in 2014, Mr. Leech was also appointed Special Advisor to the Ontario Minister of Finance to review the sustainability of the province’s electricity sector pension. His report was accepted by the government and is currently being implemented.

    from a Globe & Mail interview Jan.2015:
    Is there a particular metric you lean on?
    “It’s funny, the whole time I was at Teachers, if you asked me on any given day what the stock market had done, I wouldn’t have been able to tell you. But in terms of meaty economic analysis, I put some weight in the World Economic Forum in Davos. That’s probably where I got the information.”
    Also an Honorary Colonel in the Canadian Armed Forces

    Check out this speech, from Jim Leech.

    8. Michael Sabia & The Caisse

    CANADA’S DEEP STATE Part 8 – Michael Sabia and the Caisse
    While researching everything & everyone in this series, many questions arose while trying to understand how pension fund managers, global “investment/asset managers” and global “management consultants” became the Crime Minister’s gurus with so much power and say in this government – SO MUCH that an infrastructure bank Crown Corporation was created AND FAST.

    Why?
    How did the core mandate of public pensions morph into that?
    Why does there seem to be an ulterior motive?

    How does this fit in with China, the other key players like Barton & Wiseman, Pension Plans, immigration, the “middle class” & retiring boomers? Future posts to come.

    These all came together with the deep digs on Michael Sabia and Quebec’s public pension the Caisse.

    Michael Sabia is Pres & CEO of Quebec’s Pension Plan : Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec (CDPQ or The Caisse) since 2009. The first anglophone to head the Caisse which ruffled a lot of feathers in Quebec
    Education
    1976 BA political economy, University of Toronto
    – met his wife, Hilary Pearson in 1st year, granddaughter of former PM Lester B.Pearson
    1977-83 MA, MPhil, political economy, Yale University
    Career
    1986-90 Canadian department of finance, tax policy
    1990-93 PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE deputy secretary to the cabinet
    —–> Why do I get bad vibes every time with the PCO or Clerk of the Privy Council?
    1993-95 Canadian National Railway (CN), VP Corp Development
    1995-99 CN CFO
    1999-00 Bell Canada International, chief executive
    2000-02 Bell Canada Enterprise (BCE), Exec.VP & COO
    2002-08 BCE CEO & Pres
    2009-present Caisse de Dépôt et Placement du Québec, CEO & Pres

    Sabia held a number of senior positions in Canada’s federal public service incl. Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet of the Privy Council Office1986-93. As a federal govt bureaucrat, he worked on the tax overhaul that would lead to the creation of GST.
    Sabia’s supervisor, Clerk of the Privy Council Paul Tellier, left the public service in 1992 to become Pres. of CN Rail, a Crown corp., Sabia followed him in 1993 to help in privatizing the company. Sabia held a number of executive positions at Canadian National Railway including the position of chief financial officer.

    Tellier remained CEO at CN until Jan.2003 when he left “unexpectedly” to become Bombardier Corp’s CEO.

    CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED
    On November 17, 1995, after 78 years as a Crown corporation, CN was part of the largest privatization in Canadian history through an initial public offering (IPO) that raised CAD 2.26 billion for the Canadian government.

    This was led by a new management team of ex-federal government bureaucrats, including Paul Tellier and Michael Sabia who began preparing CN for privatization by improving productivity and enhancing profitability.

    These objectives were achieved by massive cuts to the company’s management structure, massive layoffs (CN went from 32,000 employees to about 23,000) and the sale of its branch lines. In Tellier’s final year as CEO, the publicly traded company earned $800 million.

    9. Quebec’s pension – The Caisse (CPDQ)

    CANADA’S DEEP STATE Part 9 – Quebec’s pension – The Caisse (CPDQ)
    Quebec has its own public pension plan and they do not contribute to CPP. It is the 2nd largest pension fund in Canada, after the Canada Pension Plan (CPP)

    As at December 31, 2018, CDPQ managed assets of $309.5B invested in Canada and internationally
    Established in 1965, the Caisse de Dépôt et Placement du Québec (CDPQ) initially focused on bonds before entering the Canadian stock market in 1967. Caisse manages the funds of other public pension and insurance plans, government and public employee pensions, employees of the QUEBEC CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY and more.

    — Remember the Charbonneau Commission?

    It created its private equity portfolio investing in Québec companies then adopted new investment guidelines, placing greater emphasis on equity and entering the real estate market in the 80’s. In 1996, the Caisse’s Real Estate group was the leading real estate owner in Québec and the second largest in Canada.

    As of 2017, CDPQ has 41 depositors, active on Canadian and international markets, holds a diversified portfolio including fixed-income securities, publicly listed shares, real estate investments, and private equity. A shareholder in more than 4,000 companies in Québec, elsewhere in Canada, and around the world, the Caisse is internationally recognized as a leading institutional investor
    Based on Caisse’s success, the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan lobbied the federal gov’t in the 90’s, and won, to allow the same diversification as Caisse.

    Caisse has 3 subsidiaries: Ivanhoe Cambridge, Otera Capital, & CDPQ Infra

    Ivanhoé Cambridge is the real estate subsidiary of the Caisse investing in real estate assets ranging from office space & shopping centers to multi-residential buildings. In 2011 all of CDPQ’s real estate subsidiaries were merged into Ivanhoe Cambridge.

    Otera Capital is a balance sheet lender in commercial real estate debt in Canada. Unknown if acquired or created by CDPQ in the 80’s
    CDPQ Infra is the first Infrastructure Bank in Canada created June 2015 for its first & biggest project – the Réseau express métropolitain (REM) in the Montreal area

    From 2010, this brilliant analysis foretells Caisse’s infrastructure bank – the MODEL for the new Canada Infrastructure Bank

    Quebec: The most corrupt province. See here.

