Author: Ronnie

Posted on

Free Trade #3: NAFTA, And The Costs Its Supporters Ignore

(Tucker Carlson on protecting your citizens)

1. Offshoring, Globalization, Free Trade

The other posts on outsourcing/offshoring are available here. It focuses on the hidden costs and trade offs society as a whole has to make. Contrary to what many politicians and figures in the media claim, there are always costs to these kinds of agreement. These include: (a) job losses; (b) wages being driven down; (c) undercutting of local companies; (d) legal action by foreign entities; (e) industries being outsourced; and (f) losses to communities when major employers leave. Don’t believe the lies that these agreements are overwhelmingly beneficial to all.

2. Important Links

(1) https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/gov.aspx?lang=eng
(2) ttps://www.state.gov/nafta-investor-state-arbitrations/
(3) http://replacenafta.org/jobs-lost/
(4) https://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_12102003/
(5) https://www.epi.org/publication/heading_south_u-s-mexico_trade_and_job_displacement_after_nafta1/
(6) https://www.epi.org/blog/naftas-impact-workers/
(7) https://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_11052003/
(8) https://www.epi.org/publication/the-china-toll-deepens-growth-in-the-bilateral-trade-deficit-between-2001-and-2017-cost-3-4-million-u-s-jobs-with-losses-in-every-state-and-congressional-district/
(9) https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/naftas-economic-impact
(10) https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/16/us/the-1992-campaign-transcript-of-2d-tv-debate-between-bush-clinton-and-perot.html?pagewanted=all
(11) https://www.politicalresearch.org/2014/10/11/globalization-and-nafta-caused-migration-from-mexico/

3. Lawsuits Against Canada, Chapter 11

Resolved Cases

Company Suit Amount Amount Settled
AbitibiBowater $500M $130M
Centurion Health $160M $0, fees unpaid
Chemtrade $78.6M $0, dismissed
Detroit Int’l Bridge $3.5B $0, dismissed
Dow Agro Sciences $2M $0, withdrew
Ely Lily and Co. $500M $0, dismissed
Ethyl Corp. $201M settled
Mercer International $232M $0, dismissed
Merrill & Ring $50M $0, dismissed
Mesa Power Group $658M $0, dismissed
Mobil Inv. & Murphy Oil $66M $17.3M
Pope & Talbot $500M $527M, USD
S.D. Myers $53M $6.9M,
St. Mary’s VNCA $275M $0, no standing
United Parcel Services $160M $0, dismissed
V.G. Gallo $105M $0, dismissed
Windstream Energy $475M $28M

For these “finished” claims, Canada has had to pay out $709 million, plus a substantial amount in paying its own lawyers. Also, consider the following:
-DowAgro sale, under the terms of the settlement, is still allowed to use its pesticide in Canada.
-Ethyl Corp still allowed to use MMT additive.

Resolved Cases

Company Suit Amount Information
Clayton/Bilcon $101M Lost, awaiting damages
Lone Pine Resources $119M Awaiting verdict
Mobile Investments $20M Awaiting verdict
Resolute Forest Products $70M Awaiting verdict
Tennant Energy Ltd $116M Awaiting verdict
Westmorehead Coal $470M Awaiting verdict

Potentially another $896 million

To summarize, Canada has already paid out $709 million in various actions under Chapter 11 of NAFTA (plus the settlement from Ethyl Corp), and may be on the hook for $896 million more. And this doesn’t take legal fees and other court costs into account.

4. Job Losses Resulting From NAFTA

Research has been done on the effects of NAFTA. This released 2003 study, estimates that 879,000 jobs have been lost in the US as a direct result of NAFTA over a decade.

The conclusions were also troubling:

Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993, the rise in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico through 2002 caused the displacement of production that supported 879,280 U.S. jobs. NAFTA is a free trade and investment agreement that provided investors with a unique set of guarantees designed to stimulate foreign direct investment in Mexico and Canada. It has facilitated the movement of factories from the United States to Canada and Mexico. Most of these jobs were high-wage positions in manufacturing industries.

Proponents of new trade agreements that build on NAFTA, such as the proposed Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), have frequently claimed that such deals create jobs and raise incomes in the United States. These claims are based only on the positive effects of exports (known as “export effects”), ignoring the negative effects of imports (known as “import effects”). Such arguments are an attempt to hide the costs of new trade deals in order to boost the reported benefits.

The problem with these claims is that they misrepresent the real effects of trade on the U.S. economy: trade both creates and destroys jobs. Increases in U.S. exports tend to create jobs in this country, but increases in imports tend to reduce jobs by displacing goods that otherwise would have been made in the United States by domestic workers. Ignoring imports and counting only exports is like balancing a checkbook by counting only deposits but not withdrawals.

This is blunt and truthful. It is high paying jobs mainly in manufacturing that have been exported in the name of “free trade”, and has harmed the US workforce.

Now, here, is another study, released in 2011, dealing specifically with Mexico and NAFTA.

As of 2010, U.S. trade deficits with Mexico totaling $97.2 billion had displaced 682,900 U.S. jobs. Of those jobs, 116,400 are likely economy-wide job losses because they were displaced between 2007 and 2010, when the U.S. labor market was severely depressed.

There is a cost to these free trade agreements. Jobs are lost domestically when it becomes cheaper to ship them to another country. Often it is manufacturing, one of the better paid jobs, where higher education isn’t needed.

Abstract promises about increased jobs and exports misrepresent the real overall effects of trade on the U.S. economy. Trade both creates and destroys jobs. While exports tend to support domestic employment, imports lead to job displacement: As imports are substituted for domestically produced goods, production that supports domestic jobs falls, displacing existing jobs and preventing new job creation.

Simply out, there are winners and losers in trade deals. Countries win if they export more than they import, and vice versa. While some trade surplus or deficit is inevitable, it is sustained deficits that drain wealth from the country and put people out of work.

While Canada or Mexico may sit smugly and know that they benefit from the trade deal with the US, this must be considered. With ever proposed expansion of free trade and liberalized trade, there is nothing to stop jobs from Canada and/or Mexico from being exported elsewhere.

For example, the US lost 3.4 million jobs to China since 2001. Canada could end up in that situation one day.

5. Free Trade Drives Down Wages

Ross Perot ran for President in 1992. He faced the incumbent, George H.W. Bush (Republican), and Bill Clinton (Democrat). While he came in third, Perot drove home this hard truth about free trade: it drives down wages. It forces Americans to compete for third world wages.

To those of you in the audience who are business people, pretty simple: If you’re paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory South of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor, hire young — let’s assume you’ve been in business for a long time and you’ve got a mature work force — pay a dollar an hour for your labor, have no health care — that’s the most expensive single element in making a car — have no environmental controls, no pollution controls and no retirement, and you don’t care about anything but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south.

“Why won’t everybody go South?” They say, “It’d be disruptive.” I said, “For how long?” I finally got them up from 12 to 15 years. And I said, “well, how does it stop being disruptive?” And that is when their jobs come up from a dollar an hour to six dollars an hour, and ours go down to six dollars an hour, and then it’s leveled again. But in the meantime, you’ve wrecked the country with these kinds of deals. We’ve got to cut it out.

Perot is completely right here. It will raise the wages in Mexico, while driving down American wages. And to reiterate, Canadians should not think they are immune from this sort of practice.

The Council on Foreign Relations added:

Debate persists regarding NAFTA’s legacy on employment and wages, with some workers and industries facing painful disruptions as they lose market share due to increased competition, and others gaining from the new market opportunities that were created.

But it is the common worker with a family to provide for who will really feel the pinch. It is cold comfort to be out work and be told “well, it raises trade and GDP”.

6. NAFTA Causes Carnage To Middle Class

Yet another EPI article. This one sums up the problems of NAFTA in very blunt terms.

  1. Job losses
  2. Pushes wages down
  3. Destruction of farms and small businesses
  4. Sets standards for globalization

The article is directly on point.

NAFTA affected U.S. workers in four principal ways. First, it caused the loss of some 700,000 jobs as production moved to Mexico. Most of these losses came in California, Texas, Michigan, and other states where manufacturing is concentrated. To be sure, there were some job gains along the border in service and retail sectors resulting from increased trucking activity, but these gains are small in relation to the loses, and are in lower paying occupations. The vast majority of workers who lost jobs from NAFTA suffered a permanent loss of income.

Second, NAFTA strengthened the ability of U.S. employers to force workers to accept lower wages and benefits. As soon as NAFTA became law, corporate managers began telling their workers that their companies intended to move to Mexico unless the workers lowered the cost of their labor. In the midst of collective bargaining negotiations with unions, some companies would even start loading machinery into trucks that they said were bound for Mexico. The same threats were used to fight union organizing efforts. The message was: “If you vote in a union, we will move south of the border.” With NAFTA, corporations also could more easily blackmail local governments into giving them tax reductions and other subsidies.

Third, the destructive effect of NAFTA on the Mexican agricultural and small business sectors dislocated several million Mexican workers and their families, and was a major cause in the dramatic increase in undocumented workers flowing into the U.S. labor market. This put further downward pressure on U.S. wages, especially in the already lower paying market for less skilled labor.

Fourth, and ultimately most important, NAFTA was the template for rules of the emerging global economy, in which the benefits would flow to capital and the costs to labor. The U.S. governing class—in alliance with the financial elites of its trading partners—applied NAFTA’s principles to the World Trade Organization, to the policies of the World Bank and IMF, and to the deal under which employers of China’s huge supply of low-wage workers were allowed access to U.S. markets in exchange for allowing American multinational corporations the right to invest there.

Who actually benefits from NAFTA, or similar types of deals? Not the workers, who are now forced to compete for third world wages. Not communities, who see major employers pack up and leave for better opportunities.

7. NAFTA Makes Illegal Immigration Problem Worse

NAFTA, however, did not lead to rising incomes and employment in Mexico, and did not decrease the flow of migrants. Instead, it became a source of pressure on Mexicans to migrate. The treaty forced corn grown by Mexican farmers without subsidies to compete in Mexico’s own market with corn from huge U.S. producers, who had been subsidized by the U.S. Agricultural exports to Mexico more than doubled during the NAFTA years, from $4.6 to $9.8 billion annually. Corn imports rose from 2,014,000 to 10,330,000 tons from 1992 to 2008. Mexico imported 30,000 tons of pork in 1995, the year NAFTA took effect. By 2010, pork imports, almost all from the U.S., had grown over 25 times, to 811,000 tons. As a result, pork prices received by Mexican producers dropped 56%

When nations are reduced to “economic zones”, it forces workers to compete against those in other nations for the same piece of the pie. If jobs are eliminated on a massive scale, then the pressure is on to find work. For many Mexicans, it has meant going to the US, often illegally.

Note: this not to condone illegal immigration. However, it becomes more understandable when factors like these are considered.

The “surplus labour” sure helps large employers, and further helps to drive down wages, which of course is the entire point.

8. NAFTA Makes US Trade Deficit Worse

Here is a 2003 study on the trade deficit the US has experienced due to NAFTA.

As mentioned earlier, it is true Canada currently benefits from the US trade deficit. But as free trade expands, Canada (and other nations) could easily find themselves in the same dilemma as the US.

Sustained trade deficits bleed money from a nation.

9. NAFTA Can Override Environmental Protections

Think this is crazy? Consider some of the court action Canada has faced

CLICK HERE, for Ethyl Corp wanting $201M over MMT additive ban.
CLICK HERE, for SD Myers wants $53M for PCB ban.
CLICK HERE, for Pope & Talbot’s $500M softwood lumber suit.
CLICK HERE, for Sun Belt wanting $1.5B-$10B for lost water rights.

