Category: Canada

Posted on

CV #37: WHO Admits No Evidence For Universal Masking, Recommends It Anyway

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

This is a lengthy series, but a necessary read in order to understand what is really going on. This so-called pandemic is just a pretense for taking away more and more of your freedoms.

2. June 5, 2020 Interim Guidance

(Download the pdf at the bottom)
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks
WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.4-eng (1)

(from page 4)

There are currently no studies that have evaluated the effectiveness and potential adverse effects of universal or targeted continuous mask use by health workers in preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Despite the lack of evidence the great majority of the WHO COVID-19 IPC GDG members supports the practice of health workers and caregivers in clinical areas (irrespective of whether there are COVID-19 or other patients in the clinical areas) in geographic settings where there is known or suspected community transmission of COVID-19, to continuously wear a medical mask throughout their shift, apart from when eating and drinking or changing the mask after caring for a patient requiring droplet/contact precautions for other reasons (e.g., influenza), to avoid any possibility of cross-transmission

So there are no actual studies to test or research the effectiveness of masks in health care settings. However, it’s common practice to expect them to be worn.

(from page 6)

Available evidence
Studies of influenza, influenza-like illness, and human coronaviruses (not including COVID-19) provide evidence that the use of a medical mask can prevent the spread of infectious droplets from a symptomatic infected person (source control) to someone else and potential contamination of the environment by these droplets.(54, 55) There is limited evidence that wearing a medical mask by healthy individuals in households, in particular those who share a house with a sick person, or among attendees of mass gatherings may be beneficial as a measure preventing transmission.(41, 56-61) A recent meta-analysis of these observational studies, with the intrinsic biases of observational data, showed that either disposable surgical masks or reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks were associated with protection of healthy individuals within households and among contacts of cases.(42)

This could be considered to be indirect evidence for the use of masks (medical or other) by healthy individuals in the wider community; however, these studies suggest that such individuals would need to be in close proximity to an infected person in a household or at a mass gathering where physical distancing cannot be achieved, to become infected with the virus.

Results from cluster randomized controlled trials on the use of masks among young adults living in university residences in the United States of America indicate that face masks may reduce the rate of influenza-like illness, but showed no impact on risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.(62, 63) At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19

The World Health Organization admits there is no direct evidence that widespread masking of healthy people actually prevents any sort of sickness. They speak on in terms of “indirect evidence” or being “possible”.

(from page 6)

2) Advice to decision makers on the use of masks for the
general public
.
Many countries have recommended the use of fabric masks/face coverings for the general public. At the present time, the widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and harms to consider (see below).

However, taking into account the available studies evaluating pre- and asymptomatic transmission, a growing compendium of observational evidence on the use of masks by the general public in several countries, individual values and preferences, as well as the difficulty of physical distancing in many contexts, WHO has updated its guidance to advise that to prevent COVID-19 transmission effectively in areas of community transmission, governments should encourage the general public to wear masks in specific situations and settings as part of a comprehensive approach to suppress SARS-CoV-2 transmission (Table 2).

So no direct scientific evidence to support masking healthy people, but governments should encourage it anyway. Rather than focusing exclusively on science, it takes “values and preferences” into account. Perhaps this is why BCPHO Bonnie Henry says “there’s no science behind it”. It gets even better.

(from end of page 8/early 9)

A non-medical mask is neither a medical device nor personal protective equipment. However, a non-medical mask standard has been developed by the French Standardization Association (AFNOR Group) to define minimum performance in terms of filtration (minimum 70% solid particle filtration or droplet filtration) and breathability (maximum pressure difference of 0.6 mbar/cm2 or maximum Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19: Interim guidance inhalation resistance of 2.4 mbar and maximum exhalation resistance of 3 mbar).

The lower filtration and breathability standardized requirements, and overall expected performance, indicate that the use of non-medical masks, made of woven fabrics such as cloth, and/or non-woven fabrics, should only be considered for source control (used by infected persons) in community settings and not for prevention. They can be used ad-hoc for specific activities (e.g., while on public transport when physical distancing cannot be maintained), and their use should always be accompanied by frequent hand hygiene and physical distancing.

So a non-medical mask isn’t actually considered PPE. But it’s nice to know that 70% is the new standard for being an acceptable filter. And despite them not being beneficial to healthy people, the World Health Organization recommends them anyway.

(from page 10)

WHO is collaborating with research and development partners and the scientific community engaged in textile
engineering and fabric design to facilitate a better understanding of the effectiveness and efficiency of nonmedical masks. WHO urges countries that have issued recommendations on the use of both medical and non-medical masks by healthy people in community settings to conduct research on this important topic. Such research needs to look at whether SARS-CoV-2 particles can be expelled through non-medical masks of poor quality worn by a person with symptoms of COVID-19 while that person is coughing, sneezing or speaking. Research is also needed on nonmedical mask use by children and other medically
challenging persons and settings as mentioned above.

World Health Organization recommends the use of masks, but admits that research needs to be done, and there’s no hard evidence that they work on healthy people.

3. April 6, 2020 Interim Guidance


https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/331693
WHO-april-6-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020

(page 1/2)

Medical masks should be reserved for health care workers. The use of medical masks in the community may create a false sense of security, with neglect of other essential measures, such as hand hygiene practices and physical distancing, and may lead to touching the face under the masks and under the eyes, result in unnecessary costs, and take symptoms. The true extent of asymptomatic infections will be determined from serologic studies. Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19: interim guidance masks away from those in health care who need them most, especially when masks are in short supply.

(page 2)

Advice to decision makers on the use of masks for healthy people in community settings. As described above, the wide use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not supported by current evidence and carries uncertainties and critical risks. WHO offers the following advice to decision makers so they apply a risk-based approach.

(page 2)

However, the following potential risks should be carefully
taken into account in any decision-making process:
• self-contamination that can occur by touching and
reusing contaminated mask
• depending on type of mask used, potential breathing
difficulties
• false sense of security, leading to potentially less
adherence to other preventive measures such as physical
distancing and hand hygiene
• diversion of mask supplies and consequent shortage of
mask for health care workers
• diversion of resources from effective public health
measures, such as hand hygiene

4. What Changed: April To June?

APRIL 2020: no evidence to support masking healthy people, and they need to be reserved for health care workers anyway.

JUNE 2020: no direct evidence to support masking healthy people, but governments should encourage it anyway.

Even taking the World Health Organization at face value (which is a stretch), they admit there is no hard evidence to support mandatory masking of healthy people. Governments are doing it of their own free will.

Posted on

CV #34: BC Encourages Degeneracy, Prostitution & Abortion During Pandemic

Hard to believe, but this actually material that is on the site of the BC Center for Disease Control (BC CDC). How to “safely” behave in immoral ways, while being “safe” from covid-19.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

There is much more on the series available here. To understand what is really going on, look into the lobbying, conflicts of interest, corruption, and evidence of premeditation. Also, check out the page on abortion. Aborted babies are used as raw material for vaccine development. Nothing is what is appears to be. Also, check out this series for more information on the infanticide agenda.

2. BC CDC Promotes Use Of “Glory Holes”

Steps to protect yourself during sex
Here are some ways to lower the risk of being exposed to COVID-19 during sex with others:
.
Ask your partner(s) if they’re feeling unwell or have any symptoms of COVID-19.
Before and after sex:
-Wash your body with soap and water.
-Wash your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds.
-Wash sex toys thoroughly with soap and water before and after use. Do not share them with multiple partners.
–Wear a face covering or mask. Heavy breathing during sex can create more droplets that may transmit COVID-19.
-Avoid or limit kissing and saliva exchange.
-Choose sexual positions that limit face-to-face contact.
-Use barriers, like walls (e.g., glory holes), that allow for sexual contact but prevent close face-to-face contact.
Using condoms, lubricant, and dental dams may help to further reduce the risk by minimizing contact with saliva, semen and feces during sex.