    Why does Quebec claim so many of the nation’s political scandals?

    “…the frankly disastrous state of Charest’s government. In the past two years, the government has lurched from one scandal to the next, from political financing to favouritism in the provincial daycare system to the matter of Charest’s own (long undisclosed) $75,000 stipend, paid to him by his own party, to corruption in the construction industry. Charest has stymied repeated opposition calls for an investigation into the latter, prompting many to wonder whether the Liberals, who have long-standing ties to Quebec’s construction companies, have something to hide. (Regardless, this much is true: it costs Quebec taxpayers roughly 30 per cent more to build a stretch of road than anywhere else in the country,

    (much more on that topic…..)

    10. Rise Of The Pensions

    CANADA’S DEEP STATE – The Rise of the Pensions
    Canada’s economy is, at best, stagnant
    With no economic growth, there’s no new jobs, no additional income or disposable income to spend or INVEST
    Canadians have also reached the limits of being taxed – trapping many in the “middle class” as the working poor near the poverty line

    But the middle class drives the tax revenues of the entire country as well as the contributions to pension plans (CPP)
    So when the middle class declines, when income declines, so do tax revenues, pension plan contributions, disposable income and investment/savings $

    That’s why the Crime Minister & Liberals keep referring to the middle class:
    Announced in the Fall Economic Statement, the Canada Infrastructure Bank – a key component of the government’s Investing in Canada plan – will provide innovative financing for infrastructure projects, and help more projects get built in Canada. It will lead to better projects that create the GOOD, WELL-PAYING JOBS NEEDED to GROW THE MIDDLE CLASS now, and strengthen Canada’s economy over the long term.
    ***Source: Prime Minister announces Special Advisor on the Canada Infrastructure Bank Feb.10, 2017

    All of this is really about lower incomes = lower income tax revenue

    from Jim Leech’s book The Third Rail: Confronting Our Pension Failures:
    “Over the next 20 years (as of 2013) more than 7 million Canadian workers will retire. Baby boomers, the 45- to 65-year-olds who account for 42% of the country’s workforce, will join the largest job exodus in Canadian history, moving to the promised land of retirement.”

    *** Since millennials now outnumber boomers, the “exodus” can be easily replaced, so what’s the big deal?
    “UNLESS OUR CRUMBLING PENSION SYSTEM IS REFORMED, many of these retirees will find this dreamland a bewildering and disappointing mirage.”

    *** Reforming the pension “system” is really what’s going on

    “In the early 1980s, consumers were setting aside 20% of their DISPLOSABLE incomes to their retirement plans;
    TODAY (2013) THE SAVINGS RATE IS A THREADBARE 2.5%

    “Retirement savings plans meant to build Canadians’ personal war chests for their final years have failed to live up to their cheery promises of early retirement “freedom” – MARKET RETURNS ARE LOW, and FINANCIAL FEES ARE CLIMBING.

    Moreover, retirement plans are now being compromised by high pension obligations and a shrinking workforce.”
    *** No shrinking workforce with millennials replacing these workers, but their lower entry-level salaries don’t match the higher boomer salaries because of their decades of work experience

    When public pensions got the green light from gov’ts to invest in real estate & riskier investments, those plans exploded in wealth:
    CPP from $44.5 B in 2000 to $409.5 B in 2019 – an increase of $365 B in 20 yr
    CDPQ from $50 B in 1994 to $325 B in 2019 – staggering – Quebec only!
    OTPP from $69 B in 2001 to $191 B in 2018
    There’s also OMERS, HOOPP, etc

    However, CPP became concerned with decreasing contributions as the workforce declined or retired. CPP had projected a deficiency in contributions vs. pensions being paid in 2021. That means the investment portion of the CPP portfolio has to be used to top up this deficiency.

    But isn’t that what it’s for? See this report.
    Source: Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Canada

    11. Follow The Money….

    CANADA’S DEEP STATE Part 11 – Follow the Money

    How governments & capitalists are STEALING Public Pension Funds
    Previous posts in this series showed that middle class Canadians and all levels of government are broke, with governments heavily in debt with no real means to create additional tax revenues

    But there’s TRILLIONS of $ in Canada’s Public Pension Plans

    And TRILLIONS of $ of infrastructure needed WORLDWIDE

    Since legislation forbids government access to these funds, this Liberal gov’t has changed the GAME by creating the Canada Infrastructure Bank

    Now that gov’t has created the CIB, gov’t will now work at arm’s length, meaning no formal direct bidding process with the gov’t
    That means SNC-Lavalin gets their “get out of jail free” card – they can bid on anything
    And will likely get them all

    In Dec.2017, Minister of Infrastructure Amarjeet Sohi (and Morneau) wrote the true mandate of the CIB in their Statement of Priorities and Accountabilities – Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB)

    “The Bank will be an innovative financing tool designed to work collaboratively with public and private sector partners to transform the way infrastructure is planned, funded and delivered in Canada”

    Public & private sector partners – otherwise known as PPPs or the 3Ps or P3 – see next post in this thread
    Public sector partners include Institutional Investors – otherwise known as pensions, insurance, etc

    “As other countries face the same challenges of closing the infrastructure gap with private and INSTITUTIONAL CAPITAL and finding new ways to fund infrastructure, our GLOBAL PARTNERS (WHO THE HELL ARE THEY?!?) WILL BE WATCHING AND LEARNING FROM THE BANK”
    Looks like Canada is the guinea pig for the “Global Partners” – see next post in this thread

    Read this archived post.

    12. ….And Go Follow CdnSpotlight

    Should be obvious by now this account contains some real dirt that is politics in Canada. Most Canadians have no idea about the filth and corruption that our nation is immersed in. But CS lays it out.