10. Is NAFTA Worth The Price?

Yes, it has led to economic growth and more trade. That much is indisputable. But it isn’t fair to omit some of the real costs to engaging in these free trade deals, such as TPP, or FTAA.

  • Litigation over new “rights”
  • Massive job losses
  • Wages driven down
  • Destruction to middle class
  • Increased illegal immigration
  • Unsustainable trade deficits
  • Environmental protections are secondary

But hey, as long as the GDP keeps growing.

Posted on

Race & Crime Rates: What Liberals Won’t Admit (Gladue 2.0?)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for the case R. v. Morris, [2018] O.J. No. 4631.
CLICK HERE, for the Canadian Criminal Code, robbery section.
CLICK HERE, for the Canadian Criminal Code, firearms section.
CLICK HERE, for a National Post article covering a case where an Ontario criminal court judge wants to expand “Gladue” to include blacks.
CLICK HERE, for a similar article.
CLICK HERE, for a University of Toronto research paper on race, crime and incarceration.

CLICK HERE, for FBI Uniform Crime Reporting, Table 21
CLICK HERE, for UK demographic crime data.

Background From Gladue
R. v. Gladue, 1997 CanLII 3015 (BC CA)
R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 SCR 688, 1999 CanLII 679 (SCC)
R. v. Ipeelee, [2012] 1 SCR 433, 2012 SCC 13 (CanLII)

CLICK HERE, for race-based discounts in criminal court.
CLICK HERE, for child-killer Terri McClintic going to a “healing lodge”.
CLICK HERE, for incarceration rates among Aboriginals.

2. Quotes From Ruling

In a way this is not surprising at all. The 1997/1999 Gladue rulings created essentially a “discount” for Aboriginal offenders specifically on the basis of “historical oppression”.

Now, there is a case that is pending before the Ontario Court of Appeals, which could see the same provisions apply to blacks as well. This is a (potential) expansion of a horrible idea: race-based-discounts in the criminal justice system.

People should be outraged by this. Your crime, seriousness, and past (if any) criminal record should impact your sentence. Not your race, ethnicity, or skin colour. It is the anti-thesis of equality under the law.

[2] A jury found you guilty of a number of offences. I convicted you of possession of an unauthorized firearm, possession of a prohibited firearm with ammunition, and carrying a concealed weapon. The jury acquitted you of assaulting a peace officer with intent to resist arrest.
[3] The basic facts of your crime are straightforward. On December 13, 2014, the police received a call about a home invasion in Scarborough. As the police officers sent to investigate drove to the scene, they came upon four Black males walking in the parking lot. The officers were in plainclothes and drove unmarked police cars. One officer stopped the young men. You were one of them. You ran. As you ran, D.C. Moorcroft, who was not the officer who stopped you but was also driving into the lot, accelerated to stop you.

Police were responding to a home invasion. When they arrived, there just happened to be 4 black men in the area, and the defendant took off.

Of course, it is just a coincidence that he had a gun on him. Now it is apparently a charter violation that a police car was used to stop him.

[6] I must now sentence you for your offences. Let me go over what the Crown and your defence lawyers said should be the sentence. These positions were pretty far apart. The Crown asked for 4 to 4.5 years in jail. Your lawyers argued that the sentence should be 1 year before credit was given for the Charter breaches.

There is something here we are not being told. The Crown (supposedly) wants 4 to 4.5 years for gun possession for a first time offender? What else went on that is not included?

[9] Let me briefly explain to you what I did in Jackson. I began my judgment in that case by saying sentencing is a very individual process. The criminal law has recognized that there are cases where, in order to determine a fit and proportionate sentence, consideration must be given to an individual’s systemic and social circumstances. These circumstances may extend beyond a person who is being sentenced to include factors such a systemic discrimination and historical injustice. This has been recognized by the criminal courts, particularly in the case of Indigenous offenders. While the distinct history of colonial violence endured by Indigenous peoples cannot simply be analogized to Black Canadians, I found that the ability to consider social context in a sentencing decision is extended to all under section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code. This allowed me to consider the unique social history of Black Canadians in sentencing Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson was a Black male offender not too much older than you, who pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of a prohibited gun. His lawyers presented a great deal of evidence to me on systemic anti-Black racism and its role in Mr. Jackson’s life. I took note of this evidence. I also took judicial notice, independently of these materials, of the history of colonialism, slavery, policies and practices of segregation, intergenerational trauma, and both overt and systemic racism that continue to affect Black Canadians today. With an understanding of these social factors I was able to better appreciate the circumstances that led Mr. Jackson to come before me. I sentenced him accordingly.

Gladue was horrible for exactly this reason. Instead of holding people accountable to as similar a standard as possible, some get to play the “oppression card” and get much lighter sentences. It stands the idea of equality before the law completely on its head.

The ruling would then go on to quote some social worker at length about the struggles that blacks face, and how its circumstances must be considered.

[66] Giving your acts a contextual analysis in light of the wealth of evidence provided to me on this sentencing, I do not find this to be a weighty aggravating factor in your case. I appreciate that accused people should not flee from police. Especially carrying a loaded firearm. But it is understandable to me that you ran. It was not a coldly calculated act to escape but one based upon emotion and a state of mind that has been shaped both generally and specifically by the historical racism suffered by Blacks and by you. In other words, not every flight from the police should be treated the same. Here there is a connection in the evidence between your act of flight and the systemic factors. I find it would be wrong to punish you more severely for this. When I view how anti-Black racism and historical injustices have contributed to your actions, the needs of general deterrence and denunciation normally raised by this act of flight is tempered. Given that the choice you made to do so was affected by these factors, the moral blameworthiness of your actions is also lessened.
[67] In addition, in assessing the seriousness of the offences, when I look at potential aggravating factors that often exist in the case law, here, there is no evidence that your possession of the gun is connected with other crimes such as crimes of violence or drug trafficking.
[68] There are also some very traditional mitigating factors. You are a first offender. You were young when you committed these crimes. You were 22 years old. You have supportive family and friends. There is a side of you that speaks well to your rehabilitation. I have mentioned them before. Your warmth, kindness, and respectfulness.

Being a young, first time offender is a legitimate reason to cut someone a break. No argument on that point.

But that is where the agreement ends. All this nonsense about historical racism and systemic factors (repeated throughout the ruling), was nauseating to read.

[81] Sentencing must always be an individual process. In these cases judges gave sentences of 1 year, 15 months, 18 months, just under 2 years. Some of these sentences were permitted to be served in the community rather than in jail. The cases are: R. v. Ishmael, 2014 ONCJ 136; R. v. Garton, 2018 ONSC 544; R. v. Rutledge, 2015 ONSC 6625; R. v. Shunmuganathan, 2016 ONCJ 519;
R. v. Nuttley, 2013 ONCJ 727;
R. v. Kelsy, [2008] O.J. No. 3879;
R. v. Cadienhead, [2015] O.J. No. 3125;
R. v. Williams, [2011] O.J. No. 3352 (S.C.J.);
R. v. Brown, [2006] O.J. No. 4681 (S.C.J.);
R. v. Carranza, [2004] O.J. No. 6041 (S.C.J.)

Fair enough. The Judge was looking for a little consistency.

[82]82 Now I want to talk about that elephant in the room. I know you are in custody on other charges. What those charges are were not explained to me by either the Crown or your lawyers. However, I do know from some of the materials filed what the charges are said to be. Of course, there is a charge of breaching your bail. There are also some other offences. But they are not gun offences. Your surety surrendered your bail so you are in custody on the charges I am sentencing you for. To someone hearing this, I am sure they will say you have not behaved well while on bail. They may be right. But you are presumed innocent of these alleged new offences. I am sentencing you as a first offender. Someone without a criminal record. The new charges do not change that. The presumption of innocence is the foundation of our criminal justice system. While it may be hard for many to understand, I cannot let that foundation be eroded or chipped away by taking into account the new charges.

So, “first-timer” comes with a few caveats: Morris breached his bail, and is facing additional charges. However, the Judge has decided to ignore this in sentencing him as a first-timer.

It would be nice to know how exactly bail was breached, and what exactly the other charges are. But they are not mentioned.

[92] I also find that the anti-Black racism evidence presented on the sentencing is relevant in assessing the weight I should give this. Racism can operate very subtly. It can be there lurking in the background of people’s minds, unconsciously influencing their judgment and making them act in certain ways towards certain people.
[93] I want to be clear that I am not painting the police with the brush of overt racism in this case. I do not have the evidence to support that. But I am troubled. If I asked myself: If it was someone other than a young Black man running away from the police that night, would D.C. Moorcroft have driven in the aggressive way that he did? Would Mr. Morris and the car have collided? I am troubled because in all honesty, I cannot conclude it would have happened in the same way.

So, racism happens, but I have no evidence that there was any in this case. Therefore, I will still bring it up as a mitigating factor.

This Judge talks in circles about how there is all this systemic racism, and how it can be very subtle. Yet he notes that there is no proof that there was racism in this case. So what is the point then?

E. CONCLUSION
[97] After mitigation for the Charter violations, I have sentenced you to a jail sentence of 12 months. You have done a lot of dead time. The sentence will be based upon the credit you will receive for that dead time. I will credit you 1.5 to 1 for that pre-trial custody. The evidence shows that you received no real programming, had a difficult time in jail, and at times experienced physical discomfort in jail due to your medical conditions. You also did not receive consideration for parole or remission while in pre-trial custody. I find it right to give this enhanced credit. Therefore, 243 days of pre-trial custody will be used up. You will be sentenced to a further 1 day in jail on each charge concurrently. I also made a DNA order, s. 109 weapons prohibition, and the forfeiture order.

So not even a year. Just 8 months.

3. University of Toronto Article On Race & Crime

Although not specific to this case, this article by Akwasi Owusu-Bempah is an interesting read. If nothing else, it shows the extent that this academic will go to avoid the obvious conclusion:

SOME GROUPS JUST COMMIT MORE CRIME

Yes, that’s it. Groups are not equal when it comes to committing crime. That is the hard truth that lawyers, judges, politicians, academics and social workers refuse to address.

On the topic of “disparity”, it’s worth noting that males make up over 90% of prison inmates. However, there is no push claiming discrimination against them. Oh, the double standards.

Instead, he will talk in circles. Owusu-Bempah will blame mistrust, victimization in black and Aboriginal neighbourhoods, racial bias (without proving it), and Court discrimination (again, without proving it). Although the author touches the topic of crime rates, he avoids making any definitive statements. It’s like he is deliberately avoiding the obvious answer.

Abstract and Keywords
Canada effectively bans systematic collection and dissemination of racially disaggregated criminal justice statistics. A significant proportion of Canada’s racial minority populations perceive bias in the criminal justice system, especially on the part of police. Aboriginal and black Canadians are grossly overrepresented in Canada’s correctional institutions. Some evidence suggests that both Aboriginal and black populations are overrepresented with respect to violent offending and victimization. Social conditions in which Aboriginal and black Canadians live are at least partially to blame for their possibly elevated rates of violent offending. Evidence indicates that racial bias exists in the administration of Canadian criminal justice. At times, this discrimination has been supported by court decisions. Discrimination and disparity are at times acknowledged by government, but they are seldom wholeheartedly addressed. There is a lack of political will to address issues of racial minority overrepresentation in relation to manifestations of racial discrimination or to the societal conditions that lead to criminal offending.