One would think this is a parody, but it appears to be the actual BC CDC website. Recommending use of a “glory hole” or sex through a wall. Sounds gross and weird. (http://archive.is/oQtki)

Strangely, the BC CDC does recommend wearing a mask of face coverings in the meantime. Perhaps we need to draw the line somewhere. Or do they think couples will get turned on by it?

3. BC CDC Promotes Pornography As Alternative

If you’re feeling well and have no symptoms of COVID-19, you can have sex
.
Masturbating:
You are your safest sex partner. Masturbating by yourself (solo sex) will not spread COVID-19. If you masturbate with a partner(s), physical distancing will lower your chance of getting COVID-19.
.
Virtual Sex:
Video dates, phone chats, sexting, online chat rooms and group cam rooms are ways to engage in sexual activity with no chance of spreading COVID-19. Be aware of the risks of sharing information or photos online, and web camming. Some people do not share personal information or show their face or other identifiable body parts, for more privacy.

Hard to tell if this is promoted as a safe alternative, or is just meant to break down what is considered normal behaviour.

4. BC CDC Gives Advice On “Safe” Hooking

COVID19_SexWorkersGuidance

We recognize that many sex workers continue to meet clients in-person and acknowledge the support
sex workers are providing each other during the COVID-19 pandemic. The BC Centre for Disease Control
and the Ministry of Health have developed this guidance with a harm reduction lens to help reduce the
risks associated with in-person contact and to keep workers as well as clients safe from COVID-19 illness.

General Recommendations
● Wash hands regularly with plain soap and warm water for at least 20 seconds or use alcoholbased hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol content. Antibacterial soap is NOT required
● Cough into your elbow or cover your mouth and nose with a disposable tissue when you sneeze.
Immediately dispose of all used tissues in an appropriate waste bin and wash your hands right
away
● Do not touch your eyes, nose or mouth with unwashed hands
● Do not share food, drinks, unwashed utensils, cigarettes, vaping devices, joints, or bongs
● Do not work if you have flu-like symptoms, for example, cough, sneezing, fever, sore throat,
difficulty breathing

Interesting that in the recommendations, the BC CDC doesn’t suggest STOPPING prostitution as a way to protect people’s health.

5. BC CDC Guidelines On Mask Wearing

When to wear a mask
.
Wear a mask if you are sick
COVID-19 is spread through infected droplets from a sick person’s mouth or nose. Wearing a mask when you are sick, helps protect people around you from the droplets that carry the virus. However, wearing a mask while sick does not change the need to stay home. If you cannot physically distance yourself from others at home, a mask can help prevent the spread of germs within the household.
.
Learn more about the precautions you should take if you are sick.

Wear a mask if you are caring for someone with COVID-19
It is recommended to wear a medical/surgical mask if you are caring for a person with symptoms of COVID-19, especially if you will be in direct contact with a sick person’s droplets, saliva or body fluid.
.
If you do not have a medical/surgical mask, non-medical masks or facial coverings (e.g., homemade cloth masks, dust mask, bandanas) should be used by the person who is sick, as long as it does not make it more difficult to breathe, to reduce the spread of droplets containing the virus to others in the home. These non-medical masks may also be worn by any household member providing care to a person who is sick.
.
For more information see the guide for caregivers and household members of those with COVID.

Wearing a mask if you are healthy
If you are healthy, wearing a non-medical or cloth mask or face covering is a matter of personal choice and it might help to protect others. This is because some people can spread the virus when they have very mild symptoms or may not know that they are infected. In this case, wearing a mask can help protect others by containing your own droplets when talking, laughing, singing, coughing, or sneezing. Wearing a cloth mask might not protect you from COVID-19, but it is a good option in situations where you cannot keep a safe distance from others for an extended period of time, such as when you are on transit, getting a haircut or visiting someone indoors.

Apparently, the BC Center for Disease Control doesn’t think that healthy people should be wearing masks. Although they do seem to think it should be worn during sex. And the BC CDC does recommend “alternvative” positions to avoid face to face contact.

6. Abortions Ongoing During Pandemic

Don’t worry, being in the middle of a pandemic won’t eliminate your right to have an abortion. In fact, not only are abortions not stopping, they seem to be increasing. After all, if this isn’t the best time to preserve and cherish life, then what is?

Of course, it’s an open secret that aborted babies are used in the development of vaccines. Therefore, the people pushing the vaxx agenda would have a vested interest in seeing this increase.

7. BC CDC On Marriage Restrictions

At this time, all event organizers are ordered to limit all public gatherings larger than 50 people. This includes indoor and outdoor sporting events, conferences, meetings, concerts, theatres, religious gatherings or other similar events. A new order from May 22, 2020 replaces the March 16, 2020 order and includes an amendment of no more than 50 vehicles for outdoor drive-in events. See the latest Order of the Provincial Health Officer on Mass gatherings.

The timing for a safe restart for activities requiring large gatherings is still to be determined as part of Phase four of BC’s Restart Plan. Opening will be conditional on at least one of the following: wide vaccination, “community immunity” or broad successful treatments.

According to the BC CDC, large gatherings like weddings are off limits until there is wide spread vaccination. Just a suspicion though: this will only apply to straight couples. B.C. officials are very unlikely to refuse demands of accommodation by gays.

That’s right, your right to assemble in large groups has been capped at 50 people. And as BC Provincial Health Offier Bonnie Henry repeatedly says, there’s no science behind it (1:00 in video). One has to wonder if there will be any science behind the vaccines as well.

8. Control/Degeneracy Cloaked As Safety

For clarification, here is what is good:

  • Prostitution, if done safely
  • Pornography
  • Virtual Sex
  • Screwing through walls (glory holes)
  • Positions like anal
  • Abortion

Also, here is what is bad:

  • Marriages with very large families
  • Outings and family events
  • Religious gatherings of large people
  • Peaceful protests and assemblies

These are the public officials in charge of managing the Province, and they are some seriously screwed up priorities. This is not about public safety, and never has been. This is all about control.

Posted on

CV #32: BC PHO Bonnie Henry Admits Contact Tracing, Not Science, Behind 50-Person Limit

Bonnie Henry states at 12:00 that gatherings of more than 50 people will “remain in place” until there is effective means to stop covid-19″. By effective means, that presumably refers to a vaccine, since that is what everyone else is pushing.

When the B.C. Government keeps talking about the “3 C”, they are repeating WHO talking points. Hardly a coincidence.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

For more on the coronavirus corruption, lobbying, influence peddling, globalism, and authoritarianism, check out the series main page. There is much more to this than what the media will share with you.

2. Henry Limits Gatherings Based On No Science

On March 12, Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry issued an order to cancel gatherings (at that time) if there would be more than 250 people. However, she admitted at 7:20 in the video that this is not scientific in any way, shape, or form.

3. BC Caps Gatherings At 50 People

At this time, all event organizers are ordered to limit all public gatherings larger than 50 people. This includes indoor and outdoor sporting events, conferences, meetings, concerts, theatres, religious gatherings or other similar events. A new order from May 22, 2020 replaces the March 16, 2020 order and includes an amendment of no more than 50 vehicles for outdoor drive-in events. See the latest Order of the Provincial Health Officer on Mass gatherings.

The timing for a safe restart for activities requiring large gatherings is still to be determined as part of Phase four of BC’s Restart Plan. Opening will be conditional on at least one of the following: wide vaccination, “community immunity” or broad successful treatments.

BC again reduced that mass gatherings down form 250 people to 50 people. Again, no science or rationale behind it, other than to exert control over people.

Also noteworthy is that there will be no return to normal without:

  • Vaccines
  • herd immunity
  • some medical treatment

Guess we know which one the pharmaceutical industry prefers.