    Bit Of History: Peter MacKay Shanks David Orchard In 2003 PC Leadership Race

    (Peter Mackay pledges – in writing – no merger with Alliance if he wins)

    (Peter MacKay sticking the knife in again?)

    1. Important Links


    CLICK HERE, for the Peter McKay/David Orchard alliance.
    http://archive.is/DJ6M8
    CLICK HERE, for CBC article on the broken deal.
    http://archive.is/fAEgs
    CLICK HERE, for ONSC denying Orchard’s application in full.
    http://archive.is/niIKc
    CLICK HERE, for an ONSC judge refusing costs for defamation.
    http://archive.is/NgxG0
    CLICK HERE, for Orchard’s ON Court of Appeal Factum.
    http://archive.is/nsX0V/image
    CLICK HERE, for ONCA dismissing appeal/cross appeal/motion.
    http://archive.is/nBrOy
    CLICK HERE, for Stevens v. CPC, Federal Court of Canada.
    http://archive.is/iwCyI
    CLICK HERE, for Stevens v. CPC, Federal Court of Appeal.
    http://archive.is/6S6am

    CLICK HERE, for a May 2019 article on replacing Scheer (before election).
    http://archive.is/ZPFdF
    CLICK HERE, for MacKay commenting on Scheer’s 2019 loss.
    http://archive.is/SFvWr

    2. Context For This Article


    In 2003, the current Conservative Party of Canada did not exist. Instead, there was the Alliance Party, led by Stephen Harper, and the Progressive Conservative Party, undergoing a leadership race.

    Two candidates in that race, David Orchard and Peter Mackay, struck a deal: Orchard would support MacKay’s leadership bid in return for a written pledge not to pursue a merger or deal with the Alliance. At that time, a merger had been seriously considered, as a way to form a united alternative to the Liberal Party. But MacKay promised — in writing — not to pursue this if he was supported for leader of the Progressive Conservative leadership.

    The deal went ahead as planned (so it seemed), and MacKay became leader of the party. However, it appeared he had no intention of honouring his deal. Almost immediately, he pursued merger talks with the Alliance. The eventually merged, and the new party formed government from 2006 until 2015. MacKay’s deceptive and underhanded tactics had won in the long term.

    Fast forward more than a decade from 2003, and another controversy. See section #9 for more on that.

    3. Text Of McKay/Orchard Deal

    May 31, 2003 Agreement between Peter MacKay and David Orchard
    1) No merger, joint candidates w[ith] Alliance. Maintain 301.
    2) Review of FTA/NAFTA – blue ribbon commission with D[avid] O[rchard] w[ith] choice of chair w[ith] P[eter] M[acKay’s] agreement. Rest of members to be jointly agreed upon.
    3) Clean up of head office including change of national director in consultation (timing w[ithin] reasonable period in future, pre-election) and some of DO’s people working at head office.
    4) Commitment to making environmental protection front and center incl[uding] sustainable agriculture, forestry, reducing pollution through rail.
    [Signed by Peter MacKay and David Orchard]

    Looks pretty straightforward.
    No merger. Fix our party instead.

    4. ON Court Challenge By Orchard, Others

    Administrative law — Voluntary association — Political parties — Political parties registered under Canada Elections Act — Leaders of Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance reaching agreement for merger of political parties — Common law principles regarding unregulated voluntary associations did not apply to political parties registered under Canada Elections Act — Canada Elections Act governing merger of registered political parties — Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9.

    On October 15, 2003, Peter MacKay, leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada (“PC Party”), reached an agreement in principle with Steven [page278] Harper, leader of the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance (“Alliance”), for the establishment of the “Conservative Party of Canada”. PC Party members who were opposed to the agreement applied to the court for several declarations. The premise of these declarations was that the PC Party could not be dissolved or merged with another political party except with the unanimous consent of all its members. The applicants also sought a permanent injunction to prevent anyone from dealing with the party’s assets.

    [4] The applicants are PC Party members who are opposed to the merger of the party with the Alliance. They request that the court make a number of declarations, which are all premised on their view that the PC Party cannot be dissolved or merged with another political party, except with the unanimous consent of all of its members. They also seek a permanent injunction to prevent anyone from otherwise dealing with the party’s assets.

    [5] I note that several items of the relief set out in the Notice of Application are not pursued before me. Paragraph 1(j) requested a declaration that Mr. MacKay is in breach of his written agreement, dated June 1, 2003, with Mr. Orchard, and sought consequential relief. The request for this relief was withdrawn on the consent of counsel prior to the date set for the hearing. Paragraph 1(e) sought a declaration that the procedures set by the Management Committee of the PC Party for the special meeting scheduled for December 6, 2003 are contrary to the Party’s Constitution and by-laws. Counsel for the applicants indicated they [page280] were not seeking such relief and informed the court the applicants were making no attack on the specific procedures adopted by the Party respecting the special meeting. Counsel also informed the court that the applicants were not requesting the court to deal with the relief sought in para. 1(g) which sought a declaration that the Constitution of the PC Party prohibited its leader from agreeing with the leader of another political party that the PC Party will not nominate candidates in every federal constituency in Canada.

    [6] Traditionally, the courts have been reluctant to get involved in supervising the internal affairs of voluntary associations. However, courts do recognize that membership in a voluntary association can give individuals important social rights that are worthy of some protection. Members may request the courts to require that the organization carry out its affairs honestly, in good faith and in accordance with its governing rules.

    [7] In this case we are dealing with a political party. The social interest of members in ensuring that the organization’s affairs are conducted in accordance with its governing Constitution is apparent. Citizens exercise important rights in participating in political activity through membership in political parties. However, the court must be careful not to intrude into the political realm. There were submissions and evidence in this case that I considered to be political rhetoric. I have disregarded all such evidence and submissions.