Oh, the mental gymnastics of the author are blatant:

  • Minorities “perceive” bias against them
  • There is overrepresentation
  • Bias in administration
  • Government acknowledges disparity
  • No political will to address overrepresentation
  • Societal conditions lead to offending

However:

  • The author mentions overrepresentation regarding offending, but immediately lumps it in with “victimization”, as if to muddy the waters
  • Lack of available objective data, yet we are able to make conclusions based on much more subjective things, such as perceived bias
  • Right, not elevated rates, but “possibly” elevated rates

Connections among race, crime, and criminal justice are often portrayed in Canadian media images and are captured in the popular imagination. Yet, in comparison to the United States and Great Britain, these phenomena receive relatively little attention from Canadian academics and policy makers. A lack of readily available criminal justice data disaggregated by race makes it particularly difficult for researchers to examine the nature of these racial differences. Thus, we are unable to determine the extent to which higher rates of offending among certain racial groups and discrimination in the administration of criminal justice contribute to the apparent overrepresentation

There’s a lack of data, but this author will still make claims about bias and discrimination, without actually proving it. He will also tap-dance around the obvious: If a group commits crime at a much higher rate, doesn’t that justify higher incarceration rates?

Nonetheless, available evidence indicates that a significant proportion of Canada’s racial minority populations and a sizable proportion of the white population perceive bias in the criminal justice system. These public perceptions are supported by data that show that certain racial minority groups, particularly Aboriginal and black Canadians, are grossly overrepresented in Canada’s correctional institutions. Further evidence indicates that racial bias does exist in the administration of Canadian criminal justice, and, at times, this discrimination has been supported by court decisions. We cannot discount, however, the probability that increased rates of offending among certain racialized groups contributes to their overrepresentation in correctional statistics. As we show in this essay, research suggests that Aboriginal and black Canadians are overrepresented with respect to violent offending and victimization. The Canadian federal government itself has pointed out that the social conditions in which Aboriginals live is at least partially to blame for their rates of violent offending (Department of Justice 2009). We have previously made the same connection with respect to black Canadians (Wortley and Owusu-Bempah2011a).

Owusu-Bempah contradicts himself here. He claims there is “perceived” bias from many people. Not “actual” bias, but perceived bias. He then goes on to say that there is overrepresentation among certain groups.

He then offers a perfectly reasonable explanation for the higher incarceration rate: increased offending.

Just a thought. If a certain group commits crime at a higher rate, then it is not bias or discrimination that there would be more of them involved with the courts.

Unfortunately, there is an apparent lack of political will to address issues of racial minority overrepresentation in the Canadian criminal justice system. Ambivalence to address these issues relates both to the manifestations of racial discrimination in the system, as well as to the societal conditions that lead to criminal offending. Discrimination and disparity may be at times acknowledged, but they are seldom wholeheartedly addressed. When addressed, the means are seldom thoroughly evaluated for effectiveness, and, when evaluated, the results are rarely made public.

Difficult to believe, but this is just the next paragraph. Owusu-Bempah claims there is no political will to address racial minority overrepresentation. Yet, he previously commented that there was a higher rate of offending.

This seems like a solution in search of a problem.

Many have argued that relatively high rates of homicide and gun crime among African Canadians and Aboriginals in Canada are reflective of their overrepresentation in street gangs. Unfortunately, official police statistics on Canadian gangs are almost nonexistent

Yeah, good job.

Canada’s reluctance to acknowledge and document race is most evident in the operation of its criminal justice system and in its criminal justice policies. Unlike in the United States and the United Kingdom, where race-based criminal justice statistics are readily available to the public and researchers alike, the Canadian criminal justice system does not systematically collect or publish statistics on the race of individuals processed through the system. The debate over the collection of racial data from the criminal justice sector in Canada can be traced back as far as 1929 (Roberts 1992). Discussions about the collection, or more accurately, the public release of these data have emerged more recently in the context of broader debates about race, crime, and the administration of criminal justice—particularly related to the circumstances of Aboriginal and black Canadians (Hatt 1994; Johnston 1994; Gabor 1994; Roberts 1994; Wortley 1999; Owusu-Bempah and Millar 2010). On the one hand, allegations of racial discrimination have been leveled against the justice system to explain the overrepresentation of certain racial minority groups in the few available sources of police and correctional data. On the other hand, it has been suggested that racial minorities are disproportionately involved in criminal activity, which accounts for their disproportionate involvement with the criminal justice system as reflected in the data. Unfortunately, our ability to test either of these claims is limited by the absence of available data, despite numerous calls for its collection. Several major attempts have been made in Canada to collect racial and ethnic data, particularly in the policing sector (Fine 1990; Wortley and Marshall 2005; Leclair InfoCom 2009); these attempts, however, have not paved the way for systematic data collection

The author addresses crime rates, but gives a wishy washy answer. There’s not enough data to tell one way or another whether it is: (a) discrimination; or (b) actual crime, that results in the disparities. Yet, feelings about perceived bias and virtue signalling bureaucrats apologizing are apparently good evidence.

There is an interesting point to be taken from this: if there was concrete data on race and crime rates, then the debate could be put to bed once and for all.

The article keeps repeating the same idea and muddying the waters: we don’t have data, so we can’t be sure what causes discrepancies in the representation.

If the author wanted a reference point, why not check the data from the US and UK? After all, he knows it is there.

4. Crime Data From Britain

CLICK HERE, for UK demographic crime data.

There were 698,737 arrests in 2017/18, a fall of 8% on the previous year – both years’ figures exclude Lancashire Police (see ‘Things you need to know’)
-Black people were over 3 times as likely to be arrested as White people – there were 35 arrests for every 1,000 —Black people, and 11 arrests for every 1,000 White people
-overall, men were over 5 times as likely to be arrested as women – there were 22 arrests for every 1,000 men, and -4 arrests for every 1,000 women
-Black women were more than twice as likely to be arrested as White women – there were 7 arrests for every 1,000 —Black women, and 3 arrests for every 1,000 White women

And a few pages later,

there were 698,737 arrests in England and Wales in 2017/18 (excluding the Lancashire police force area), at a rate of 13 arrests per 1,000 people
there were 62,501 fewer arrests in 2017/18 compared with the previous year, a fall of 8% (excluding Lancashire Police from both years)
Black people were over 3 times as likely to be arrested as White people – there were 35 arrests for every 1,000 Black people, and 11 arrests for every 1,000 White people
people with Mixed ethnicity were over twice as likely to be arrested as White people – there were 25 arrests for every 1,000 people with Mixed ethnicity, and 11 arrests for every 1,000 White people

So the UK Government is willing to be quite open and blunt about the disparities in race and offending. And what about the US.

5. Crime Data From US FBI

CLICK HERE, for FBI Uniform Crime Reporting, Table 21. This is compiled from 2016, though the stats over the years don’t change much.

Looking at Table 21C (people aged 18 or over)
Worth noting the US black population is about 13% commits:

  • 52% of homicides
  • 28% of rapes
  • 51% of robberies
  • 32% of aggravated assault
  • 36% of violent crime
  • 41% of weapons carrying
  • 30% buying stolen property

…. and so on.

Are blacks greatly overrepresented in US prisons? Absolutely. And for a very good reason — disproportionate amount of violent and serious crime.

Are US sentences in general too harsh? A fair point, but a topic for another day. This post concerns treating people equally.

6. Gladue 2.0 Addresses Wrong Problem

With this proposed change, the scope of Gladue will be broadened. This means that it will not be restricted to Aboriginals.

The claim is that this will reduce overrepresentation in the courts and prison system. Problem is: it focuses on making prisons look like a random sample of society, rather than a reflection of who is actually committing the most serious crime.

It’s what liberals do not want to acknowledge:

SOME GROUPS JUST COMMIT MORE CRIME

It is not necessarily due to “oppression” or “systemic bias”, or any other such nonsense. It is caused by these groups, on average, behaving differently. While it is obviously desirable for society to reduce crime and their prison populations, this is a backwards approach.

Should the Ontario Court of Appeals (and possibly the Supreme Court of Canada) confirm this nonsense, racial equality dies. Your skin colour will determine your punishment, not your crime. Though arguably that was the case with Gladue.

Keep in mind, it is the Supreme Court of Canada that upheld Gladue in the first place (appealed from BC). There is nothing to indicated they wouldn’t extend their ruling to this.

Posted on

Desmarais, Power Corp, Canada’s Globalist Politicians, Bombardier & Loblaws

(Video by Q Point Assembly on Desmarais & Maurice Strong)

(Rebel Media covers the Demarais connections, including former Ontario Premier Bob Rae’s brother, John, who is employed by PowerCorp).

(Rebel media on Demarais Family connections to Canadian politicians)

(PowerCorp and John Rae, brother of Bob Rae)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cNS1udvPhg

(Paul Desmarais Sr. and Brian Mulroney)

(Pierre Beaudoin, Bombardier Chairman, sits on Power Corp BOD)

(Anthony Graham, is Vice-Chairman of Whittingham Investments Ltd, which happens to own the Weston-Loblaw Group. Graham also sits on Power Corp Board of Directors)

(Hélène Desmarais, Chair-Woman of Montreal Economic Institute)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Globe & Mail article on the Desmarais family, 2004.
CLICK HERE, to search Elections Canada donors.

CLICK HERE, for the Trilateral Commission.
CLICK HERE, for Abeldanger blog, citing Desmarais tentacles in Canadian politics.
CLICK HERE, for memorial on Paul Desmarais Sr.
CLICK HERE, for Andre Desmarais, Jean Chretien’s son-in-law.
CLICK HERE, for Canada Steamship lines.
CLICK HERE, for a biography on Paul Martin.
CLICK HERE, for the oil-for-food-scandal
CLICK HERE, for a Maclean’s article on Desmarais from 2006
CLICK HERE, for a Financial Post article on the politicians who attended Paul Desmarais Sr.’s funeral.
CLICK HERE, for Gary Doer, former Manitoba Premier (NDP), who sits on PowerCorps Board of Directors

CLICK HERE, for Pierre Beaudoin, Bombardier Chairman, who also sits on PowerCorp’s Board of Directors.
CLICK HERE, for Bombardier bailout, and Pierre Beaudoin’s bonuses.
CLICK HERE, for Andrew Coyne estimates Bombardier received $3.7B.
CLICK HERE, for Fraser Institute claims Bombardier has been bailed out 48 times by Industry Canada, going back to 1966.

CLICK HERE, for Loblaws receiving $12M bailout from taxpayers to buy energy-efficient fridges.
CLICK HERE, for an article on fridge subsidies and vote buying.

CLICK HERE, for biography on Paul Desmarais Jr., son of the legend.
CLICK HERE, for Hélène Desmarais, wife of Paul Jr.
CLICK HERE, for Maxime Bernier’s profile.
CLICK HERE, for the Montreal Economic Institute.

2. Desmarais And Trilateral Commission

Linda Koch Lorimer and Andre Desmarais both sit on the Trilateral Commission, which promotes global trade in:
(a) The Americas
(b) Europe
(c) Asia-Pacific Rim

Among the other members on the Trilateral Commission:

  • Rona Ambrose – MP, former Conservative Party leader
  • Jean Charest – former Quebec Premier
  • Raymond Chretien – nephew of Ex-PM Jean Chretien
  • Gary Doer – former Manitoba Premier
  • Bill Graham – former Foreign Affairs Minister
  • Peter Harder – member of Senate
  • Colin Kenney – member of Senate
  • Stephanie Kusie – Member of Parliament
  • Hélène Laverdière – Member of Parliament
  • Andrew Leslie – Member of Parliament
  • John Manley – former Deputy PM
  • Carole Taylor – former BC Minister of Finance
  • Yuen Pau Woo – Member of Parliament

Note: Scott Brison is a former member.

3. Power Corp’s Board Of Directors

Seethis link to verify.