4. Bonnie Henry Admits No Science In Policy

On May 25, 2020, BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry said that “50 cars” was included in the guidelines for limiting groups of people who can get together. At 1:05 she states that there is no real science behind these Provincial dictates.

TCN TV Network. This was January 25, 2021

5. Limits Don’t Apply To Grocery Stores

Many retail food and grocery stores owners have asked whether the Order prohibiting mass gatherings of 50 or more people applies to them. The mass gathering Order does not apply to grocery stores. It applies to one time or episodic events which could result in people gathering closely together. Nevertheless, the spirit of the order with respect to physical distancing should be followed. This means that, for example, in large grocery stores where it is feasible to have more than 50 people, while still following appropriate physical distancing, it is acceptable to have over 50 people present at one time. It is also important to ensure that physical distancing is maintained for customers who might be waiting in line (e.g., waiting to enter the store, to check out, or to pick up a product). See below for greater detail on calculating the number of people allowed in a
store.

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/health/about-bc-s-health-care-system/office-of-the-provincial-health-officer/covid-19/guidance_to_grocery_stores_april_25_final.pdf

Apparently the 50 person limit does not apply to grocery stores. It seems that this virus is smart enough to know that it’s in a store, and the type of store it’s in.

6. Limits Don’t Apply In Childcare Settings

Mass Gatherings
The Provincial Health Officer’s Order for Mass Gatherings continues to prohibit gatherings and events of people in excess of 50 people, however this Order does not apply to child care settings. As such, there can be more than 50 children and staff at any given setting if they are not all in one area and if they are actively engaged in physical distancing to the greatest extent possible.

There is no evidence to support the use of medical grade, cloth, or homemade masks in child care setting at his time. Wearing one is a personal choice. It is important to treat people wearing masks with respect. More information about COVID-related mask use is available here.

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/health/about-bc-s-health-care-system/office-of-the-provincial-health-officer/covid-19/covid-19-pho-guidance-childcare.pdf

It’s unclear what (if any) science if behind the daycare exemption. It is never specified. However, they say quite explicitly that masks are not effective.

7. It’s About Doing Contact Tracing


https://www.facebook.com/BCProvincialGovernment/videos/812139859192163/

At 35:15, BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry admits that there is no real science behind only letting 50 people gather. She adds afterwards that a limit of 50 is what they think would make it easier to follow people and do contact tracing. So is ease of surveillance the real reason behind the 50 person cap?

At 47 minute mark Henry talks about people still coming on international flights. Instead of talking about shutting it all down, she focuses on more restrictions of rights here.

8. BC Doesn’t Know How Many Cases It Has

https://www.facebook.com/BCProvincialGovernment/videos/498191467724753/?t=956

At 16:00 into the video, Bonnie Henry talks about the number of cases BC has. She admits she doesn’t know, and only has some vague idea. Apparently, the computer modelling will be telling the Province how many people actually have it.

Modelling? From Imperial College London? Or some other source? People who follow this site will know that modelling isn’t evidence of anything at all. Just as with the climate change models, outbreak models are simply guess made by feeding assumptions into a computer.

Yes, we shut down our society, and bankrupted the nation (as did others), because of predictions produced by biased and influenced “scientists”. Good job.

9. BC Considering Mandatory Masks

Henry said while the number of COVID-19 cases in B.C. doesn’t warrant a similar law, it may be needed in the future.
.
“We may, during the respiratory season, with a surge, we may require people to wear masks in some indoor situations,” said Henry. “If we start to see much more transmission in our communities.”
.
For now, she wants British Columbians to have a mask with them when they leave the house and expects to see people wearing them on transit, in small grocery stores and anywhere physical distancing is difficult or not possible.

Bonnie Henry is only saying she “expects” people in BC to be wearing masks, but isn’t mandating them yet. However, she makes it very clear that it could happen in the near future. Talk about gaslighting.

10. Bonnie Reiterates Need For Vaccines

Henry reiterates at 4:00 that there will be no return to normal until there is a vaccine or “effective treatment” whatever that means.

At 6:45, she drops another hint why the small group. It’s not about science, but about making contact tracing easier.

11. Who Else Wants Mandatory Vaccines?

(Bill Gates predicts no more mass gathering until vaccine developed.

(See 1:30 mark in this, or original video). Trudeau claims that “normalcy will not return without a vaccine that is widely available, and that could be a very long way off”.

(From March 30, 2020 public announcement). The Government of Alberta is stating is may very well be a year to develop a vaccine.

There shouldn’t be any doubt at this point that John Horgan, Adrian Dix, Bonnie Henry, and others in the B.C. Government are on board with the vaxx agenda. When they say “treatment”, what they really mean is a vaccine.

12. BC CDC Reports Vast Majority Recover

According to the BC Center for Disease Control (added July 23, 2020), some 2,898 out of 3,392 infected people (which is 85.4%) infected with CV have recovered. Only 3 are in intensive care.

THIS IS WITH NO VACCINE WHATSOEVER.

It also has to be mentioned that governments around the world are heavily inflating their case count. So even their official numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Also, governments frequently omit to mention that the overwhelming majority of these serious cases involve patients with many underlying health problems.

13. Only Option Is Fighting Back

The B.C. Government has made is clear that they have no intention of eliminating the “population control measures” that are keeping everyone in limbo until they are injected with who knows what.

This “pandemic” was never meant to be ended. The goalposts will always be shifted so that new measures can be introduced, and to make it harder to question previous agendas.

There is no reasoning with or negotiating with such a group, or any government at this point. They are all on board with the depopulation plan.

Posted on

Heritage #3: Annexation Makes UNESCO Sites World’s 2nd Largest “Country”

1. Understanding Our History

(A) https://canucklaw.ca/un-declaration-on-rights-of-indigenous-peoples-bc-and-feds/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/the-indian-act-of-canada/

2. Important Links

(1) https://whc.unesco.org/en/faq/23
(2) https://en.unesco.org/covid19/cultureresponse/monitoring-world-heritage-site-closures
(3) https://unesco.org.uk/national-value
(4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area
(5) https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/UN.new_.development.financing.2012.178pages.pdf
(7) http://www.clubdeparis.org/en/communications/page/debt-swap
(8) Debt for Nature Swaps _ UNDP (1)
(9) https://www.cov.com/en/news-and-insights/news/2004/08/covington-advises-on-debt-for-nature-swap-to-protect-unesco-world-heritage-site
(10) https://canucklaw.ca/ccs-14-uns-new-development-financing-the-bait-and-switch/

3. Who Actually Owns UNESCO Sites?

Who owns a site once it’s inscribed on the World Heritage List?
.
The site is the property of the country on whose territory it is located, but it is considered in the interest of the international community to protect the site for future generations. Its protection and preservation becomes a concern of the international World Heritage community as a whole.

An interesting explanation. So the host nation owns it, but is not allowed to do anything with it unless approved by the international community. Perhaps it’s like renting an apartment: it’s your space, but the interest of the landlord.

4. How Many UNESCO Sites Are There?

This includes the closure of natural and cultural World Heritage sites in the 167 countries they are located in. Please consider the following when reviewing the map:
The World Heritage Convention has been ratified by 193 States Parties but only 167 countries have properties on UNESCO’s World Heritage List;
The List includes a total of 1,121 natural, cultural and mixed World Heritage sites;
In some countries with federal systems there may be a different approach for certain areas within the country;
For some types of sites such as city centres, urban ensembles or agricultural landscapes access may be still possible to certain public areas of the sites, while other parts of the site may be closed, including site museums, visitor centres, religious or emblematic buildings;
For some countries, sites are being re-opened, such as in China;
While sites are closed, monitoring activities by site management may continue, especially for natural sites, including by anti-poaching units, monitoring by satellite images or drones and emergency interventions, for example in case of fires.