    [13] I am satisfied that the situation is sufficiently developed to give rise to an actual dispute between the parties. Both sides have important interests at stake. The leadership of the PC Party has embarked on a path to merge the party. The applicants are opposed to the course of action being taken. Counsel for both sides indicated to the court that it would be of assistance to have a decision before the vote is taken tomorrow. Given their national significance, there is good reason to determine the questions raised by this actual dispute, and I am satisfied that the court’s decision will be of practical effect in resolving the dispute.

    [14] I have concluded that this dispute does not fall within the ambit of the internal dispute resolution in Article 13 of the PC Party’s Constitution. I regard the internal process as intended to deal with questions about whether the ongoing affairs of the party are being conducted in compliance with its Constitution and by-laws. This dispute arises in extraordinary circumstances not contemplated by its Constitution, concerns its continued existence, and as will be seen, is in large measure about the proper interpretation and effect of a public statute. In deciding not to defer to the internal arbitration process, I paid no heed to the applicants’ arguments that that process was flawed by relationship and institutional bias. I regard the applicant’s apprehension of bias to be without merit.

    [40] In expressing this view, I should not be taken to be declaring the law. In this proceeding I was asked to make declarations that the PC Party cannot merge, transfer its assets, or dissolve without the unanimous consent of every one of its individual members. I have decided, based on the view I take of the law, that it is not appropriate to make such declarations.

    [41] A further comment must be made about para. 1(h) of the application. Paragraph 1(h) seeks “a declaration that the resolution [before the December 6 special meeting] does not constitute the resolution required pursuant to s. 400(2)(b) of the Canada Elections Act in order for the PC Party to merge with another registered party under the Act”. Whether the resolution being acted upon tomorrow, or any other resolution, satisfies the requirements of the Act must, in the first instance, be decided by the Chief Electoral Officer. I refuse the relief requested in para. 1(h) on that basis.

    [42] The application is dismissed in its entirety. Counsel may make an appointment through my secretary to address costs.
    Application dismissed.

    In short the Court ruled that the matter should be decided internally. The parties have governing documents (such as constitutions) which set out terms for various issues, including mergers.

    One way to look at this would be the “sort out your own business” line of reasoning prevailed. And while members of an organization should expect leaders to behave in a good faith manner, the Court apparently isn’t always the place to demand such a resolution.

    While the Judge “could” have intervened, the decision was made not to.

    See the next section for the Elections Act (400-403)

    5. Canada Elections Act

    [34] I set out the provisions in full, underlining the particular phrases that I find helpful in interpreting the provisions. I discuss some of the particular phrases below.

    400(1) Two or more registered parties may, at any time other than during the period beginning 30 days before the issue of a writ for an election and ending on polling day, apply to the Chief Electoral Officer to become a single registered party resulting from their merger.
    (2) An application to merge two or more registered parties must
    (a) be certified by the leaders of the merging parties;
    (b) be accompanied by a resolution from each of the merging parties approving the proposed merger; and
    (c) contain the information required from a party to be registered, except for the information referred to in paragraph 366(2)(i).

    401(1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall amend the registry of parties by replacing the names of the merging parties with the name of the merged party if
    (a) the application for the merger was not made in the period referred to in subsection 400(1); and
    (b) the Chief Electoral Officer is satisfied that
    (i) the merged party is eligible for registration as a political party under this Act, and
    (ii) the merging parties have discharged their obligations under this Act, including their obligations to report on their financial transactions and their election expenses and to maintain valid and up-to-date information concerning their registration.
    (2) The Chief Electoral Officer shall notify the officers of the merging parties in writing whether the registry of parties is to be amended under subsection (1).
    (3) If the Chief Electoral Officer amends the registry of parties, he or she shall cause to be published in the Canada Gazette a notice that the names of the merging parties have been replaced in the registry with the name of the merged party.

    402(1) A merger of registered parties takes effect on the day on which the Chief Electoral Officer amends the registry of parties under subsection 401(1).
    (2) On the merger of two or more registered parties,
    (a) the merged party is the successor of each merging party;
    (b) the merged party becomes a registered party;
    (c) the assets of each merging party belong to the merged party;
    (d) the merged party is responsible for the liabilities of each merging party; [page287]
    (e) the merged party is responsible for the obligations of each merging party to report on its financial transactions and election expenses for any period before the merger took effect;

    (f) the merged party replaces a merging party in any proceedings, whether civil, penal or administrative, by or against the merging party; and
    (g) any decision of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature involving a merging party may be enforced by or against the merged party.

    403. Within six months after a merger
    (a) each of the merging parties shall provide the Chief Electoral Officer with the documents referred to in subsection 424(1) for
    (i) the portion of its current fiscal period that ends on the day before the day on which the merger takes effect, and
    (ii) any earlier fiscal period for which those documents have not been provided; and
    (b) the merged party shall provide the Chief Electoral Officer with
    (i) a statement, prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, of its assets and liabilities, including any surplus or deficit, at the date of the merger,
    (ii) an auditor’s report, submitted to the chief agent of the merged party, as to whether the statement presents fairly and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles the information on which it was based, and
    (iii) a declaration in the prescribed form by the chief agent of the merged party concerning the statement.

    These sections of the Canada Elections Act are cited in both the Provincial and Federal Court rulings. As such, we should know what they actually say. In short, they quite clearly allow for party mergers. Broken promises and backroom deals don’t actually appear anywhere in the text.

    6. ON Court Of Appeal (Orchard et al.)

    [17] As a preliminary matter, the respondent moves to quash the appeal as now being moot. It argues that there is no longer a live issue affecting the rights of the parties because the merger has happened and the Conservative Party has been registered by the Chief Electoral Officer in place of the PC Party and the Alliance Party.

