Category: Canada

Posted on

CCS #3: Canada’s Bill C-97, Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

(Garnett Genuis defends the Paris Accord)

(A nice critique of Paris Accord)

1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam

(a) https://canucklaw.ca/ccs-1-overview-major-lies-of-the-climate-change-scam
(b) https://canucklaw.ca/ccs-2-the-paris-accord-a-giant-wealth-transfer-scheme/

2. Important Links


(1) http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-97/first-reading#enH5814
(2) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/G-11.55/
(3) https://www.fsmgov.org/paris.pdf

3. Quotes From Bill C-97

DIVISION 4 
.
Payments
.
Climate Action Support
.
Payment in Relation to Infrastructure
.
Maximum payment of $2,200,000,000
.
130 Despite section 161 of the Keeping Canada’s Economy and Jobs Growing Act, as amended by section 233 of the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, there may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, on the requisition of the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities or the Minister of State (Indigenous Services), in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board, in addition to the sum referred to in that section 161, a sum not exceeding $2,200,000,000 to provinces, territories, municipalities, municipal associations, provincial, territorial and municipal entities and First Nations for the purpose of municipal, regional and First Nations infrastructure.
.
Federation of Canadian Municipalities
.
Maximum payment of $950,000,000
.
131 (1) There may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, on the requisition of the Minister of Natural Resources, in accordance with the terms and conditions provided for in the agreement referred to in subsection (2), a sum not exceeding $950,000,000 to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for the purpose of providing funding to the Green Municipal Fund.
.
Maximum payment of $60,000,000
.
(3) There may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, on the requisition of the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, in accordance with the terms and conditions provided for in the agreement referred to in subsection (4), a sum not exceeding $60,000,000 to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for the purpose of providing funding to the Asset Management Fund.
.
Shock Trauma Air Rescue Service
.
Maximum payment of $65,000,000
.
132 (1) There may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, on the requisition of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, in accordance with the terms and conditions provided for in the agreement referred to in subsection (2), a sum not exceeding $65,000,000 to the Shock Trauma Air Rescue Service for the acquisition of new emergency ambulance helicopters.

Okay, let’s tally this up

Area Of Spending Amount
Infrastructure $2,200,000,000
Municipalities $950,000,000
Green Municipal Fund $60,000,000
Air Rescue Service $65,000,000
Total Spending $3,275,000,000

This “price on pollution” will result in $3.275B being spent, and this is just for now. There is nothing to indicate that spending won’t go up.

Bill C-97 references the “Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act” (a.k.a. Carbon tax act). Here it is, and it is well worth a read. The more interesting sections are in Division 6, which have to do with enforcement.

Chilling, considering this is bogus pseudo-science.

Probably the most irritating part of Bill C-97 is that it is an omnibus bill. This means that it is a mismatch of many unrelated areas of law, being rammed through Parliament.

When in opposition, Liberals claimed to be against omnibus bills. Different story when they are in power.

4. What Is This?

DIVISION 8, SUBDIVISION B 
.
R.‍S.‍, c. E-4
Electricity and Gas Inspection Act
162 The Electricity and Gas Inspection Act is amended by adding the following after section 28:
Ministerial Regulations
.
28.‍1 (1) Despite anything in the Weights and Measures Act, the Minister may make regulations prescribing units of measurement for electricity and gas sales in addition to the units specified in section 3.
.
Expiry
(2) A regulation made under subsection (1) ceases to have effect on the earliest of
(a) the day on which a regulation made under paragraph 28(1)‍(b) that has the same effect as the regulation comes into force,
(b) the third anniversary of the day on which the regulation made under subsection (1) comes into force, or
(c) the day on which it is repealed.

Is this to mean the government will be controlling how energy will be sold and in what amounts?