  • Pierre Beaudoin, Bombardier Chairman
  • Marcel R. Coutu, Syncrude President
  • André Desmarais, son-in-law of ex-PM Chretien
  • Paul Desmarais, Jr., André’s brother
  • Gary A. Doer, ex-Manitoba Premier
  • Anthony R. Graham, director of Wittington Investments, Ltd. principal holding company of the Weston-Loblaw Group.
  • J. David A. Jackson, Great-West Life
  • Isabelle Marcoux, Board of Transcontinental Inc.
  • Christian Noyer, General Council of European Bank, Governor Banque du France
  • R. Jeffrey Orr, BMO, Life Insurance Companies
  • T. Timothy Ryan, Jr., JP Morgan & Chase
  • Emőke J.E. Szathmáry, the International Institute for Sustainable Development, the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, the Prime Minister’s Advisory Committee on Science and Technology,

4. Power Corp & Bombardier Bailouts

Remember: Pierre Beaudoin, Bombardier Chairman, sits on Power Corp Board of Directors.

Fun Facts

  • $1B in 2016.
  • $372M in February 2017. (See source.)

    • Regarding the 2017 Bailout, read this:

    Total compensation for the Montreal-based manufacturer’s top five executives and board chairman Pierre Beaudoin was US$32.6 million in 2016, up from US$21.9 million the year before, according to a proxy circular ahead of Bombardier’s annual meeting on May 11.
    .
    CEO Alain Bellemare received US$9.5 million, up from US$6.4 million in 2015, including US$5.2 million in share and option-based awards and a US$1 million salary. His annual bonus almost doubled to US$2.36 million.
    .
    Beaudoin’s total compensation increased to US$5.25 million from US$3.85 million a year earlier.

    That’s right, Bombardier gets bailed out by taxpayers. And Pierre Beaudoin, Bombardier’s Chairman, is also on the Board of Directors for Power Corp, with all its ties to politicians. No corruption here.

    From the Fraser Institute:

    Bombardier Inc., which recently announced it would lay off 1,700 people, has been one chronic seeker and a regular recipient of such taxpayer assistance. The Montreal-based aerospace company is thus a useful example of corporate welfare in action, the tax dollars at stake, and the regular, inflated claims about the beneficial effects of such subsidies.
    Bombardier’s corporate welfare began, at least federally, in 1966 when it received its first disbursement of $35 million from the federal department, Industry Canada. In the decades since, various Bombardier iterations received over $1.1 billion (all figures adjusted for inflation) in 48 separate disbursements from just Industry Canada. That includes two 2009 cheques worth $233 million.

    Let’s connect the dots:

    1. The Desmarais family owns Power Corp.
    2. Andre Desmarais is on the Board of Directors.
    3. Andre Desmarais is son-in-law of ex-PM Jean Chretien.
    4. “Many” Canadian politicians connected to Power Corp.
    5. Pierre Beaudoin is also on Power Corp B.O.D.
    6. Pierre Beaudoin doubles as Bombardier Chairman.
    7. Pierre Beaudoin in in position to have Canadian Government bail out Bombardier whenever needed. He also increases his own bonuses.
    8. Bombardier is repeatedly bailed out.
    9. Beaudoin is able to cash in from these bailouts.

    5. Power Corp & Loblaws Bailout

    Remember: Anthony Graham is Vice-Chairman of Whittington Investments, which owns Loblaws. He also is on Power Corp’s Board of Directors.

    This one is straightforward to connect.

    1. The Desmarais family owns Power Corp.
    2. Andre Desmarais is on the Board of Directors.
    3. Andre Desmarais is son-in-law of ex-PM Jean Chretien.
    4. “Many” Canadian politicians connected to Power Corp.
    5. Anthony Graham is also on Power Corp B.O.D.
    6. Anthony Graham doubles as Vice-Chairman of Whittington Investments, which owns Loblaws.
    7. Anthony Graham is in position to have Canadian Government bail out Loblaws.
    8. Unclear how much Graham’s bonus will be.

    6. Desmarais And Brian Mulroney

    Mulroney said he felt confident that Desmarais died knowing he had led a productive life and made a remarkable contribution to his country.
    “He was a close and intimate friend of mine for 48 years,” Mulroney said. “I feel very sad, but I feel very happy for a life really well lived. Paul’s life was unconventional because it really was a love story: for his wife, his kids and his country. So, he’s happy. He knows he had a good life and a productive life.”

    From the (CBC article), Paul Desmarais Sr. and Brian Mulroney have been close friends for decades.

    7. Desmarais And Jean Chretien

    André Desmarais is currently Deputy Chairman, President and Co-Chief Executive Officer of the company his father took control of in 1968, Power Corporation, based in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. He is also Executive Co-Chairman of Power Financial. Power Corporation is a diversified international management and holding company, which has holdings in leading financial services, renewable energy, communications and other business sectors.
    .
    He married France Chrétien Desmarais, the daughter of former Prime Minister of Canada Jean Chrétien, on May 23, 1981. They have four children.
    .
    In August 2016, The Wall Street Journal mentions that André Desmarais and his brother Paul Jr. “are readying their 34-year-old sons (Olivier Desmarais and Paul Desmarais III) to take over Power Corp

    Jean Chretien is connected to Desmarais by way of marriage. His daughter, France, married Andre Desmarais, son of Paul Desmarais Sr. They have 4 children together.

    8. Desmarais And Paul Martin

    Martin began his career as a special assistant to Paul Desmarais, a friend of his father’s and a man often referred to as Canada’s wealthiest citizen. Desmarais was the force behind the creation of the Power Corporation, an immense conglomerate with stakes in the pulp and paper industry, the media, public transport, and insurance services. By 1969 Martin had risen to a vice presidency at the Montreal–based giant, and four years later Desmarais put him in charge of one of its subsidiaries, Canada Steamship Lines Ltd. (CSL). Martin worked to improve the flagging finances of the shipping company, and in 1981 he and a business partner bought CSL for $116 million. They had to borrow the funds for the purchase, and interest rates were above 20 percent at the time. On the day that Martin signed the loan papers, a well–known Wall Street analyst predicted that rates might rise as high as 30 percent. “I gambled everything that interest rates had reached their peak,” Martin recalled in an interview with Anthony Wilson–Smith in Maclean’s. “If they had continued to rise, I was cooked.”

    Paul Martin was an employee of the Desmarais family for many years in Canada Steamship Lines (CSL). Martin eventually bought out the company.

    9. Desmarais’ Influence At His Death

    MONTREAL — Tributes poured in for the late Paul Desmarais on Tuesday in a commemorative ceremony that featured a veritable who’s who of politicians and businessmen past and present.
    Four Canadian prime ministers, a former French president and five Quebec premiers were among those who attended the tribute to the late business tycoon at the Notre-Dame Basilica.
    Prime Minister Stephen Harper remembered Desmarais as a humble and generous man who was passionate about Canada.

    From the Financial Post article:
    Tuesday’s crowd also included Quebec Premier Pauline Marois and predecessors Daniel Johnson, Lucien Bouchard, Bernard Landry and Jean Charest.
    .
    Also present were ex-media mogul Conrad Black, former Bombardier president Laurent Beaudoin, ex-Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe, former federal Liberal leader Bob Rae and his successor, Justin Trudeau.
    The Ontario-born businessman remained a staunch Canadian federalist after he moved to Quebec, where he became one of the country’s wealthiest and most powerful figures.

    Desmarais had incredible influence in both Federal and Provincial politics. Several Premiers and Prime Ministers all had direct connections to him. He even had ties to politicians in France.

    10. Desmarais and Montreal Economic Institute

    An interesting bit of information worth mentioning. There is yet another connection to Desmarais.

    Paul Desmarais Sr. had 2 sons: Andre and Paul Jr. Andre married France Chretien, daughter of former Prime Minister Jean Chretien. Paul Jr. is married too. His wife, Hélène Desmarais, is the Chair-Woman at the Montreal Economic Institute, a think-tank promoting liberalized economic policies.

    MEI had a new Executive Vice-President in 2005. His name: Maxime Bernier.

    In 2006, Bernier left to get into politics. He is now a 4 term MP, and 3 time Cabinet Minister. He now heads his own “populist” party, promoting MEI style economic liberalism.

    Mr. Bernier has a long-standing interest in business and during his career worked for several financial and banking institutions before becoming Executive Vice-President of the Montreal Economic Institute in 2005.

    11. Desmarais, Power Corp, Bombardier & Loblaws

    Although this article could have been much, MUCH longer, it will stop here. Hopefully, there will be a followup. This doesn’t come close to covering everything.

    But to summarize, many of Canada’s most powerful politicians are directly connected to the Desmarais family, and to Power Corporation. It is hard to overstate the influence the family has had in Canadian politics. These politicians, while from different parties, all cooperate in the same corporate, globalist agenda.

    And while difficult to prove, it looks almost certain that corruption played a role in Canadian taxpayers having to bailout 2 companies: Bombardier and Loblaws.

    Posted on

    Free Trade #2: NAFTA: Lawsuits, Sovereignty, Massive Job Losses, Conflict Of Interest

    Bev Collins, giving a talk on NAFTA

    (Some of the litigation going on over NAFTA)

    (Multilateral Agreement on Investment — MAI)

    (Trilateral Commission)

    (Tucker Carlson: Social Costs to Communities Most Important)

    (A man who gets it, Lou Dobbs)

    1. Offshoring, Globalization, Free Trade

    The other posts on outsourcing/offshoring are available here. It focuses on the hidden costs and trade offs society as a whole has to make. Contrary to what many politicians and figures in the media claim, there are always costs to these kinds of agreement. These include: (a) job losses; (b) wages being driven down; (c) undercutting of local companies; (d) legal action by foreign entities; (e) industries being outsourced; and (f) losses to communities when major employers leave. Don’t believe the lies that these agreements are overwhelmingly beneficial to all.

    2. Important Links

    (1) https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/casestudies_e/case9_e.htm
    (2) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/w-11.8/index.html
    (3) http://trilateral.org/download/doc/Vancouver_1996.pdf
    (4) Vancouver_1996 Trilateral Commission
    (5) https://ipolitics.ca/2019/04/30/investor-state-dispute-system-puts-strain-on-poorer-countries-report/
    (6) https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/nafta.aspx?lang=eng
    (7) https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/gov.aspx?lang=eng
    (8) https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/ethyl.aspx?lang=eng
    (9) https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/SDM.aspx?lang=eng
    (10) https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/pope.aspx?lang=eng
    (11) https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/parcel.aspx?lang=eng
    (12) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/u-s-firm-sues-canada-for-10-5-billion-over-water-1.180821
    (13) https://www.oecd.org/investment/internationalinvestmentagreements/multilateralagreementoninvestment.htm
    (14) http://www1.oecd.org/daf/mai/pdf/ng/ng987r1e.pdf
    (15) MAI Draft Agreement 1998
    (16) https://blogs.imf.org
    (17) http://trilateral.org/download/files/membership/TC_list_3_2019.pdf
    (18) Trilateral Commission List 2019
    (19) http://trilateral.org
    (20) https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=2158742&privcapId=3103423&previousCapId=6908053&previousTitle=Ontario%20Heritage%20Trust
    (21) https://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_12102003/
    (22) https://www.epi.org/publication/the-china-toll-deepens-growth-in-the-bilateral-trade-deficit-between-2001-and-2017-cost-3-4-million-u-s-jobs-with-losses-in-every-state-and-congressional-district/