    [18] In my view, the motion must be dismissed. There remains the same real legal issue between the parties that existed before December 6, 2003, namely, whether the PC Party can be dissolved or merged with another political party without the unanimous consent of all of its members. The only difference is that if [page134] they are successful, the appellants must now seek a remedial order undoing what has happened rather than an order to prevent it from occurring. The respondent has not shown that this would be impossible. The underlying legal issues still have an effect on the rights of the parties and hence mootness does not apply.

    [19] On the appeal itself, the appellants’ fundamental contention is that the common law requires the PC Party to obtain the unanimous consent of all of its members to merge with the Alliance Party. In making this argument they place significant reliance on Astgen.

    [45] By the terms of the constitution this decision is final and binding. Having had the opportunity to participate in that process the appellants are bound to accept it as final and binding, subject to judicial review which they have not sought. This is a corollary to the obligation of an organization like a trade union to give notice of an arbitration to a member whose rights will be affected because the decision of the arbitration board is final and binding. See, for example, Hoogendoorn v. Greening Metal Products and Screening Equipment Co. (1967), 1967 CanLII 20 (SCC), [1968] S.C.R. 30, 65 D.L.R. (2d) 641. It is not open to the appellants to seek a determination by the court that the resolution is of no legal effect because the PC Party failed to comply with the procedures required by its constitution. In this circumstance, that is a matter for the Arbitration Committee.

    [46] In summary, therefore, the appellants’ arguments on appeal must be rejected.

    [47] The respondent has cross-appealed from the decision of the application judge to award no costs because of the public importance of the issues raised. We did not call on the appellants to respond to the cross-appeal. In our view, it was an entirely appropriate exercise of discretion by the judge of first instance.

    [48] As to the costs of the proceedings in this court, success has been divided. The appellants failed on the appeal. The respondent failed to establish mootness and failed on the cross-appeal. Together with the public importance of the questions raised, this makes it appropriate to order that there be no costs in this court. [page141]

    [49] I would therefore dismiss the motion to quash and the appeal and the cross-appeal. No costs in this court.

    Among other things, the Court of Appeals states that relief should have come in the form of an application for judicial review challenging the Elections Commission.

    Beyond that, the Appeals Panel sidesteps the underhanded nature of MacKay’s duplicity. Instead, they point out that the Canada Elections Act explicitly allows for mergers except in very limited cases. Unanimity from all participants is not required.

    To sum up, there is nothing new to add here, so appeal dismissed.

    7. Stevens v. CPC (Federal Court)


    This was not the only case that was launched. There was an Application for Judicial Review started in Federal Court to contest the ruling that allowed the merger.

    [76] The Applicant argued that the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed the opinion of the application judge that section 401(1)(b)(ii) of the Act vests the CEO not the Court, with the mandate of determining if the merger application met the statutory requirements. However, he also submits that the Court of Appeal recognized that section 400(2)(b) of the Act implicitly requires that a merger resolution be passed in accordance with the constitution of a merging party.

    [77] Accordingly, the Applicant argues that this holding supports his contention that the CEO erred in law by rejecting the constitution of the PC Party as being relevant to his decision. The Applicant repeats and relies upon his earlier submissions that the constitution of that party specifically prohibits the merger application that was made.

    [78] Further, the Applicant says that the judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal does not address the argument that the common law rights of voluntary associations include the right to be heard when such association is a political party that is at risk of dissolution.

    ii) The Respondent

    [79] The Respondent disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision and argues that the Court rejected the arguments that the merger of the PC Party and the Alliance Party attracted application of the common law rule that the unanimous consent of each party member was required for the merger of those parties. Further, the Respondent submits that the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the Act did not require unanimous consent for such merger.

    [80] In conclusion, the Respondent relies on the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal as supporting its view that the decision of the CEO to amend the registry of parties on December 7, 2003, was correct.

    <

    p style=”padding: 2px 6px 4px 6px; color: #555555; background-color: #eeeeee; border: #dddddd 2px solid;”>

    [114] A waiting period of sixty days applies when a political party initially applies for registration. In my view, it is reasonable that a waiting period, albeit a reduced one, will also apply when two registered parties apply for merger.

    [115] It follows, then, that in my opinion, the CEO erred by amending the registry of parties on the same day that the merger application was made and without waiting for thirty days, to ensure that no election writ would be issued, thereby activating the commencement of the prohibited period.

    [116] As noted earlier, the Applicant seeks an order quashing the decision of the CEO and reinstating the PC Party on the registry of parties. Alternatively, the Applicant seeks an order setting aside the decision of December 7, 2003 and referring the matter back to the CEO.

    [117] In my opinion, the remedies sought by the Applicant should not be granted. Pursuant to section 18.1(3) of the Federal Courts Act, supra, the Court has discretion in the matter of granting relief upon an application for judicial review. On occasion, relief has been denied and in this regard, I refer to Mobil Oil Canada Ltd. v. Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, 1994 CanLII 114 (SCC), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 202.

    [118] In the present case, I take judicial notice of the fact that no writ for an election was issued in the thirty days following December 7, 2003. In the result, the CEO’s action in immediately amending the registry of parties, although contrary to my interpretation of the Act, had no material effect. In the exercise of my discretion, I decline to grant the relief sought.

    [119] The application for judicial review is dismissed. However, the Applicant has raised a valid point and is entitled to his assessed costs under Column III.

                                             <center>  ORDER</center>
    

    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
    .
    The application for judicial review is dismissed, the Applicant to have his assessed costs under Column III

    Much the same as with the Ontario Courts. The Court declines to intervene, and rules the merger allowed under the Canada Elections Act.