According to UNESCO, there are 1,121 UNESCO sites across the world. Now, it must be asked how big they are collectively.

5. How Large Are UNESCO Sites In Total?

The research demonstrates that UNESCO designations deliver the UK’s commitment to creating a more sustainable, peaceful and equitable future at a local, national and international level. It provides governments, stakeholders, communities, designations and the public an opportunity to understand the contribution a global network covering 12% of the UK, or 10 million km2 globally (equivalent to the size of Canada) makes.

According to UNESCO UK, 12% of Britain is considered a UNESCO heritage site. In total, approximately the area of Canada is formed by these different sites.

Rank Country, Region Area (square km)
1 Russia 17,098,246
n/a Antarctica 14,000,000
2 Canada 9,984,670
3 China 9,596,961
4 United States 9,833,517
5 Brazil 8,515,767
6 Australia 7,692,024
7 India 3,287,263

According to Wikipedia, the national land areas are distributed as such. If UNESCO heritage sites were combined, those 10 million square kilometers would actually make it the second largest mass, after Russia. Keep in mind, that while the countries still “own” the heritage sites, they are considered to be the interest of the international community.

6. Canada’s Various UNESCO Heritage Sites

Year Site
1978 Nahanni National Park
1978 L’Anse aux Meadows National Historic Site
1979 Dinosaur Provincial Park
1979/92/94 Tatshenshini-Alsek
1981 SGang Gwaay
1981 Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump
1983 Wood Buffalo National Park
1984/1990 Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks
1985 Historic District of Old Québec
1987 Gros Morne National Park
1995 Old Town Lunenburg
1995 Waterton Glacier International Peace Park
1999 Miguasha National Park
2007 Rideau Canal
2008 Joggins Fossil Cliffs
2012 Landscape of Grand Pré
2013 Red Bay Basque Whaling Station
2016 Mistaken Point
2019 Writing-on-Stone / Áísínai’pi

Over the last 50 years Canada has piece-by-piece been giving away parts of itself to UNESCO as “heritage sites”. And again, while it’s stated that we still own the property, it’s considered to be in the interest of the so-called global community. In reality, we don’t have control over them.

7. UN Debt-Land Conversion Mechanism: Usury

UN.new.development.financing.2012.178pages

(Page 88, 56 in document)
Debt-for-nature swaps Debt conversion first emerged, in the guise of debt-for-nature swaps, during the 1980s debt crisis, following an opinion article by Thomas Lovejoy, then Executive Vice-President of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), in the New York Times in 1984. Lovejoy argued that a developing country’s external debt could be reduced (also providing tax relief to participating creditor banks) in exchange for the country’s taking measures to address environmental challenges. Estimates based on Sheikh (2010) and Buckley, ed. (2011) suggest that between $1.1 billion and $1.5 billion of debt has been exchanged through debt-for-nature swaps since the mid–1980s, although it is not possible to assess how much of this constitutes IDF, for the reasons discussed in box III.1

There have been two basic forms of debt-for-nature exchanges (Buckley and Freeland, 2011). In the first, part of a country’s external debt is purchased by an environmental non-governmental organization and offered to the debtor for cancellation in exchange for a commitment to protect a particular area of land. Such transactions occurred mainly in the late 1980s and 1990s and were generally relatively small-scale. An early example was a 1987 deal under which Conservation International, a Washington, D.C.-based environmental non-governmental organization, bought $650,000 of the commercial bank debt of Bolivia (now Plurinational State of Bolivia) in the secondary market for $100,000, and exchanged this for shares in a company established to preserve 3.7 million acres of forest and grassland surrounding the Beni Biosphere Reserve in the north-east part of the country.

In the second form, debt is exchanged for local currency (often at a discount), which is then used by local conservation groups or government agencies to fund projects in the debtor country. Swaps of this kind are generally much larger, and have predominated since the 1990s. The largest such swap came in 1991, when a group of bilateral creditors agreed to channel principal and interest payments of $473 million (in local currency) into Poland’s Ecofund set up to finance projects designed to counter environmental deterioration. The EcoFund financed 1,500 programmes between 1992 and 2007, providing grants for conservation projects relating to cross-border air pollution, climate change, biological diversity and the clean-up of the Baltic Sea (Buckley and Freeland, 2011).

This is nothing short of predatory lending and usury. Lending out large sums of money (often debt financed by donor countries), to other countries who can’t pay it back. The debts can be forgiven in return for consideration, such as rendering sections of land unavailable for use.

In short, these lands are taken away in return for debt forgiveness.
See the more sinister variation at the end.

It should be pointed out that UNESCO is not the only organization that is involved in debt swaps. There are private groups that do it too.

8. The Paris Club – Debt Swapper

The Paris Club is just one group that is involved in the debt swaps when countries can’t afford to make payments on their debts. While presented as harmless, it takes away national sovereignty. Keep in mind, that the average citizen isn’t responsible for racking up this debt.

9. UN Development Program

Debt for Nature Swaps _ UNDP (1)

The UN Development Program also runs a version of the same scheme. Here is a short guide they provide on the details.

10. Argentina Debt-For-Nature Swap

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 19, 2004 – The United States Government and the Government of Panama signed a debt-for-nature swap agreement today that will reduce the sovereign debt of the Government of Panama and help conserve 579,000 hectares (over 2,200 square miles) of tropical rainforest, an area larger than the State of Delaware. The deal will fund conservation efforts in a portion of the Darién National Park, an area of dense rainforest, sandy beaches, freshwater marshes and rocky coasts that is environmentally, anthropologically and historically rich.

The park has been officially recognized by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization as a World Heritage site and as a Biosphere Reserve. It is located in an ecologically vital area that forms a land-bridge between the North and South American continents. The region is home three major indigenous groups, the Emberá, Waunaan and Kunas, who continue to live by traditional practices. The Darién coast was explored by Christopher Columbus in 1502 and visited by Spanish conquistadors. The Darién Gap region is inhabited by numerous rare animal species, including the jaguar, white-lipped peccary, giant anteater, bush dog, mantled howler monkey and harpy eagle (Panama’s national bird).

And with that, a piece of land larger than the State of Delaware has been signed over to UNESCO, in return for having some of its debt reduced. Remember, while the land officially stays in the hands of the country, it is now considered the interest of the global community.

In addition to the debt-for-nature swaps, there are also debt-for-health swaps. These can be even more nefarious.

11. UN Debt-Vaccine Conversion Mechanism

Look familiar? In Part 14 we mentioned IFFIm, the International Finance Facility for Immunization. How this works is that nations make legally binding pledges to IFFIm. IFFIm then takes those pledges and issues bonds to the World Bank, who sells them on the open market. Money then goes to World Bank, who gives it to IFFIm, who in turn provides it to GAVI. GAVI (also funded by Gates), uses it for vaccine research and development.

A reasonable person may ask why not give the money directly to GAVI. That’s because other people can’t line their pocket it that happened.

Funnelling money through “vaccine bonds” does nothing except allow others to skim from it. Now, what happens to the money that actually does arrive? It’s used in another predatory way.

(Page 89, 57 in document)
Debt2Health Since the development of debt swaps in the 1980s, there has been a diversification of their uses to encompass social projects, most recently in the area of health under the Debt2Health initiative, which was launched by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in 2007 to harness additional resources for its programmes. Under Debt2Health, a donor country agrees to reduce part of a loan ineligible for debt relief under global initiatives such as the HIPC and Multilateral Debt Reduction Initiatives, in exchange for a commitment by the debtor to invest (in local currency) half of the nominal value of the debt in programmes approved by the Global Fund. The Global Fund is committed to devoting all of the funds thus generated to financing programmes in the country rather than overhead costs (Buckley, 2011c)

This is an alternative to the debt-for-nature swap. Want your debt forgiven? Take your sterilizing and possibly paralysing vaccines.