    3. Interesting Points From Bev Collins Video

    -Semiconductor, aerospace, telecommunications industries were dismantled and sold off
    -Mulroney gave QC special negotiating powers in event of succession
    -Business Council on National Issues had $56M to market NAFTA
    -600,000 jobs lost to free trade
    -Small businesses gutted, corporations thrived
    -92% of foreign investment came in to take over Canadian companies
    -13,000 Canadian companies lost in meantime
    -10,000 of those taken over by US transnationals
    -1993 election, NAFTA huge issue, Mulroney/Campbell Gov’t wiped out
    -Concern over water being sold off as commodity
    -Liberals signed NAFTA “as is” in January 1994
    -Roy MacLaren “both” Minister for International Trade and sat on the Trilateral Commission, a lobbying group.
    -Canada push for a World Trade Body (Bill C-57)
    -UN has 3 pillars:

  • Financial pillars (IMF)
  • World Bank
  • World Trade Organization

    • -Costs Canada $275M/annually to sit on committee
    -IMF supposed to arrange short term loans to 3rd World
    -World Bank set up for long term development funds
    -Canada funded 3 Rivers Gorges Dam in China
    -Export Development Corporation spends $40B, unaudited, unaccountable
    -“Investor State Suit” Clause allows Trans-Nats
    -Ethyl Corp sued Canada b/c of MMT gasoline additive ban
    -SD Myers sued Canada over PCB ban
    -Pope & Talbot sued over softwood lumber quota
    -Much of Ontario manufacturing base lost
    -Multilateral Agreement on Investment launched not long after NAFTA
    -lawsuit against MAI, Judge Dube friends with PM Jean Chretien
    -29 MAI delegates shut out of talks
    -MAI eventually destroyed, but content moved over to Free Trade Area of the Americas
    -Prelude to mass migration. If goods and money are borderless, then isn’t this the next logical step?
    -Canada can find its wages driven down
    -Unions themselves now seen as barrier to trade
    -WTO ruled against airline subsidizes
    -43,000 agricultural producers lost to bankruptcy
    -Many SK farms bought up at huge discount

    4. Canada’s Bill C-57

    From the WTO page:

    In 1994 the Canadian Parliament adopted legislation to implement the Uruguay Round with virtually no opposition. The measure was easily passed by the House of Commons with a vote of 185-7. There was general acceptance that the World Trade Organization (WTO) was a necessity for Canada both to participate and to compete in the new international order. Not only did legislators believe that the WTO Agreement would enhance and facilitate Canadian exports, but there also was an expectation among parliamentarians that the new rules-based dispute settlement mechanism would act as a counter-force to US unilateralism in the international arena. Roy McLaren, the Minister for International Trade, explained that the arrangements would particularly benefit ‘small and medium-size trade players like Canada, which are inherently vulnerable to the threat of unilateralism by the economic giants’

    McLaren was wrong. This arrangement does not benefit small and medium trade players like Canada. In fact, it will weaken Canada immensely, and lead to job losses and erosion of our sovereignty. Jere a few quotes from the WTO Agreement Implementation Act.

    Prohibition of private cause of action under Agreement

    6 No person has any cause of action and no proceedings of any kind shall be taken, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada, to enforce or determine any right or obligation that is claimed or arises solely under or by virtue of the Agreement.

    This is a red flag. Nothing happens in Court unless the Attorney General of Canada signs off on it.

    Non-application of Agreement to water
    7 (1) For greater certainty, nothing in this Act or the Agreement, except the Canadian Schedule to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 set out in Annex 1A to the Agreement, applies to water.

    This is promising though. Water was specifically excluded from NAFTA. Concerns were that once exports started, there would be no way to stop it.

    Suspension of concessions to non-WTO Members
    (2) The Governor in Council may, with respect to a country that is not a WTO Member, by order, do any one or more of the following:
    (a) suspend rights or privileges granted by Canada to that country or to goods, service providers, suppliers, investors or investments of that country under any federal law;
    (b) modify or suspend the application of any federal law with respect to that country or to goods, service providers, suppliers, investors or investments of that country;
    (c) extend the application of any federal law to that country or to goods, service providers, suppliers, investors or investments of that country; and
    (d) take any other measure that the Governor in Council considers necessary.

    In short, this allows Canada to screw over non-WTO countries. Great way to force 3rd World nations in jumping on board. This is economic extortion.

    5. Chapter 11, National Treatment Clause

    This clause has been the basis of many lawsuits, since the text states that foreign companies must be treated the same as domestic companies.

    Article 1102: National Treatment
    1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
    2. Each Party shall accord to investments of investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments of its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
    3. The treatment accorded by a Party under paragraphs 1 and 2 means, with respect to a state or province, treatment no less favorable than the most favorable treatment accorded, in like circumstances, by that state or province to investors, and to investments of investors, of the Party of which it forms a part.
    4. For greater certainty, no Party may:
    (a) impose on an investor of another Party a requirement that a minimum level of equity in an enterprise in the territory of the Party be held by its nationals, other than nominal qualifying shares for directors or incorporators of corporations; or
    (b) require an investor of another Party, by reason of its nationality, to sell or otherwise dispose of an investment in the territory of the Party.

    And “who” has been suing Canada under Chapter 11 of NAFTA?

    Cases filed against the Government of Canada

    Ongoing arbitrations to which Canada is a party

    • Clayton/Bilcon
    • Lone Pine Resources Inc.
    • Mobil Investments Canada Inc.
    • Resolute Forest Products Inc.
    • Tennant Energy, LLC.
    • Westmoreland Coal Company

    Concluded arbitrations to which Canada was a party

  • AbitibiBowater Inc.
  • Centurion Health Corporation
  • Chemtura Corp.
  • Detroit International Bridge Company
  • Dow AgroSciences LLC
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • Ethyl Corporation
  • Mercer International Inc.
  • Merrill & Ring Forestry L.P.
  • Mesa Power Group LLC
  • Mobil Investments Inc. and Murphy Oil Corporation
  • Pope & Talbot Inc.
  • S.D. Myers Inc.
  • St. Marys VCNA, LLC
  • United Parcel Service of America, Inc. (UPS)
  • V. G. Gallo
  • Windstream Energy LLC

    • Withdrawn or inactive claims

    • Contractual Obligation Productions, LLC, Charles Robert Underwood and Carl Paolino
    • GL Farms LLC and Carl Adams
    • J.M. Longyear
    • William Jay Greiner and Malbaie River Outfitters Inc.

    open access to information, about the various court proceedings. But do take a look. They almost all involve an alleged breach of the “National Treatment” Clause.

    Now, this “only covers lawsuits against Canada. There have also been plenty of them against the US and Mexico for violating NAFTA.

    6. Multilateral Agreement on Investment

    2. Investment means:
    Every kind of asset owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by an investor, including: 1, 2
    (i) an enterprise (being a legal person or any other entity constituted or organised under the applicable law of the Contracting Party, whether or not for profit, and whether private or government owned or controlled, and includes a corporation, trust, partnership, sole proprietorship, branch, joint venture, association or organisation);
    (ii) shares, stocks or other forms of equity participation in an enterprise, and rights derived therefrom;
    (iii) bonds, debentures, loans and other forms of debt, and rights derived therefrom;
    (iv) rights under contracts, including turnkey, construction, management, production or revenue-sharing contracts;
    (v) claims to money and claims to performance;
    (vi) intellectual property rights;
    (vii) rights conferred pursuant to law or contract such as concessions, licenses, authorisations, and permits;
    (viii) any other tangible and intangible, movable and immovable property, and any related property rights, such as leases, mortgages, liens and pledges.

    And remember that “National Treatment Clause”?

    III. TREATMENT OF INVESTORS AND INVESTMENTS
    NATIONAL TREATMENT AND MOST FAVOURED NATION TREATMENT
    1. Each Contracting Party shall accord to investors of another Contracting Party and to their investments, treatment no less favourable than the treatment it accords [in like circumstances] to its own investors and their investments with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, operation, management, maintenance, use, enjoyment and sale or other disposition of investments.

    This would be the investment equivalent of NAFTA. All forms of investments would have to be given equal considerations. Although it was eventually stopped, the contents are still being considered for other opportunities.

    7. Trilateral Commission

    So, who founds the Trilateral Commission?
    Where are they from?

    Founding Members
    David Rockefeller was the principal founder of the Trilateral Commission in mid-1973. He served on the executive committee and was North American chairman from mid-1977 through November 1991. He is now honorary chairman and a lifetime trustee of the Commission.

    Zbigniew Brzezinski played an important role in the formation of the Commission and served as its first director from 1973 to 1976. After serving in the Carter administration, Dr. Brzezinski rejoined the Commission in 1981 and served on the executive committee until 2009.

    Other early North Americans leaders were Gerard C. Smith, first North American chairman; Jean-Luc Pepin, who headed the Canadian Group; and George S. Franklin, regional secretary. Richard Cooper, Henry Owen, and Philip Tresize were members of the first political, monetary, and trade task forces to report to the Commission.

    Max Kohnstamm of the Netherlands was the first European chairman and Wolfgang Hager the first regional secretary. Georges Berthoin of France, one of the first members from the European Community and a former European chairman, is now an honorary European chairman. Otto Graf Lambsdorff, another original European member and former European chairman, served as honorary European chairman until his death in 2009. François Duchène, Claudio Sergré, and Don Guido Colonna di Paliano were the European authors of the first task force reports.

    If nothing else, it is refreshing to be honest about who is founding it. Now to get to the trickier question of why it was formed.

    I. What is the Trilateral Commission? When and why was it formed?
    The Trilateral Commission is a non-governmental, policy-oriented discussion group of about 390 distinguished citizens from Europe, North America, and Pacific Asia formed to encourage understanding and closer cooperation among these three regions on shared global problems.

    The idea of the Commission was developed in the early 1970s. This was a time of considerable discord among the United States and its democratic industrialized allies in Western Europe, Japan, and Canada. There was also a sense that the international system was changing in some basic ways with rather uncertain implications. Change was most obvious in the international economy, as Western Europe and Japan gained strength and the position of the U.S. economy became less dominant. The increase in global interdependence was affecting the United States in ways to which it was not accustomed.

    When they talk about closer cooperation and understanding, these are really code words for “globalism”. Eliminate borders to trade, to financial services, and eventually, to people moving.

    This all sounds lovely, but it is incrementally erasing nations. Not an accident, and quite intentional.

    8. Commission/Parliament Conflict of Interest

    Bev Collins is absolutely right about conflict of interest going on in the Canadian Parliament. Here are two egregious examples:

    Roy Maclaren, is a former Minister of International Trade (1996-2000). He was also sitting on the Trilateral Commission the entire time it seems.

    Bill Graham is a former Minister of Foreign Affairs, and also a member of the Trilateral Commission.

    Canada’s Minister of International Trade, and also Minister of Foreign Affairs were also sitting on a Commission that promotes ever growing free trade agreements?! How does that look? But that’s hardly the whole picture.