    8. Stevens v. CPC (Federal Court of Appeal)

    [49]I therefore find that the only interpretation that would give a concrete meaning to the texts in question is the one that requires the Chief Electoral Officer to let 30 days expire once the merger application is received before accepting it. If this was not Parliament’s intention, it is free to correct our vision with a more specific legislative text.

    Exercising discretionary power for judicial review
    [50]Justice Heneghan refused to grant the relief sought despite the fact that the Chief Electoral Officer, by not waiting 30 days before making his decision, violated the Canada Elections Act. Taking judicial notice of the fact that no writ ordering an election was issued in the 30 days following the merger application, she found, at paragraph 118 of her reasons:
    In the result, the CEO’s action in immediately amending the registry of parties, although contrary to my interpretation of the Act, had no material effect. In the exercise of my discretion, I decline to grant the relief sought.

    [51]Justice Heneghan, in my opinion, judiciously exercised the discretion inherent to the power for judicial review. The existence of this discretion is based both on the text of subsection 18.1(3) [as enacted by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 5; 2002, c. 8, s. 27] of the Federal Courts Act [R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7 , s. 1 (as am. by S.C. 2002, c. 8, s. 14)] under which the “Federal Court may” [emphasis added] quash the decision of a federal board, commission or tribunal, and on the principles associated with traditional prerogative writs. In this regard, it would be appropriate to return to this long excerpt from Justice Hugessen’s reasons in Schaaf v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, 1984 CanLII 3622 (FCA), [1984] 2 F.C. 334 (C.A.), at pages 342-344, which summarize the basis of this discretion best, with the adaptations required by the new, more explicit formulation of section 18 [as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 4; 2002, c. 8, s. 26]:

    In my view, nothing in the words used makes them other than attributive of jurisdiction. They create the power in the Court to set aside decisions which offend in one of the stated ways but do not impose a duty to do so in every case.

    More of the same. The Federal Court can use discretion and choose not to intervene.

    9. Current CPC Leadership Antics

    This is the follow-up to Section #2. Andrew Scheer becomes leader of the Conservative Party of Canada in May 2017, is a surprise (and contested) 13th ballot over Maxime Bernier. However, it soon becomes clear that many people did not want this, and Scheer is undermined within his own party.

    Bernier leaves in August 2018 to start his own party, the bizarrely named “People’s Party of Canada”. He claims that the CPC is no longer conservative, and that he will form an alternative. He also starts adopting populist rhetoric, something he previously hadn’t shown. Interestingly, Bernier spends more time attacking Scheer than the Liberal Party, which is currently in government.

    Curiously, the People’s Party is missing a lot:
    (a) Bernier has never called a leadership campaign
    (b) No policies have ever been voted on
    (c) There is no party constitution
    (d) There are no by-laws, or other governing documents
    (e) There is no national council, or senior board
    (f) The platform was recycled from Bernier’s 2016/17 leadership run

    Critics claim it is a “temporary” party meant to keep the Conservatives from winning, and to get Scheer ejected. Strangely enough, Peter MacKay’s name gets floated as a possible successor should Scheer not become Prime Minister.

    Ultimately, Justin Trudeau did win again, but this time a minority. Despite winning the popular vote and increasing the seat total, Scheer was pressured to resign from the CPC leadership.

    Could MacKay be at it again? Is this another scheme to undermine the will of conservative party members and select the party’s leader? Was the PPC just a psy-op to get rid of Scheer and install another leader instead?

    10. Politics Is Rotten To The Core


    This current fiasco has relevance to the 2003 one for a simple reason: some of the same people are involved in both. Now, could Peter MacKay be up to his old tricks of deceit and backstabbing? Choosing who becomes leader?

    Actually governing people always seems to take a backseat to the infighting, pettiness, and selfishness of the politicians involved. Public servants appear to be anything but.

    Giving your word, even in writing, seems to mean little. Alliances will always give way to self interest.

    Guest Post: CdnSpotlight Researching Corruption Within Canada’s Ranks

    Another researcher getting into the muck and filth that is the Canadian Government and administration. Here is some of the work unearthed and exposed. Worth a good long read, for anyone who is truly concerned about the future of the nation. Here are just a few of the postings. Go check out more.

    CLICK HERE, for the Gab account where this research can be found.

    1. Dominic Barton

    CANADA’S DEEP STATE
    What began with a negative news article about Dominic Barton becoming our new ambassador to China in Sept. got me curious so I started digging.

    And what I’ve been finding is alarming.
    It is much, much larger than just lowly ol’ Barton as the pic shows.
    The tentacles are far-reaching and the Canadian players involved are so intertwined that it’ll cause some ‘splodey heads like mine.
    So please bear with me as I try to explain this in my series/threads.

    So let me start with the article that started it all:
    Terence Corcoran: Dominic Barton could be the right man for China … if he remembers what makes Canada work:
    Barton’s admiration and support of China’s statist economic ideas, and his frequently stated disdain for market capitalism, certainly give one reason to pause – Sept. 2019

    CLICK HERE for an article on the subject.

    Read every word of that article, it briefly describes Barton’s “philosophy” & ideology

    “China as the world’s leading practitioner of state corporatism. Barton thinks the Communist Party of China has developed some fantastic economic models that might even be exportable to the rest of the world, including Canada.

    Barton and McKinsey, for example, have been enthusiastic backers of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a massive global infrastructure scheme

    the One Belt, One Road (OBOR) infrastructure initiative, the project was described by Barton in 2015 as “inspiring” and a model for “long-term thinking” with infrastructure spending as the foundation for economic growth.