12. Taking Advantage Of Desperate People

A lot of the loans and conditional foreign aid are not free. They come with strings attached.

Loans are handed out with terms that cannot possibly be met. What happens afterwards is an “arrangement” to cancel or reduce the debt. This can require ceding control over part of the land to outsiders, or having to play along with a certain agenda.

A variation of that is the debt-for-health swap, where debt is forgiven in return for adopting certain health measures. This includes vaccines, which can cripple or kill.

One has to wonder how UNESCO got its 1,121 heritage sites.

Posted on

CV #30: Plant Based Vaccine Being Developed By GSK & Medicago, And More

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

This series continues into the lies, distortions and manipulations of the coronavirus industry. In order to understand why it’s happening, it’s necessary to show the lobbying, influence peddling and money trail that is going on. This is a multi billion dollar industry, and a lot of people have a vested interest in prolonging it.

2. Important Links

(1) https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2020-07-07/gsk-philip-morris-venture-tie-up-for-potential-covid-19-shot
(2) https://us.gsk.com/en-us/media/press-releases/gsk-and-medicago-announce-collaboration-to-develop-a-novel-adjuvanted-covid-19-candidate-vaccine/
(3) https://twitter.com/medicagoinc
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/who.proposed.vaccine.options-1.pdf
(5) http://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/
CLICK HERE, for the Federal Lobbying Registry.
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=366144&regId=897841#regStart
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=361856&regId=878369&blnk=1
(8) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=362841&regId=888951
(9) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=362892&regId=885889&blnk=1
(10) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=363869&regId=886566
(11) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=363846&regId=886416.
(12) https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2018&id=D000000133
(13) https://www.medicago.com/en/technologies/#production-platform
(14) https://marketrealist.com/2020/07/philip-morris-stock-rises-fda-approves-iqos/
(15) https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/13-04-2020-public-statement-for-collaboration-on-covid-19-vaccine-development

3. Piece On Big PMI Tobacco/Vaccine

An interesting article by Civilian Intelligence Network on big tobacco and its role in the development of a CV vaccine. Very detailed, go take a look. Philip Morris is involved in many surprising things.

4. Plant-Based Vaccine In The Works

(Reuters) – The world’s largest vaccine-maker GSK has put its vaccine booster technology to work in a potential new COVID-19 shot, to be developed with a Canadian biopharmaceutical company backed by tobacco company Philip Morris.

Rather than developing its own vaccine in the global race to combat the pandemic, GSK has instead focused on contributing its adjuvant technology to at least seven other global companies, including Sanofi and China’s Clover.

There are no approved vaccines for the respiratory illness caused by the new coronavirus, but 19 vaccines are being trialed in humans globally and some treatments, such as Gilead’s remdesivir, have been approved in certain regions.

GSK said on Tuesday the companies aimed to make their vaccine available in the first half of next year and produce about 100 million doses by the end of 2021. An early-stage human trial of three different dosage levels is expected to begin in mid-July.

Medicago, headquartered in Quebec City, Canada, is privately owned. PMI has a 33% stake, and Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma holds the remainder.

This seems to be for real, a plant-based vaccine to the alleged CV pandemic. However, there are a lot of things to consider, especially who is behind this vaccine. It’s also worth looking at the lobbying and influence peddling that goes on.

In its press release, GSK outlined the agreement and pointed out that Medicago is 2/3 owned by Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma (MTPC), and 1/3 by Philip Morris International (PMI). Apparently Philip Morris — yes the cigarette company — is reconsidering its ownership stake in Medicago.

So GlaxoSmithKline and Medicago are going to develop a plant-based vaccine. Let’s take a look into them.

5. Gates Foundation A Regular Donor To GSK

Year Amount Purpose
Nov 2011 $16,956,274 HIV research
Nov 2012 $2,098,761 HIV research
Nov 2013 $2,347,273 TB/Malaria
Oct 2014 $1,281,469 Ebola vaccine
Nov 2014 $6,000,000 Adjuvanted vaccines
Nov 2014 $14,060,000 RTS,S, Malaria
Nov 2014 $1,199,441 Malaria/TB/HIV
Jan 2015 $1,291,432 Malaria/TB
Dec 2015 $10,799,189 Shigella vaccine
Oct 2016 $1,511,994 Malaria testing
Apr 2017 $687,790 Pathogen research
Aug 2017 $1,801,900 TB drugs
Nov 2017 $320,265 Malaria control
Nov 2018 $4,992,331 Shigella serotypes

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has donated millions to GSK, (GlaxoSmithKline), in recent years. Gates seems to be 100% behind the vaxx agenda.

The Gates Foundation Trust, which is a separate entity from the Foundation, holds millions in stocks and bonds of various pharmaceutical companies. Part 21 of this series laid out some of the vast financial ties Bill Gates has to the pharmaceutical industry.

It should also be noted that the Gates Foundation has heavily financed Imperial College London, and Neil Ferguson’s bogus computer models. It also owns virus patents, and is heavily involved in ID2020.

6. Gates/GSK Partnered In AbCellera Grant

This a bit of a side track, but worth mentioning briefly. It was covered in Part 14 of the series that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and GlaxoSmithKline, were 2 of the partners in the May 2020 grant of $175.6 from the Canadian taxpayers to the company AbCellera.

7. Crestview Lobbyists Hired By GSK

At one time GlaxoSmithKline has 2 registered lobbyists from Crestview Strategy: Chad Rogers and Kate Moseley-Williams. However, there are no filed communications reports. A bit strange to recruit but not use them. However, looking at the other GSK records, there are over 200 reports filed from other people going back to 1996.

Why care about Crestview Strategy? Because they are the same firm that GAVI (funded by Gates), was using to lobby the Trudeau Government over the last few years.

However, Kate Moseley-William did lobby the Ontario Government in 2019 on behalf of GSK. And bit of information: on June 29, 2020, 8 lobbyists from GSK met with ON officials.

8. GSK’s Heavy Lobbying In U.S.

According to Open Secrets, GlaxoSmithKline spends a few million every year lobbying in the U.S., and has anywhere from 10 to 60 lobbyists on the payroll. But that probably has no influence on its ability to get FDA approval on its products.

9. Medicago ON VLP/Plant Technology

In very broad strokes, Medicago would be using plants to generate VLP (virus-like particles) which replicate CV and can be given to people to develop immunity. Replicating a previous technique for CV is essentially the partnership that GSK and Medicago would be involved in.

10. Crestview’s Jason Clark Now With Medicago

An interesting fact: Crestview Strategy lobbyist Jason Clark, previously lobbied both the Prime Minister’s Office, and the Office of the Official Opposition. Addressed in Part 4, this was done on behalf of GAVI, whom he proudly represented. Now, Clark is registered as a lobbyist with Medicago.

11. Ex-Crestview Lobbyist Jennifer Babcock

Jennifer Babcock has been a registered lobbyist both for GAVI, and for Medicago. Incidently, she has also been a lobbyist for Merck, and for the Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacies.

In fact many lobbyists for the firm Crestview Strategy have had Medicago as a client. Another firm, Magnet Strategy Group, has also worked with Medicago. As the information should make clear, the goal of the lobbying is getting funding from the various Governments.

12. Medicago Co-Owner PMI, Heated Cigs

On Tuesday, the FDA authorized Philip Morris’s IQOS, an electrically heated tobacco unit, to be marketed as an MRTP (modified risk tobacco product). IQOS is the first and only electronic nicotine product to get authorization from the FDA to be marketed as an MRTP. The company claims that the product is fundamentally different from other tobacco products and also a better choice for smokers.