    NORTH AMERICAN GROUP
    .
    Bertrand-Marc Allen, President, Boeing International, Arlington Graham Allison, Director, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; former Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government; former Special Advisor to the Secretary of Defense and former Assistant Secretary of Defense
    Rona Ambrose, former MP, former Interim Leader, Conservative Party; former Minister on the Status of Women, Environment, Health and Public Works, Ottawa
    Dominic Barton, Worldwide Managing Director, McKinsey & Company, London
    *Catherine Bertini, Professor, Public Administration and International Affairs, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University; Distinguished Fellow, The Chicago Council on Global Affairs
    Herminio Blanco Mendoza, Chairman, IQOM, Mexico City; former Mexican Secretary of Commerce and Industrial Development; former Chief NAFTA Negotiator
    Michael Bloomberg, Founder and CEO, Bloomberg LP, NewYork; fomer Mayor of New York City
    Esther Brimmer, Executive Director and CEO, NAFSA, Association for International Educators, Washington R.
    Nicholas Burns, Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy and International Politics and Member of the Board, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs
    Jean Charest, Former Premier of Québec; former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, Montréal
    *Michael Chertoff, Chairman and Co-Founder, The Chertoff Group; former Secretary of Homeland Security; Former Judge, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; Former Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Justice, Washington
    Raymond Chrétien, Partner and Strategic Advisor, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Montreal, QC; Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Montréal Council on Foreign Relations (MCFR); former Associate Under Secretary of State of External Affairs; former Ambassador to the Congo, Belgium, Mexico, the United States, and France
    Timothy Collins, CEO and Senior Managing Director, Ripplewood Holdings, Inc., New York
    Richard N. Cooper, Maurits C. Boas Professor of International Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge; former Chairman, National Intelligence Council; former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs
    Heidi Crebo-Rediker, CEO, International Capital Strategies, Washington; former Chief Economist, State Department
    Lee Cullum, Contributing Columnist, Dallas Morning News; Radio and Television Commentator, Dallas Luis de la Calle, Managing Director and Founding Partner, De la Calle, Madrazo, Mancera, S.C. (CMM), Mexico City; former Undersecretary for International Trade Negotiations
    Arthur A. DeFehr, CEO, Palliser Furniture Holdings Ltd., Winnipeg
    André Desmarais, President and Co-Chief Executive Officer, Power Corporation of Canada, Montréal; Deputy Chairman, Power Financial Corporation
    John M. Deutch, Institute Professor emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge; former Director of Central Intelligence; former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense and Undersecretary of Energy
    Paula J. Dobriansky, Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; Vice Chair, National Executive Committee, U.S. Water Partnership; former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs
    Wendy Dobson, Professor and Co-Director, Institute for International Business, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto; former Canadian Associate Deputy Minister of Finance
    Gary Doer, former Canadian Ambassador to the United States, Winnipeg Thomas Donilon, Partner and Vice Chair, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington; Non-resident Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University; former U.S. National Security Advisor
    *Kenneth M. Duberstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, The Duberstein Group, Washington; former Chief of Staff to President Ronald Reagan
    Michael Duffy, former Executive Editor, TIME Magazine, Washington Douglas Elmendorf, Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge Richard Falkenrath, Chief Security Officer, Bridgewater Associates, Westport Dawn Farrell, President and CEO, TransAlta Corporation, Calgary
    Diana Farrell, Chief Executive Officer and President, JPMorgan Chase Institute, Washington; former Deputy Director, National Economic Council, and Deputy Assistant to the President for Economic Policy
    Martin S. Feldstein, George F. Baker Professor of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge; President Emeritus, National Bureau of Economic Research; former Chairman, Council of Economic Advisors
    Linda Frum, Member, Senate of Canada, Ottawa Juan Gallardo, Chairman of the Board, Grupo Embotelladoras Unidas, SA de CV, Mexico City
    *David R. Gergen, Professor of Public Service and Director of the Center for Public Leadership, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; CNN Senior Political Analyst
    Gordon Giffin, Partner, Dentons US LLP, Atlanta; former U.S. Ambassador to Canada
    Donald Gogel, President and Chief Executive Officer, Clayton Dubilier and Rice, Inc., New York
    Jamie S. Gorelick, Partner, WilmerHale, Washington; former Deputy Attorney General; former General Counsel, Department of Defense
    Bill Graham Chancellor, Trinity College, University of Toronto; former Member, House of Commons; former Minister of Foreign Affairs and former Minister of Defense, Ottawa Donald Graham, Chairman and CEO of Graham Holdings Company, former owner of The Washington Post Company, Washington Peter Harder, Member, Senate of Canada, Ottawa
    *Jane Harman, Director, President, and CEO, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington; former Member, U.S. House of Representatives
    Linda Hasenfratz, President and CEO, Linamar Corporation, Ontario
    Carlos Heredia, Associate Professor, Department of International Studies, Center for Research and Teaching in Economics (CIDE), Mexico City; Coordinator, Program for the Study of the United States, CIDE
    John B. Hess, Chairman of the Board and CEO, Hess Corporation, New York
    *Carla A. Hills, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Hills & Company, Washington; former U.S. Trade Representative; former U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
    *Karen Elliott House, writer, Princeton, NJ; Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; former Senior Vice President, Dow Jones & Company, and Publisher, The Wall Street Journal
    Joseph K. Hurd, III, former Director, Emerging Business, Facebook, Menlo Park
    David Ignatius, Columnist, The Washington Post, Washington Merit E. Janow, Dean of the Faculty and Professor of Practice, International Economic Law and International Affairs, Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), New York; former Member, Appellate Body from North America, World Trade Organization
    P. Thomas Jenkins, Chair, Open Text, Waterloo; Chair, National Research Council of Canada
    Lewis Kaden, Chairman, Markle Foundation Board of Directors; Former Vice Chairman, Citigroup, New York
    Andy Karsner, Managing Partner of the Emerson Collective; Senior Strategist at X; former Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
    Juliette Kayyem, Lecturer in Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; Former Columnist, Boston Globe
    Timothy Keating, Senior Vice President, Government Operations, The Boeing Company, Arlington
    Colin Kenny, Member, Senate of Canada, Ottawa; former Special Assistant, Director of Operations, and Assistant Principal Secretary, to the Rt. Hon. P. E. Trudeau; Member, Special Senate Committee on Terrorism and Security, Special Joint Committee on Canadian Defence Policy; former Chair of Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence
    Robert M. Kimmitt, Senior International Counsel, WilmerHale, Washington; former U.S. Deputy Secretary of the Treasury; former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs; former U.S. Ambassador to Germany
    Henry A. Kissinger, Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc., New York; former U.S. Secretary of State; former Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs; Lifetime Trustee, Trilateral Commission Nicholas Kristof, Columnist, The New York Times, Scarsdale Stephanie Kusie, Member of Parliament, House of Commons, Ottawa Fred Langhammer, Chairman, Global Affairs, The Estée Lauder Companies, Inc., New York
    Hélène Laverdière, Member of Parliament, House of Commons, Ottawa *Monique Leroux, Chair of the Board of Investissement, Québec
    Andrew Leslie, Member of Parliament, House of Commons, Ottawa
    Marne Levine, former Chief Operating Officer, Instagram, Menlo Park Santiago Levy, Vice President for Sectors and Knowledge, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington David Lipton, First Deputy Managing Director, International Monetary Fund, Washington
    Linda Koch Lorimer, CEO, Abundantior; former Vice President for Global & Strategic Initiatives, Yale University
    *John Manley, Chair CIBC, CIBC Bank USA, and Chair CAE Inc.
    Judith A. McHale, President and Chief Executive Officer, Cane Investments, LLC, Hastings on Hudson; former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs; former President and Chief Executive Officer, Discovery Communications
    Thomas F. McLarty, III, President, McLarty Asssociates, Washington; former Chief of Staff to President Clinton
    Lourdes Melgar, Energy Scholar, MIT Center for International Studies, Mexico City
    Jami Miscik, President and Vice Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc., New York; former Deputy Director for Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency Andrea Mitchell, Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, NBC News, Washington
    Adm. Michael Mullen (Ret.), CEO, MGM Consulting, Annapolis; former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Heather Munroe-Blum, Chair of the Board, Canada Pension Investment Fund; Principal Emerita and Professor, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Toronto
    Lori Esposito Murray, Distinguished Chair for National Security, U.S. Naval Academy; former President & Chief Executive Officer, World Affairs Councils of America; former Special Advisor to the President on the Chemical Weapons Convention; former Assistant Director, U.S. Arms Control & Disarmament Agency
    John D. Negroponte, Vice Chairman, McLarty Associates, Washington; former Deputy Secretary of State; former Director of National Intelligence; former Ambassador to the United Nations, Honduras, Mexico, the Philippines and Iraq
    *Joseph S. Nye, Jr., University Distinguished Service Professor and former Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; former Chair, National Intelligence Council; former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs; former North American Chairman, Trilateral Commission
    *Meghan L. O’Sullivan, Evron and Jeane Kirkpatrick Professor of the Practice of International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; former Special Assistant to President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan; North American Chairman, Trilateral Commission Thomas R. Pickering, Vice Chair, Hills & Company, Washington; former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs; former U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation, India, Israel, El Salvador, Nigeria, Jordan, and the United Nations; former Senior Vice President, International Relations, Boeing Company
    John A. Quelch, Vice Provost for Education and Dean, School of Business Administration, University of Miami, Miami
    John Risley, Chairman and President, Clearwater, Bedford
    Andrés Rozental, former Mexican Deputy Foreign Minister; Nonresident Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Latin America Initiative, Brookings Institution, Mexico City
    David M. Rubenstein, Co-founder and Managing Director, The Carlyle Group, Washington
    *Luis Rubio, President, Mexican Council on Foreign Relations; Chairman, Center for Research Development (CIDAC), Mexico City Indira Samarasekera, Senior Advisor, Bennett Jones LLP, Vancouver
    David Sanger, Chief Washington Correspondent, The New York Times, Adjunct Lecturer in Public Policy, Harvard University, Cambridge Eric Schmidt, Technical Advisor and Board Member, Alphabet Inc., Mountain View
    Susan Schwab, Professor, Maryland School of Public Policy, University of Maryland, College Park; former U.S. Trade Representative Gerald Seib, Executive Washington Editor, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Jaime Serra, Chairman, SAI Law and Economics; Founder, Aklara, the Arbitration Center of Mexico, and the NAFTA Fund of Mexico, Mexico City; Deputy Chairman, North American Trilateral Commission
    Rajiv Shah, President, Rockefeller Foundation; Distinguished Fellow in Residence, Edward A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington; former Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development
    Wendy Sherman, Senior Advisor, Albright Stonebridge Group; Resident Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics; former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Jeffrey Simpson, Senior Fellow, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa; former National Affairs Columnist, The Globe and Mail, Senior Fellow, University of Ottawa, Ottawa
    Olympia Snowe, Former U.S. Senator; Senior Fellow, Bipartisan Policy Center, Portland
    Cecilia Soto Gonzalez, Federal Congresswoman, Mexico City Nancy Southern, President and Chief Executive Officer, ATCO Ltd. and Canadian Utilities Limited, Calgary
    *James B. Steinberg, former Dean, Maxwell School, and University Professor of Social Science, International Affairs and Law, Syracuse University, Syracuse; former Deputy Secretary of State, former Deputy National Security Advisor *Carole Taylor, Chancellor Emeritus, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver; former Minister of Finance, British Columbia; former Chair, CBC/Radio-Canada; former Chair, Canada Ports; public affairs broadcaster
    Luis Téllez Kuenzler, Special Advisor, KKR, President, NTT Everis; former Chairman of the Board, Mexican Stock Exchange, Mexico City; former Secretary of Communications and Transportation of Mexico
    G. Richard Thoman, Managing Partner, Corporate Perspectives, New York; Adjunct Professor of International Business, Columbia University; Professor of Practice in International Business, the Fletcher School, Tufts University; former President and Chief Executive Officer, Xerox Corporation; former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, IBM Corporation
    *Frances Townsend, Senior Vice President, Worldwide Government, Legal and Business Affairs, MacAndrews & Forbes Inc., New York; former Assistant to the President for Homeland Security
    Melanne Verveer, Executive Director, Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security, Georgetown University, Washington Guillermo F. Vogel, Director and Vice President of the Board, Tenaris, Mexico City
    *Paul A. Volcker, former Chairman, President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board; former Chairman, Wolfensohn & Co., Inc., New York;
    Frederick H. Schultz Professor Emeritus, International Economic Policy, Princeton University; former Chairman, Board of Governors, U.S. Federal Reserve System; Honorary North American Chairman and former North American Chairman, Trilateral Commission
    Yuen Pau Woo, Member of Parliament, House of Commons, Ottawa
    Robert Zoellick, Chairman, Alliance Bernstein, New York; former President, The World Bank Daniel Yergin, Vice Chairman, IHS, Cambridge

    Any more names look familiar?