    China’s Belt/Road model, suggests Barton, is the way of the future. “The Chinese saying ‘build a road first if you want to get rich’ is spot on — data suggests that for every $1 billion in infrastructure investment, 30,000 to 80,000 jobs are created, generating $2.5 billion in new GDP.”

    In my humble opinion, this is where Canada’s headed…

    2. CPPIB, Blackrock, Mark Wiseman

    CANADA’S DEEP STATE Part 2
    Now that ambassador Dominic Barton has been identified as the architect, let’s look at some of his buddies and their connections with BlackRock and Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB)

    Born in Niagara Falls Ontario, Mark Wiseman became a Senior Managing Director at BlackRock NYC in 2016 as Global Head of Active Equities for BlackRock and Chairman of BlackRock Alternative Investors. He also serves as Chairman of the firm’s Global Investment Committee and on its Global Executive Committee.

    He was President and CEO of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) 2012-2016 after starting there in 2005 as Senior Vice-President, Private Investments.

    Prior to joining CPPIB, Mark was responsible for the private equity fund and co-investment program at the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan. He has worked at Harrowston Inc., a publicly traded Canadian merchant bank, and as a lawyer with Sullivan & Cromwell, where he practiced in New York and Paris.

    He also served as a law clerk to Madam Justice Beverley McLachlin at the Supreme Court of Canada – ring a bell? During the Justice Committee hearings with Jody Wilson-Raybould about the SNC-Lavalin Scandal, Buttsputin & Clerk of the Privy Council had insisted Jody talk with her for “advice”.

    But the BlackRock ties don’t stop there.

    BlackRock Canada CEO is Marcia Moffat since 2015– who just happens to be Mark Wiseman’s wife – based in Toronto. Mark returns home to Toronto on weekends from New York. She was formerly with RBC under Janice Fukakusa (see pic)

    Wiseman is also the Chairman of FCLTGlobal (formerly Focusing Capital on the Long Term), an organization that encourages longer-term approaches in business and investing, which was set up by BlackRock, CPPIB, Dow, McKinsey & Company and Tata in 2016.

    Mark is also a member of the Advisory Council on Economic Growth, which advises Finance Minister MORNEAU on economic policies to achieve long-term, sustainable growth. Mark serves on the boards of several non-profit organizations, including Sinai Health Services in Toronto, the Capital Markets Institute and the Dean’s Advisory Board at the Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.

    At CPPIB, Wiseman made a name for himself by opening offices and pursuing investments abroad, particularly in South America and South Asia.

    CPP investment chief Mark Wiseman to make surprise exit after nearly four years at helm.

    While the one source characterized his departure as amicable, another source familiar with CPPIB’s inner workings said there was friction on leadership issues.

    “…some questioned whether it was only the CPP’s interests that were being promoted” His years as CEO at CPPIB have been marked by a stream of deals, ranging from a lucrative early investment in Chinese e-commerce company Alibaba.

    In 2015 – Why the head of Canada’s biggest pension fund is bullish on energy.

    Mark Wiseman says CPPIB is looking at a range of investments from buying equity and partnering on acquisitions to outright takeovers
    Mark Wiseman, who runs Canada’s biggest pension fund, offered the Davos crowd last week a two-pronged argument on why he’s bullish on energy assets after the recent plunge in oil prices.

    Wiseman said that simple supply and demand perspective all but guarantees oil prices will be higher 10 years down the road, offering investment opportunities now for the $234 billion fund. “I’ll take that bet” on oil’s rebound, he said in an interview Tuesday at Bloomberg’s Toronto office.

    “We see a lot of value in the Western Canadian basin,” he said, noting that oil sands projects are on his radar.
    “WE LIKE COMPANIES THAT HAVE GOOD UNDERLYING ASSETS AND BAD BALANCE SHEETS. That’s the perfect scenario for us.”
    –> premonition?

    He encouraged the Canadian federal and provincial governments to look to jurisdictions like Australia, where state governments are given incentives to invest in infrastructure and court outside funding.

    In the meantime, Canada Pension is looking to places like China, India and Brazil.

    3. Willy Porneau’s Advisory Council

    Let’s take a look at how quickly the Liberals put Deep State into play.

    Willy Porno (Morneau) and his new Dream Team – the Advisory Council on Economic Growth.

    Less than 2 months after the 2015 federal election, Willy Porno announces the new Advisory Council in his speech to the Toronto Region Board of Trade.

    This was obviously planned long before the election.

    CPAC December 14, 2015 – Bill Morneau – Keynote Speech
    Finance Minister Bill Morneau addresses the Toronto Region Board of Trade, discussing the government’s strategy for supporting the middle class and long-term economic growth in Canada, including a plan to create an advisory council for economic growth. Following his speech, Morneau responds to questions from the board.

    You should see this, and also see this.

    A month later, the Crime Minister is at the World Economic Forum in Davos, with Dominic Barton:
    “I would bet that almost all of you have Canadians in leadership positions in your companies—you may not know it because we don’t often shout it from the rooftops, some clichés about Canadians are true. In fact, at least half of you have hired Dominic Barton at one point or another.”

    While in Davos, PMJT met with many high rollers – Microsoft CEO Natya Nadella, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg,

    and billionaire George Soros, whose interests include combating climate change.

    Then on Feb.22, 2016 Willy Porno announced Barton as Chair of the Council:
    This article references the earlier ties Barton had to Wiseman by creating Focusing Capital on the Long Term (FCLT) Global in 2013 – board of directors include Larry Fink CEO BlackRock NYC – Wiseman’s future boss in 3 short years.
    McKinsey executive to head new federal economic council.

    4. Canada Infrastructure Bank

    Canada’s Deep State Part 4 – Canada Infrastructure Bank
    The Canada infrastructure Bank (CIB) has been steeped in controversy since it was first proposed.