The FDA stated that IQOS heats tobacco and doesn’t burn it. The process significantly reduces the production of harmful chemicals. Smokers will be less exposed to harmful chemicals by switching completely to IQOS. The FDA concluded that IQOS could benefit tobacco users and non-tobacco smokers based on the current evidence.

Philip Morris International (which owns 1/3 of Medicago) just received FDA approval to sell electronically heated tobacco, which they market as a healthier choice for smokers. Rather than get people off cigarettes, a new model is pitched.

There seems to be some cognitive dissonance here. This group helping to develop a vaccine to save lives is also developing a new form of smoking to help kill people. But business is business I guess.

Interestingly, Philip Morris has suggested selling its 1/3 share of Medicago.

13. WHO Statement On Vaccine Collaboration

Declaration
We are scientists, physicians, funders and manufacturers who have come together as part of an international collaboration, coordinated by the World Health Organization (WHO), to help speed the availability of a vaccine against COVID-19. While a vaccine for general use takes time to develop, a vaccine may ultimately be instrumental in controlling this worldwide pandemic. In the interim, we applaud the implementation of community intervention measures that reduce spread of the virus and protect people, including vulnerable populations, and pledge to use the time gained by the widespread adoption of such measures to develop a vaccine as rapidly as possible. We will continue efforts to strengthen the unprecedented worldwide collaboration, cooperation and sharing of data already underway. We believe these efforts will help reduce inefficiencies and duplication of effort, and we will work tenaciously to increase the likelihood that one or more safe and effective vaccines will soon be made available to all.

To anyone who thinks that this is only a passing phase, it’s not. There are many players who are vested in seeing some sort of vaccine(s) come out, regardless of whether it’s needed.

14. WHO Considering Many Vaccines


who.proposed.vaccine.options

For some context, it must be noted that there are many companies working to develop a vaccine using different approaches. This was from the World Health Organization in April. There aren’t any plant based vaccines listed, but perhaps the revised list will change that.

Non-Replicating Viral Vector
Adenovirus Type 5 Vector
CanSino Biological Inc./Beijing Institute of Biotechnology

DNA DNA plasmid vaccine
Electroporation device
Inovio Pharmaceuticals

RNA
LNPencapsulated mRNA
Moderna/NIAID

DNA
DNA with electroporation
Karolinska Institute / Cobra Biologics (OPENCORONA Project)

DNA
DNA plasmid vaccine
Osaka University/ AnGes/ Takara Bio

DNA
DNA
Takis/Applied DNA Sciences/Evvivax

DNA
Plasmid DNA, Needle-Free Delivery
Immunomic Therapeutics, Inc./EpiVax, Inc./PharmaJet, Inc.

On second thought, considering what the World Health Organization is allowing to go forward, maybe a plant based virus isn’t as bad as some other options.

15. Saini’s M-132 Ensures Canada’s Participation

It was outlined in Part 7 and Part 9 of the series how Motion M-132 was introduced in the fall of 2017. Hearings were held with lobbyists in 2018, and the findings were formally adopted in March 2019. This motion ensures Canada will be continuously funding vaccine research for Canada and the world. What convenient timing to clear legislative hurdles.

Of course the murders of Barry and Honey Sherman in late 2017 were convenient as well. We wouldn’t want any possible virus cure being readily available. Where’s the profit in that?

16. Nothing Stops This (Vaccine) Train

It’s obvious that there are many, MANY players pushing the vaccine agenda. There’s surely billions of dollars at stake for whoever comes up with a vaccine first.

Sure, people like Bill Gates are eugenicists obsessed with world depopulation. Sure, WHO modelling, predictions, and case counts are repeatedly wrong. And sure, some Western politicians like their newfound sense of absolute power. But the business interests cannot be overlooked.

This plant-based vaccine is just the tip of the iceberg.

Posted on

The New USMCA & Its Globalist Provisions

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. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

For much on efforts to replace the Canadian population, see here and see here. The scale which this goes on is quite mind blowing. Contrary to popular belief, mass LEGAL immigration is a much larger problem than the illegal kind, at least for now. That’s not to say that illegal crossings should be ignored.

3. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for USMCA on US Trade/Commerce site.
CLICK HERE, for ILO labour standards.
CLICK HERE, for SDGs that ILO is partnered with.

usmca.chapter.02.national.treatment
usmca.chapter.14.investments
usmca.chapter.16.temporary.entry
usmca.chapter.17.financial.services
usmca.chapter.20.intellectual.property
usmca.chapter.22.state.owned.enterprises
usmca.chapter.23.labour
usmca.chapter.24.environmental.regulations
usmca.chapter.26.competitiveness.committee
usmca.chapter.27.corruption

cpc.policy.declaration

4. Context For This Article

On July 1, 2020, the United States, Mexico & Canada Agreement (USMCA) replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Some may wonder why this deal had to be replaced. However, upon reading the new treaty, it becomes clear that USMCA is far more reaching and covers areas which NAFTA didn’t. In short, this is not merely an alteration of NAFTA, but a new agreement which contains many more globalist provisions. This is far more than a trade agreement.

This review will not address all of the points of USMCA, just the more alarming or interesting ones.

5. National Treatment Provisions

Article 2.3: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord national treatment to the goods of another Party in accordance with Article III of the GATT 1994, including its interpretative notes, and to this end, Article III of the GATT 1994 and its interpretative notes are incorporated into and made part of this Agreement, mutatis mutandis.
.
2. The treatment to be accorded by a Party under paragraph 1 means, with respect to a regional level of government, treatment no less favorable than the most favorable treatment that regional level of government accords to any like, directly competitive, or substitutable goods, as the case may be, of the Party of which it forms a part.

Article 14.4: 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 in its territory.
.
2. Each Party shall accord to covered investments treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments in its territory of its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.

Article 17.3: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords to its own investors, in like circumstances, with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of financial institutions, and investments in financial institutions in its territory.
.
2. Each Party shall accord to financial institutions of another Party, and to investments of investors of another Party in financial institutions, treatment no less favorable than that it accords to its own financial institutions, and to investments of its own investors in financial institutions, in like circumstances, with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of financial institutions and investments.

Article 20.8: National Treatment
1. In respect of all categories of intellectual property covered in this Chapter, each Party shall accord to nationals of another Party treatment no less favorable than it accords to its own nationals with regard to the protection of intellectual property rights.

So what’s the problem here? Why would it be wrong to enforce rules that ensure equal treatment between the parties?

Quite simply, it makes protecting your own industries and businesses illegal. In fact, the Canadian Government has been sued –successfully — in the 1990s. This was because NAFTA meant that we could no longer enforce things like environmental laws if they were bad for business.

Governments (should) take steps to ensure that people are able to have decent work in their communities. However, that becomes much harder when foreign companies can come in and undercut local merchants. This works in a similar way when mass migration creates downward pressure on wages.

While this may result in lower costs for good and services, there is a bigger picture to consider. Decimating communities that are dependent on a few big employers is not offset by having cheaper products at Walmart.

However, this concern for society becomes a thing of the past. Note: these provisions were in other trade deals as well such as NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

6. Ch #14: Investments And Corporations

Article 14.11: Senior Management and Boards of Directors
1. No Party shall require that an enterprise of that Party that is a covered investment appoint to senior management positions a natural person of a particular nationality.
.
2. A Party may require that a majority of the board of directors, or any committee thereof, of an enterprise of that Party that is a covered investment, be of a particular nationality, or resident in the territory of the Party, provided that the requirement does not materially impair the ability of the investor to exercise control over its investment.

While much of the chapter is okay, this is rather disturbing. The reason is that appointing foreigners to head a corporation (much like putting foreigners in government), leads to a conflict of interest. In order to ensure the well being of a company — and its employees — it’s important to have people loyal to the country in question.