    9. NAFTA Resulted In Job Losses

    This Economic Policy Institute study estimates job losses from NAFTA. Almost 900,000
    This EPI study estimates job losses from trade with China. Note, it is not even “free” trade, just “liberalized” trade. An estimated 3.4 million jobs.
    And another study on job losses, due to NAFTA.

    And no, job losses are not just an American problem. According to Statistics Canada, there were some very alarming trends across the developed world.

    Shrinking employment in manufacturing is a common trend in almost all OECD countries. From 1998 to 2008, the United States lost close to one-quarter (4.1 million) of its manufacturing jobs. Elsewhere in the OECD, from 1990 to 2003, manufacturing employment fell by 29% in the United Kingdom, 24% in Japan, 20% in Belgium and Sweden and 14% in France.

    Canada’s manufacturing industry lost 278,000 jobs (1 in 6) from 2000 to 2007, which reduced the sector’s share of total employment from 16% to 12%. That share then declined to 10% in 2009 after the 2008–2009 recession when manufacturers faced weaker demand and cuts to industrial capacity, resulting in the loss of 188,000 jobs. Regions where employment is highly concentrated in the manufacturing sector—mainly in Quebec and Ontario—experienced the greatest manufacturing job losses. From 2000 to 2007, Canadian manufacturing workers aged 20 to 29 in these regions were the most affected by the employment decline in this sector, as they were up to twice as likely to experience a loss of income as those holding a comparable job in a region with a low concentration of manufacturing.

    In addition, job security deteriorated in regions of high manufacturing concentration in 2007, leaving workers at greater risk of unemployment and more likely to be receiving Employment Insurance (EI) benefits. Manufacturing workers in these regions were 39% more likely to receive EI benefits than their counterparts in regions with a low concentration of manufacturing.

    Why have all these nations taken huge job losses, especially in manufacturing? Could be because “free trade” allows companies to shop around for cheaper labour costs.

    When 2 nations are very similar in their employment laws and standards, this can theoretically work. But the problem is that these deals create a “race to the bottom”, where cost cutting and the bottom line are the only considerations.

    10. Free Trade Has Real Costs

    A quick primer is this Lou Dobbs video.

    These deals give foreign companies rights to marketplaces and workforces that domestic companies do. This may sound great, but the reality is the undercutting domestic producers can put lots of people out of work.

    As demonstrated by Chapter 11 of NAFTA, there is a lot potential for new litigation for companies not getting the results or the market share they want. Who pays for it? Taxpayers.

    Politicians like Roy Maclaren or Bill Graham can also sit on corporate boards, while still claiming to advocate for the Canadian public. And these conflict-of-interests are hardly limited to Canada. It raises valid questions about who they really work for. Furthermore, for the Liberals to campaign on amending NAFTA (then scrap the promise), makes people wonder if they ever intended to keep the promise.

    The well being of communities doesn’t get emphasized enough. Large employers essentially provide for many families, and help keep things stable. If it suddenly becomes advantageous to pack up and leave, then a lot of people get screwed over.

    Is this a rejection of business or capitalism? No. However, there are other things to consider than simply profits and GDP.

    Posted on

    China’s Organ Harvesting Of Live People

    1. Other Articles on Abortion/Infanticide

    CLICK HERE, for #1: universities fighting against pro-life groups.
    CLICK HERE, for #2: citing abortion stats now considered violence.
    CLICK HERE, for #3: up to birth abortion now legal in VA/NY.
    CLICK HERE, for #4: letting babies who survive abortion die.
    CLICK HERE, for #5: UN supports abortion rights, even for kids.
    CLICK HERE, for #6: fallout and some pushback on abortion.
    CLICK HERE, for #7: ONCA rules docs must provide service or referral.
    CLICK HERE, for #8: hypocrisy in summer jobs grant, purity tests.
    CLICK HERE, for #9: partial funding lost for planned parenthood.

    CLICK HERE, for trafficking, smuggling, child exploitation series.

    2. Important Links


    (1) https://chinatribunal.com/
    (2) https://chinatribunal.com/about-etac/
    (3) https://chinatribunal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Short-Form-Conclusion-China-Tribunal.pdf
    (4) Short-Form-Conclusion-China-Tribunal (1)
    (5) https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/08/vp-biden-okay-with-china-tyrannical-one-child-policy
    (6) https://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/china-stil-killing-and-harvesting-falun-gong-wesley-j-smith/
    (7) https://www.lifenews.com/2019/06/20/china-is-harvesting-organs-of-political-prisoners-sometimes-while-theyre-still-alive/
    (8) http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46849651/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/t/china-phase-out-prisoner-organ-donation/#.XQjdq_lKi9I
    (9) https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-forcefully-harvests-organs-detainees-tribunal-concludes-n1018646

    3. China Tribunal’s Findings


    From the December 2018 interim report:

    “The Tribunal’s members are certain – unanimously, and sure beyond reasonable doubt – that in China forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practiced for a substantial period of time involving a very substantial number of victims.”

    That was part of the interim report. But now the final report goes on even further:

    The Tribunal has considered evidence, in its many forms, and dealt with individual issues according to the evidence relating to each issue and nothing else and thereby reached a series of conclusions that are free of any influence caused by the PRC’s reputation or other potential causes of prejudice.
    These were as follows;
    • That there were extraordinarily short waiting times (promised by PRC doctors and hospitals) for organs to be available for transplantation;
    • That there was torture of Falun Gong and Uyghurs;
    • That there was accumulated numerical evidence (excluding spurious PRC data) which indicated:
    o the number of transplant operations performed, and
    o the impossibility of there being anything like sufficient ‘eligible donors’ under the recently formed PRC voluntary donor scheme for that number of transplant operations;
    • That there was a massive infrastructure development of facilities and medical personnel for organ transplant operations, often started before any voluntary donor system was even planned; That there was direct and indirect evidence of forced organ harvesting.

    And this led to the conclusion that:

    forced organ harvesting has been committed for years throughout China on a significant scale and that Falun Gong practitioners have been one – and probably the main – source of organ supply. The concerted persecution and medical testing of the Uyghurs is more recent and it may be that evidence of forced organ harvesting of this group may emerge in due course. The Tribunal has had no evidence that the significant infrastructure associated with China’s transplantation industry has been dismantled and absent a satisfactory explanation as to the source of readily available organs concludes that forced organ harvesting continues till today.

    However, on the topic of “genocide” China Tribunal pussyfoots around the issue and says they cannot conclude there is intent for genocide. This despite stating that the actions met the other elements.

    The Tribunal considered whether this constituted a crime of Genocide; The Falun Gong and the Uyghurs in the PRC each qualify as a ‘group’ for purposes of the crime of Genocide. For the Falun Gong, the following elements of the crime of Genocide are clearly established:
    • Killing members of the group;
    • Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.
    Thus, bar one element of the crime, Genocide is, on the basis of legal advice received, clearly proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. The remaining element required to prove the crime is the very specific intent for Genocide. Accepting legal advice about proving this intent, the Tribunal cannot be certain that the requisite intent is proved and thus cannot be certain that Genocide itself is proved.

    That’s right. Due to legal advice, China Tribunal cannot actually conclude there is intent to commit genocide, despite the prolonged actions that would justify the claims.

    China Tribunal then “appears” to condemn what happens to Falun Gong and the Uyghurs, but waters down the language to “criminality”, despite the included detail. The tribunal claims the “elements have been met for crimes against humanity”.

    Commission of Crimes Against Humanity against the Falun Gong and Uyghurs has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by proof of one or more of the following, legally required component acts:
    • murder;
    • extermination;
    • imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
    • torture;
    • rape or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
    • persecution on racial, national, ethnic, cultural or religious grounds that are universally recognised as impermissible under international law ;
    • enforced disappearance
    in the course of a widespread and systematic attack or attacks against the Falun Gong and Uyghurs.

    This seems to be splitting hairs. It meets the criteria for crimes against humanity. Yet China Tribunal, on advice from their lawyers, refuse to state there is intent to qualify as “genocide”.

    The report ends with a very interesting comment about the power of media and citizen journalists.

    Governments and international bodies must do their duty not only in regard to the possible charge of Genocide but also in regard to Crimes against Humanity, which the Tribunal does not allow to be any less heinous. Assuming they do not do their duty, the usually powerless citizen is, in the internet age, more powerful than s/he may recognise. Criminality of this order may allow individuals from around the world to act jointly in pressurising governments so that those governments and other international bodies are unable not to act.

    The China Tribunal has no power to actually do anything. However, it seems to believe that by spreading word online it can put pressure on governments to act.

    4. Firstthings.com Article


    Firstthings.com quotes former VP Joe Biden, on his take on China’s one-child policy.

    But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China. You have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable. So hopefully we can act in a way on a problem that’s much less severe than yours, and maybe we can learn together from how we can do that.

    In order to maintain the 1-child policy, China has had to result to extreme and inhuman measures:

    • forced abortion
    • sex-selective abortions against girls
    • sterilizations
    • eugenics

    Biden seemed critical that the declining birth rate would be able to sustain the retired population. However he seemed to have no concern over the mass aborting and sterilizations that went on.

    5. NBC Coverage Of Issue


    American news outlet NBC reported here, and also reported that:

    In 2014, state media reported that China would phase out the practice of taking organs from executed prisoners and said it would rely instead on a national organ donation system.

    The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Tuesday was not immediately available to comment on the tribunal’s findings.

    In a statement released alongside the final judgment, the tribunal said many of those affected were practitioners of Falun Gong, a spiritual discipline that China banned in the 1990s and has called an “evil cult.” The tribunal added that it was possible that Uighur Muslims — an ethnic minority who are currently being detained in vast numbers in western China — were also being targeted.

    China had been promising for years to end this practice, but it doesn’t seem to have happened.

    6. Lifesite Take On The Situation

    Still, there has been too much reporting for too long about this profound human-rights abuse to ethically continue to look the other way. The question thus becomes: Will the U.S. specifically outlaw traveling to China for the purpose of buying an organ — just as we do participating in pedophilia tourism overseas? (Spain, Israel, Italy, and Taiwan have passed such laws already.) I can’t think of one argument against pursuing such a course.

    If we don’t at least do what we can, it seems to me that we make ourselves complicit in allowing the demand for black-market organs forcibly harvested from murdered prisoners to continue unimpeded — and the blood of the slaughtered victims will also be on us.

    (Lifesite article here) This echoes what China Tribunal has been saying: that political pressure is needed to put a stop to this practice.

    7. My Take On This Story


    If the allegations are true, and they seem to be, then this is abhorrent.

    At some level this is no different that what abortion industries like Planned Parenthood do: snuff out lives in order to obtain a commodity, their organs. If we subscribe to the idea that life is valuable, then this is little — though more heinous — than a common murder and robbery.

    While donation of organs (for after death), should be encouraged, this is an entirely different matter. This is premeditated mass murder in order to steal those parts. The practice is barbaric.

    Consider the flack Canada has taken over the Government’s genocide claims over Indigenous women and girls. Most of the deaths and disappearances (at least where it is known) were at the hands of Indigenous men they knew. That is apparently a “genocide”. Yet what is going on in China is not really worth the attention apparently.

    But good luck getting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to openly condemn the practice.