    The Liberal’s 2015 election promise was to provide low-cost financing to municipalities for infrastructure projects, as a vehicle for Ottawa to use its strong credit rating and lending authority to help municipalities reduce their cost of borrowing.

    The Liberal plans evolved considerably since the party first promised an infrastructure bank during that election campaign – there was no mention of attracting private capital. The role of the proposed Canadian Infrastructure Development Bank was to attract financing from institutional investors to fund projects over the next 10 years as a Crown corporation.

    Dominic Barton and Michael Sabia sketched out the infrastructure bank idea at the Public Policy Forum summit in Oct. 2016, a more ambitious plan in which the bank would gather and prioritize large projects that could earn revenue, such as electrical networks, and that attract billions in added international investment.

    Sounds an awful lot like McKinsey’s “for-profit public-sector work” and advising governments.

    The proposal to entice global pension funds into major Canadian investments goes far beyond anything promised to date by the federal Liberals, but Finance Minister Bill Morneau – who worked directly with the panel over the past several months – signalled a strong openness to the recommendations announced Thursday.

    However, the panel’s 14 members include leaders of some of those institutional investors, including Mark Wiseman, senior managing director of BlackRock Inc., and Michael Sabia, CEO of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec pension fund.

    Examples of potential projects listed… include toll highways and bridges, high-speed rail, port and airport expansions, city infrastructure, national broadband infrastructure, power transmission and natural resource infrastructure.

    PM hopes to attract billions in private capital for infrastructure
    Trudeau takes his foreign-investment agenda to investors, two weeks after announcing an infrastructure bank.

    He will be accompanied by nine members of cabinet, including Finance Minister Bill Morneau, Infrastructure Minister Amarjeet Sohi, Transport Minister Marc Garneau, and Health Minister Jane Philpott. Trudeau and four of the ministers also are set to make their pitch to about a dozen Canadian investors — insurance companies and big pension funds like the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board — in the morning before meeting with the international investors in the afternoon.

    Attracting billions in private-sector capital for “transformative” infrastructure projects is key to the Liberal government’s long-term strategy to boost Canada’s sluggish economic growth.

    5. Century Initiative

    Canada’s Deep State – Part 5 Century Initiative

    When I first started digging about Canada’s new ambassador to China Dominic Barton, he popped up in a group called Century Initiative – a “non-profit” Canadian “registered charity”

    Century Initiative’s 6 Founding Members – Dom, his buddy Mark & some new players
    Dominic Barton, new Ambassador to China, prev. Global Managing Partner McKinsey & Co
    Mark D. Wiseman, BlackRock NYC, former CEO Canada Pension Plan Investment Board
    Goldy Hyder, Business Council of Canada president and CEO
    – Future post to come on Hyder
    Willa Black, Vice-President, Corporate Affairs – Cisco Canada
    Tom Milroy, Managing Director, Generation Capital Limited
    Andrew Pickersgill, also McKinsey & Co

    Registered in Jan.2016, a few short months after the 2015 election, a month after Willy Porno announces the Canada Infrastructure Bank at the Toronto Region Board of Trade and while Dom & PMJT are schmoozing at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

    Now what would 6 capitalists be doing with a charity? Is this Barton’s belief that “corporations should be vehicles for social responsibility, not profits, and they should act for the welfare of all stakeholders, not just shareholders”?

    This charitable status is a huge concern – if I’m not mistaken, there is no reporting or accountability of charities – no records of donors. A perfect vehicle for money-laundering & off-shore investments, likely thru the CIB, and tax write-offs for donors – the prefect storm for the elite 1%. I also believe the recent changes to charities in Bill C-86 was an “indirect” benefit to them.

    Seems odd that Dom would set up a charity because in the past decade, McKinsey made a major push into FOR-PROFIT PUBLIC-SECTOR WORK, advising governments around the world.

    Possible links to 21st Century Initiative by the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) & Obama??? Anons???

    From Jan. to Sept. 2016, there doesn’t appear to be much about Century Initiative in the news. Of course Dom & Wiseman are busy with the Canada Investment Bank. But their buddies at Century Initiative were busy busy setting up, writing reports & hiring Shari Austin as CEO, previously VP of Corporate Citizenship and Executive Director of the RBC Foundation – not sure of her connection with Gordon Nixon, Janice Fukakusa or Wiseman’s wife Marcia Moffat at RBC but you can bet there is one.

    In Oct. 2016, press releases & new articles start exploding on the scene

    Hidden behind the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s “mandate” is Century Initiative, a “registered charity”
    Finance Minister’s key advisers want 100M Canadians by 2100

    Barton sees a dovetail between some of the ideas behind the Century Initiative and the growth council (Advisory Council), but he says they are separate.

    In fact, behind the closed doors of the growth council meetings, Barton said the Century Initiative’s 100-million goal didn’t come up.

    He did acknowledge that he and Wiseman were among the biggest proponents behind the immigration-boosting idea that the group presented to Morneau.

    “Probably because Mark and I have been in (Century Initiative) we’re obviously more naturally bullish towards it,” said Barton, who also noted that there was a lot of debate on the scope of the immigration proposal.

    6. Go Follow CdnSpotlight

    The above is only a small sample of what has been posted on the Gab account by CdnSpotlight. Lots of dirt, and much of it very unpleasant. However, Canadians concerned about their country should take a look into this.

    The rot and corruption runs deep throughout the Canadian political systems. Unfortunately, most people just don’t want to know about it.

    A Year In Twitter Blockings

    Happy New Year to everyone.

    Hopefully, my efforts in 2020 to engage people will be more successful than this. We should all do what we can to talk to other people. As Trudeau would say, this is a “learning moment”.