Call it bigoted, but I don’t believe this dual loyalty can be resolved in a way that benefits society as a whole.

7. Ch #16: Temporary Entries Must Be Allowed

It has been discussed here many times how Canada is experiencing a flood of people coming under: (a) Temporary Foreign Worker Program; (b) International Mobility Program; (c) student visas; and (d) other programs. However, USMCA contains provisions in Chapter 16 for this to happen on an even bigger scale (at least regarding workers).

usmca.chapter.16.temporary.entry

Article 16.4: Grant of Temporary Entry
2. A Party may refuse to grant temporary entry or issue an immigration document authorizing employment to a business person where the temporary entry of that person might adversely affect:
.
(a) the settlement of a labor dispute that is in progress at the place or intended place of employment; or
.
(b) the employment of a person who is involved in that dispute.

Article 16.7: Dispute Settlement
1. A Party may not initiate proceedings under Article 31.5 (Commission Good Offices, Conciliation, and Mediation) regarding a refusal to grant temporary entry under this Chapter or a particular case arising under Article 16.3(1) unless:
.
(a) the matter involves a pattern of practice; and
.
(b) the business person has exhausted the available administrative remedies regarding the particular matter.

It should be pointed out there are a few good provisions in this chapter. These include not importing workers to cross picket lines, and limiting ability to challenge refusals. That being said, there are many bad provisions.

Article 16.2: Scope
1. This Chapter applies to measures affecting the temporary entry of business persons of a Party into the territory of another Party.
.
2. This Chapter does not apply to measures affecting natural persons seeking access to the employment market of another Party, nor does it apply to measures regarding citizenship, nationality, residence or employment on a permanent basis.
.
3. Nothing in this Agreement prevents a Party from applying measures to regulate the entry of natural persons of another Party into, or their temporary stay in, its territory, including those measures necessary to protect the integrity of, and to ensure the orderly movement of natural persons across, its borders, provided that those measures are not applied in a manner as to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to any Party under this Chapter.

While this sounds great in theory, the reality is that Canada offers many options to “temporary” workers and students to remain in the country much longer and work towards permanent residence. This just lowers the threshold for getting the foot in the door.

Article 16.5: Provision of Information
1. Further to Article 29.2 (Publication), each Party shall publish online or otherwise make publicly available explanatory material regarding the requirements for temporary entry under this Chapter that will enable a business person of another Party to become acquainted with them.

On the surface, nothing wrong with this. However, it is unsettling to publish or make available instructions for how to bring hordes of people into the country.

Article 16.6: Temporary Entry Working Group
1. The Parties hereby establish a Temporary Entry Working Group, comprising representatives of each Party, including representatives of immigration authorities.
.
2. The Working Group shall meet at least once each year to consider:
.
(a) the implementation and administration of this Chapter;
.
(b) the development of measures to further facilitate temporary entry of business persons on a reciprocal basis;
.
(c) the waiving of labor certification tests or procedures of similar effect for spouses of business persons who have been granted temporary entry for more than one year under Section B, C or D of Annex 16-A (Temporary Entry for Business Persons);
.
(d) proposed modifications of or additions to this Chapter; and
.
(e) issues of common interest related to the temporary entry of business persons, such as the use of technologies related to processing of applications, that can be further explored among the Parties in other fora.

While this is presented as a very limited admission for business, it makes it pretty clear that it include bringing spouses along, and can be modified to include other groups of workers. How difficult would it be to lower the requirements so that entry level workers can be added?

Looking at the list of “professionals” who qualify for temporary entry, one has to wonder how this will effect wages and job prospects of locals. After all, flooding the market with more workers (supply) has consequences to the wages (demand) of those already here.

A section of Chapter 17, specifically 17.5(1)(d)(iv), provides a loophole in that there are no limits to the number of employees a company may have. Theoretically, a company can have an almost endless number of workers who need to cross the border

1. No Party shall adopt or maintain with respect to:

(d) imposes a limitation on:

(iv) the total number of natural persons that may be employed in a particular financial service sector or that a financial institution or cross-border financial service supplier may employ and who are necessary for, and directly related to, the supply of a specific financial service in the form of numerical quotas or the requirement of an economic needs test; or

usmca.chapter.17.financial.services

Section 139 of the Conservative Party Policy Declaration promotes generating more pilot programs for mass migration, and converting “temps” to permanent residents where possible.

Section 152 of the Conservative Party Policy Declaration refers to CANZUK, an open border scheme that may be extended beyond just Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.

cpc.policy.declaration

In fact, once (almost) free movement is factored in alongside this free trade, it begins to look like a North American version of CANZUK. That of course is official CPC policy.

Of course, even when there is a fake pandemic, and millions of Canadians are unemployed, our government still finds it necessary to import hundreds of thousands of workers. Seriously, if the Government won’t protect Canadians’ jobs in a time like this, they won’t ever do it.

8. Ch #19: Social Media, Interactive Services

Article 19.17: Interactive Computer Services
1. The Parties recognize the importance of the promotion of interactive computer services, including for small and medium-sized enterprises, as vital to the growth of digital trade.

2. To that end, other than as provided in paragraph 4, no Party shall adopt or maintain measures that treat a supplier or user of an interactive computer service as an information content provider in determining liability for harms related to information stored, processed, transmitted, distributed, or made available by the service, except to the extent the supplier or user has, in whole or in part, created, or developed the information.

3. No Party shall impose liability on a supplier or user of an interactive computer service on account of:
(a) any action voluntarily taken in good faith by the supplier or user to restrict access to or availability of material that is accessible or available through its supply or use of the interactive computer services and that the supplier or user considers to be harmful or objectionable; or
(b) any action taken to enable or make available the technical means that enable an information content provider or other persons to restrict access to material that it considers to be harmful or objectionable.

Doesn’t look too good for protecting free speech and viewpoint diversity. No consequences for deplatforming people with dissident viewpoints.

9. Ch #20: Intellectual Property Rights

Article 20.7: International Agreements
1. Each Party affirms that it has ratified or acceded to the following agreements:
.
(a) Patent Cooperation Treaty, as amended on September 28, 1979, and modified on February 3, 1984;
.
(b) Paris Convention;
.
(c) Berne Convention;
.
(d) WCT; and
.
(e) WPPT

2. Each Party shall ratify or accede to each of the following agreements, if it is not already a party to that agreement, by the date of entry into force of this Agreement:
.
(a) Madrid Protocol;
.
(b) Budapest Treaty;
.
(c) Singapore Treaty;
.
(d) UPOV 1991;
.
(e) Hague Agreement; and
.
(f) Brussels Convention.

usmca.chapter.20.intellectual.property

This isn’t merely a trade agreement we have signed. It also forces to be committed to 11 different international treaties on intellectual property. Essentially, this is setting a global standard for I.P. In fairness, Canada is a party to many of them already. However, what will happen when people with Canadian patents are forced to compete with people holding similar patents elsewhere?

Considering that patenting genes and other biological material is already a reality, what will happen to health care currently available?