    Posted on

    9th Circuit Pulls Federal Funds Planned Parenthood Uses For Baby Chop-Shop

    (David Daleiden Fined $195,000 Exposed PP Selling Aborted Baby Parts)


    (Interview With David Daleiden)

    1. Other Articles on Abortion/Infanticide

    CLICK HERE, for #1: universities fighting against pro-life groups.
    CLICK HERE, for #2: citing abortion stats now considered violence.
    CLICK HERE, for #3: up to birth abortion now legal in VA/NY.
    CLICK HERE, for #4: letting babies who survive abortion die.
    CLICK HERE, for #5: UN supports abortion rights, even for kids.
    CLICK HERE, for #6: fallout and some pushback on abortion.
    CLICK HERE, for #7: ONCA rules docs must provide service or referral.
    CLICK HERE, for #8: hypocrisy in summer jobs grant, purity tests.

    CLICK HERE, for trafficking, smuggling, child exploitation series.

    2. Important Links


    CLICK HERE, for the 9th Circuit ruling.

    CLICK HERE, for an article on Planned Parenthood. PP would stand to lose $50-$60 million a year from defunding.

    CLICK HERE, for PP suing Idaho over new reporting requirements.
    CLICK HERE, for Idaho’s House Bill 638.

    CLICK HERE, for a Politico article which covers ongoing cases
    CLICK HERE, for Planned Parenthood & Ohio.
    CLICK HERE, for Planned Parenthood challenging a ban on aborting fetuses with Down’s Syndrome.
    CLICK HERE, for Kentucky banning abortions based on race, sex or disability, which Planned Parenthood and ACLU plan to challenge.
    CLICK HERE, for Ohio Senate Bill 23 “Heartbeat Bill”. (Hearts beat 45 days into pregnancy).
    CLICK HERE, for Ohio Senate Bill 27, Medical Tissue Disposal Bill.
    CLICK HERE, for Planned Parenthood challenging Indiana law requiring the remains of aborted babies to be either cremated or buried.
    CLICK HERE, for an article on selling aborted baby parts.
    CLICK HERE, for David Daleiden fined $195,000.
    CLICK HERE, for Daleiden charged for illegal recordings.

    3. Quotes From Ruling

    BACKGROUND:
    In 1970, Congress enacted Title X of the Public Health Service Act (“Title X”) to create a limited grant program for certain types of pre-pregnancy family planning services. See Pub. L. No. 91-572, 84 Stat. 1504 (1970). Section 1008 of Title X, which has remained unchanged since its enactment, is titled “Prohibition of Abortion,” and provides: None of the funds appropriated under this subchapter shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.

    Pretty straightforward. Title X was never meant to be a means which to funnel money to fund abortions.

    In ruling on a stay motion, we are guided by four factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although review of a district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction is for abuse of discretion, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir. 2003), “[a] district court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law,” Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996).

    This is the 4 part test to decide on a motion to stay a ruling. Is the applicant likely to succeed? Is there public interest? What harm will come to the parties?

    As a threshold matter, we note that the Final Rule is a reasonable interpretation of § 1008. Congress enacted § 1008 to ensure that “[n]one of the funds appropriated under this subchapter shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.” 42 U.S.C. § 300a-6. If a program promotes, encourages, or advocates abortion as a method of family planning, or if the program refers patients to abortion providers for family planning purposes, then that program is logically one “where abortion is a method of family planning.” Accordingly, the Final Rule’s prohibitions on advocating, encouraging, or promoting abortion, as well as on referring patients for abortions, are reasonable and in accord with § 1008. Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that § 1008 “plainly allows” such a construction of the statute. Rust, 500 U.S. at 184 (upholding as a reasonable interpretation of § 1008 regulations that (1) prohibited abortion referrals and counseling, (2) required referrals for prenatal care, (3) placed restrictions on referral lists, (4) prohibited promoting, encouraging, or advocating abortion, and (5) mandated financial and physical separation of Title X projects from abortion-related activities). The text of § 1008 has not changed.

    This makes a great deal of sense. If abortion was never intended to be covered as “family planning” under Title X, then organizations that openly promote, encourage, or otherwise facilitate it shouldn’t be allowed to receive federal monies. It would do an end run around rules.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall not promulgate any regulation that—
    (1) creates any unreasonable barriers to the ability of individuals to obtain appropriate medical care;
    (2) impedes timely access to health care services;
    (3) interferes with communications regarding a full range of treatment options between the patient and the provider;
    (4) restricts the ability of health care providers to provide full disclosure of all relevant information to patients making health care decisions;
    (5) violates the principles of informed consent and the ethical standards of health care professionals; or
    (6) limits the availability of health care treatment for the full duration of a patient’s medical needs.

    Pub. L. No. 111-148, title I, § 1554 (42 U.S.C. § 18114) (“§ 1554”). These two provisions could render the Final Rule “not in accordance with law” only by impliedly repealing or amending § 1008, or by directly contravening the Final Rule’s regulatory provisions

    So these limitations would not be violate, specifically because § 1008 would need to be repealed or amended. Or the “Final Rule’s” provisions would have to be violated.

    Plaintiffs admit that there is no irreconcilable conflict between § 1008 and either the appropriations rider or § 1554 of the ACA. E.g., California State Opposition to Motion for Stay at p. 14; Essential Access Opposition to Motion for Stay at p.14. And we discern no “clear and manifest” intent by Congress to amend or repeal § 1008 via either of these laws—indeed, neither law even refers to § 1008. The appropriations rider mentions abortion only to prohibit appropriated funds from being expended for abortions; and § 1554 of the ACA does not even mention abortion.

    The US Congress has no intent to rewrite or amend § 1008. And § 1554 of the ACA (Affordable Care Act) does not even mention abortion. It looks pretty weak to attempt an end run around what the law explicitly forbids.

    Although the Final Rule does require the provision of referrals to non-abortion providers, id. at 7788–90, such referrals do not constitute “pregnancy counseling.” First, providing a referral is not “counseling.” HHS has defined “nondirective counseling” as “the meaningful presentation of options where the [medical professional] is not suggesting or advising one option over another,” 84 Fed. Reg. at 7716, whereas a “referral” involves linking a patient to another provider who can give further counseling or treatment, id. at 7748. The Final Rule treats referral and counseling as distinct terms, as has Congress and HHS under previous administrations. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 300z-10; 53 Fed. Reg. at 2923; 2928–38 (1988); 65 Fed. Reg. 41272–75 (2000). We therefore conclude that the Final Rule’s referral requirement is not contrary to the appropriations rider’s nondirective pregnancy counseling mandate.2

    It is not “counselling” to refer a woman for abortion procedures. Counselling, as repeatedly held, is explaining options to a person.

    Because HHS and the public interest would be irreparably harmed absent a stay, harms to Plaintiffs from a stay will be comparatively minor, and HHS is likely to prevail in its challenge of the preliminary injunction orders before a merits panel of this court (which is set to hear the cases on an expedited basis), we conclude that a stay of the district courts’ preliminary injunction orders pending appeal is proper. The motion for a stay pending appeal is GRANTED.

    4. PP Sued Idaho Over Reporting Rules


    Chapter 95: Abortions Complications Reporting Act

    (f) Abortion and complication reporting do not impose undue burdens on a woman’s right to choose whether she terminates pregnancy. Specifically, the “collection of information” with respect to actual patients is a vital element of medical research, so it cannot be said that the requirements serve no purpose other than to make abortions more difficult.

    This raises a valid point. If abortions, or any particular technique were leading to health complications later down the road, then it would be useful to know that information.

    Here is Planned Parenthood’s response when filing suit.

    This law require providers in the state to report on more than 37 new “complications,” ranging from medical conditions that have no link to abortion, like breast cancer, to the inability to come in for a follow-up appointment, which is not a medical condition. The reporting requirement doesn’t exist for any other medical procedure. The bill was signed into law by Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter in March.

    Yet none of this actually prevents abortions from going on. It is a bit confusing. Does PP “not” want the patients (specifically), or the public (generally) to know what kinds of health and follow-up issues are going on?

    5. PP Sued Ohio Over Heartbeat Bill

    (1) At least twenty-four hours prior to the performance or inducement of the abortion, a physician meets with the pregnant woman in person in an individual, private setting and gives her an adequate opportunity to ask questions about the abortion that will be performed or induced. At this meeting, the physician shall inform the pregnant woman, verbally or, if she is hearing impaired, by other means of communication, of all of the following: (a) The nature and purpose of the particular abortion procedure to be used and the medical risks associated with that procedure; (b) The probable gestational age of the embryo or fetus; (c) The medical risks associated with the pregnant woman carrying the pregnancy to term. The meeting need not occur at the facility where the abortion is to be performed or induced, and the physician involved in the meeting need not be affiliated with that facility or with the physician who is scheduled to perform or induce the abortion.

    (3) If it has been determined that the unborn human individual the pregnant woman is carrying has a detectable fetal heartbeat, the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion shall comply with the informed consent requirements in section 2919.192 2919.194 of the Revised Code in addition to complying with the informed consent requirements in divisions (B)(1), (2), (4), and (5) of this section

    While “controversial”, this bill (and similar ones) make a very valid point. How is it not “alive” if there is an actual heart beating?

    All of this talk about the right to an abortion, but no concern over the life of the unborn child. Why?

    Perhaps Senate Bill 27 will explain it. Planned Parenthood not only sues to make abortion “more accessible”, but it opposes efforts to “force the disposal” of the bodies either by burial or by cremation. Those aborted babies are worth a lot of money, if you harvest the organs.

    6. Real Reason PP Is So Pro-Abortion


    Let’s connect the dots here

    1. PP supports abortion with federal funds.
    2. PP supports aborting babies with Down’s Syndrome.
    3. PP supports abortion based on sex, race, or disability.
    4. PP supports abortion up to (and beyond) birth.
    5. PP opposes abortion complication reporting requirements.
    6. PP opposes laws mandating burial or cremation of fetus.

    While all of these are troubling, it is the last point that explains it: Planned Parenthood doesn’t want States mandating the disposal of fetal tissue, because there is a lot of money to be made in that.

    From the Washington Examiner:

    When pro-life activist David Daleiden and his team at the Center for Medical Progress released the tapes in 2015, Planned Parenthood leaned heavily on the defense that the videos were unfairly doctored. This defense was parroted immediately by a servile press, despite that Planned Parenthood never explained what additional context would have exonerated its senior director of medical services saying on tape that the group was “doing a little better than” breaking even for donated organs (it is illegal to profit from the donation of fetal tissue. It is also illegal under federal law to perform partial birth abortions).

    From the Christian Post article:

    The undercover journalist who in 2015 exposed Planned Parenthood’s baby body parts selling operation is fighting a nearly $200,000 fine amid an ongoing court battle.

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to hear an appeal from David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress last week, an appeal of a $195,000 imposed on him for using video footage which supposedly violated a gag order imposed by a lower court judge.

    “The federal judge presiding over related civil lawsuits, District Judge William Orrick, had held that criminal defense counsel’s use of the videos violated a gag order he imposed in one of the federal civil actions. Daleiden and his defense counsel appealed, arguing that Orrick had improperly imposed a criminal contempt penalty without granting the accused due process and that the federal civil injunction should not apply to Daleiden’s state criminal proceeding,” according to a statement from the Thomas More Society, which is representing Daleiden.

    While the court proceedings are likely not over, David Daleiden performed a much needed service by exposing what really goes on. Aborted (a.k.a. murdered) children are worth a lot of money dead, as their organs can be harvested and sold.

    It also explains why Planned Parenthood has such an unwavering pro-abortion stance. These are not babies, but raw supplies. It further makes clear why PP doesn’t want aborted babies buried or cremated. Not much of a business model if you final products are required to be thrown out.

    Aborted babies are essentially in a chop-shop for spare parts. Nothing humane or compassionate about it.