10. Ch #22: State Owned Enterprises

1. Each Party shall ensure that each of its state-owned enterprises, when engaging in commercial activities:
.
(a) acts in accordance with commercial considerations in its purchase or sale of a good or service, except to fulfil the terms of its public service mandate that are not inconsistent with subparagraphs (b) or (c)(ii);
.
(b) in its purchase of a good or service:
.
(i) accords to a good or service supplied by an enterprise of another Party treatment no less favorable than it accords to a like good or a like service supplied by enterprises of the Party, of any other Party or of a non-Party, and
.
(ii) accords to a good or service supplied by an enterprise that is a covered investment in the Party’s territory treatment no less favorable than it accords to a like good or a like service supplied by enterprises in the relevant market in the Party’s territory that are investments of investors of the Party, of another Party or of a non-Party; and
.
(c) in its sale of a good or service:
.
(i) accords to an enterprise of another Party treatment no less favorable than it accords to enterprises of the Party, of any other Party or of a non-Party, and
.
(ii) accords to an enterprise that is a covered investment in the Party’s territory treatment no less favorable than it accords to enterprises in the relevant market in the Party’s territory that are investments of investors of the Party, of another Party or of a non-Party

usmca.chapter.22.state.owned.enterprises

While this “sounds” okay, consider that state owned enterprises are typically funded by taxpayer dollars. They typically mean Crown Corporations and branches of the Government. Under the national treatment rules, these public groups will have to compete with foreigners, and treat them no worse. This comes despite the fact that foreigners don’t pay the taxes that keep them going. This is, in effect, a tax subsidy.

11. Ch #23: International Labour Org. (UN Group)

usmca.chapter.23.labour

Article 23.2: Statement of Shared Commitments
1. The Parties affirm their obligations as members of the ILO, including those stated in the ILO Declaration on Rights at Work and the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization (2008).
.
2. The Parties recognize the important role of workers’ and employers’ organizations in protecting internationally recognized labor rights.
.
3. The Parties also recognize the goal of trading only in goods produced in compliance with this Chapter.

The International Labour Organization (ILO) is a UN group which Canada, the U.S., and Mexico are all part of. In essence, this gives the UN a very large role in setting the agenda for work standards on the continent.

Article 23.14: Labor Council
1. The Parties hereby establish a Labor Council composed of senior governmental representatives at the ministerial or other level from trade and labor ministries, as designated by each Party.
.
2. The Labor Council shall meet within one year of the date of entry into force of this Agreement and thereafter every two years, unless the Parties decide otherwise.
.
3. The Labor Council may consider any matter within the scope of this Chapter and perform other functions as the Parties may decide.
.
4. In conducting its activities, including meetings, the Labor Council shall provide a means for receiving and considering the views of interested persons on matters related to this Chapter. If practicable, meetings will include a public session or other means for Council members to meet with the public to discuss matters relating to the implementation of this Chapter.
.
5. During the fifth year after the date of entry into force of this Agreement, or as otherwise decided by the Parties, the Labor Council shall review the operation and effectiveness of this Chapter and thereafter may undertake subsequent reviews as decided by the Parties.
.
6. Labor Council decisions and reports shall be made by consensus and be made publicly available, unless the Council decides otherwise.
.
7. The Labor Council shall issue a joint summary report or statement on its work at the end of each Council meeting.

This Council is to be made up of members chosen by the governments. There’s no indication that the public will have any say in choosing them. Decisions don’t have to be made public, which means we may never see what goes on. Meetings are to take place once every 2 years (as a default). Not very accountable.

UN SDGs International Labour Organization Partnered With

  • BORDERLESS SUSTAINABLE INITIATIVES FORUM
  • Economic inclusion and sustainable development of Andean grain producers in Ayacucho and Puno
  • Equal Pay International Coalition
  • FarmBiz Youth
  • Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data
  • Improving transitions from school to work through engaging youth in policy dialogue
  • Japanese Technical Cooperation Project for Promotion of Regional Initiative on Solid Waste Management in Pacific Island Countries (J-PRISM)
  • Pacific Financial Inclusion Programme (PFIF)
  • Pacific Youth Development Framework Partnership (PYDF Partnership)
  • Solutions for Youth Employment (S4YE)
  • Strengthening Women’s Ability for Productive New Opportunities (SWAPNO) in Bangladesh
  • Sustainable Week
  • United Nations Pacific Interagency Task Force on Noncommunicable Disease Prevention and Control (UN PIATF)

It’s beyond the scope of this article to go into each group that ILO partners with. However, take a look at the webpage to see for yourself what ILO does with the rest of its time. Anyhow, this is the group whose labour standards we must now comply with.

12. Ch #24: UNSDA Environmental Agenda

Article 24.1: Definitions
For the purposes of this Chapter:
environmental law means a statute or regulation of a Party, or provision thereof, including any that implements the Party’s obligations under a multilateral environmental agreement, the primary purpose of which is the protection of the environment, or the prevention of a danger to human life or health, through:
.
(a) the prevention, abatement, or control of the release, discharge, or emission of pollutants or environmental contaminants;

Article 24.2: Scope and Objectives
1. The Parties recognize that a healthy environment is an integral element of sustainable development and recognize the contribution that trade makes to sustainable development.
.
2. The objectives of this Chapter are to promote mutually supportive trade and environmental policies and practices; promote high levels of environmental protection and effective enforcement of environmental laws; and enhance the capacities of the Parties to address trade-related environmental issues, including through cooperation, in the furtherance of sustainable development.

A lot of the content here looks like it was cut and pasted directly from Agenda 2030. There are also references to pollution and emissions, which one can assume refers to the Paris Accord and the climate change scam. Quite the long read.

usmca.chapter.24.environmental.regulations

13. Ch #26: Focus On Competitiveness

Article 26.1: North American Competitiveness Committee
1. Recognizing their unique economic and commercial ties, close proximity, and extensive trade flows across their borders, the Parties affirm their shared interest in strengthening regional economic growth, prosperity, and competitiveness.

2. With a view to promoting further economic integration among the Parties and enhancing the competitiveness of North American exports, the Parties hereby establish a North American Competitiveness Committee (Competitiveness Committee), composed of government representatives of each Party.

3. Each Party shall designate a contact point for the Competitiveness Committee, notify the other Parties of the contact point, and promptly notify the other Parties of any subsequent changes. Recognizing the need for a comprehensive and coordinated approach to enhance North American competitiveness, each Party’s contact point shall coordinate with its relevant government departments and agencies.

usmca.chapter.26.competitiveness.committee

There is to be a committee to enhance competitiveness. In practice, it means a committee devoted to goods and services at the lowest possible cost. Certainly this group will ensure that countries aren’t able to enact any protectionist policies to aid their own people.

14. Ch #27: Anticorruption Measures

6. In order to prevent corruption, each Party shall adopt or maintain measures as may be necessary in accordance with its laws and regulations, regarding the maintenance of books and records, financial statement disclosures, and accounting and auditing standards, to prohibit the following acts carried out for the purpose of committing the offenses described in paragraph 1:
.
(a) the establishment of off-the-books accounts;
(b) the making of off-the-books or inadequately identified transactions;
(c) the recording of non-existent expenditure;
(d) the entry of liabilities with incorrect identification of their objects;
(e) the use of false documents; and
(f) the intentional destruction of bookkeeping documents earlier than foreseen by the law.

usmca.chapter.27.corruption

While these certainly are good things to prohibit, it’s unclear why this is being put into a trade agreement. It’s also ambiguous how there would be any real enforcement of such clauses.

15. USMCA A New Level Of Globalism

USMCA is touted as NAFTA 2.0, or the New NAFTA. However, much of its contents have nothing to do with trade, but enforcing other areas of society.

Chapter 2 (and elsewhere), make local protection impossible
Chapter 14 focuses on “investments”, which is extremely broad
Chapter 16 makes it easier to being people across the borders for work purposes. Touted as temporary, but we all know this isn’t the case
Chapter 17 allows for an unlimited number of workers
Chapter 19 restricts free speech protections online
Chapter 20 is uniform intellectual property laws
Chapter 22 undermines government agencies and organization
Chapter 23 forces compliance with ILO social justice agenda
Chapter 24 brings back all the environmental agendas
Chapter 26 focuses on competitiveness (lowest cost) over protectionism
Chapter 27 focuses on corruption.

Of course this is not all of USMCA’s content, but the more important parts. Canada, the U.S. and Mexico are signing away large parts of their (remaining) autonomy with this deal.