5. Greenhouse Gases Pollution Pricing Act

DIVISION 6
.
Administration and Enforcement
SUBDIVISION A
Payments
Marginal note:
Person resident in Canada
84 For the purposes of this Division, a person is deemed to be resident in Canada at any time
(a) in the case of a corporation, if the corporation is incorporated or continued in Canada and not continued elsewhere;
(b) in the case of a partnership, a joint venture, an unincorporated society, a club, an association or an organization, or a branch thereof, if the member or participant, or a majority of the members or participants, having management and control thereof is or are resident in Canada at that time;
(c) in the case of a labour union, if it is carrying on activities as such in Canada and has a local union or branch in Canada at that time; or
(d) in the case of an individual, if the individual is deemed under any of paragraphs 250(1)(b) to (f) of the Income Tax Act to be resident in Canada at that time.

Is there anyone who “doesn’t” make the list? Individuals, partnerships, labour unions and corporations are all included in this law.

Large payments
86 Every person that is required under this Part to pay an amount to the Receiver General must, if the amount is $50,000 or more, make the payment to the account of the Receiver General at
(a) a bank;
(b) a credit union;
(c) a corporation authorized under the laws of Canada or a province to carry on the business of offering its services as a trustee to the public; or
(d) a corporation that is authorized under the laws of Canada or a province to accept deposits from the public and that carries on the business of lending money on the security of real property or immovables or investing in indebtedness on the security of mortgages on real property or hypothecs on immovables.

Wow. So the government seems to “expect” that people will be writing very large cheques to cover these carbon costs. In fact, if your bill is over $50,000 … as if this is to be normal. Guess the fears of companies being put out of business is legitimate.

Also, here are portions of the “penalties” provisions.

6. Punishment & Enforcement

Punishment
(2) Every person that commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and, in addition to any penalty otherwise provided, is liable to
(a) a fine of not less than 50%, and not more than 200%, of the amount payable that was sought to be evaded, or of the rebate or other payment sought, or, if the amount that was sought to be evaded cannot be ascertained, a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $40,000;
(b) imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(c) both a fine referred to in paragraph (a) and imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
.
Marginal note:
Prosecution on indictment
(3) Every person that is charged with an offence described in subsection (1) may, at the election of the Attorney General of Canada, be prosecuted on indictment and, if convicted, is, in addition to any penalty otherwise provided, liable to
(a) a fine of not less than 100%, and not more than 200%, of the amount payable that was sought to be evaded, or of the rebate or other payment sought, or, if the amount that was sought to be evaded cannot be ascertained, a fine of not less than $5,000 and not more than $100,000;
(b) imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(c) both a fine referred to in paragraph (a) and imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
Marginal note:
Penalty on conviction
(4) A person that is convicted of an offence under this section is not liable to pay a penalty imposed under this Part for the same evasion or attempt unless a notice of assessment for that penalty was issued before the information or complaint giving rise to the conviction was laid or made.
.
Marginal note:
Stay of appeal
(5) If, in any appeal under this Part, substantially the same facts are at issue as those that are at issue in a prosecution under this section, the Minister may file a stay of proceedings with the Tax Court of Canada and, upon that filing, the proceedings before the Tax Court of Canada are stayed pending a final determination of the outcome of the prosecution.
.
Marginal note:
Offence — confidential information
134 (1) A person is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to both, if that person
(a) contravenes subsection 107(2); or
(b) knowingly contravenes an order made under subsection 107(12).
.
Marginal note:
Offence — confidential information
(2) Every person to whom confidential information has been provided for a particular purpose under subsection 107(6) and that for any other purpose knowingly uses, provides to any person, allows the provision to any person of, or allows any person access to, that information is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to both.

Yes, you can get up to 5 years in prison for not playing ball with the Carbon tax collectors. Considering that Bill C-75 (among other things) made terrorism offences hybrid offences (prosecutors can charge summarily), Carbon taxes are an odd thing to focus on.

Posted on

The Water Action Hub

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for the main page.
CLICK HERE, for the Business for Social Responsibility.
CLICK HERE, for Global Water Challenge.
CLICK HERE, for Human Development Report.
CLICK HERE, for International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies Global Water and Sanitation Initiative.
CLICK HERE, for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
CLICK HERE, for Stockholm International Water Institute.
CLICK HERE, for UN Global Compact.
CLICK HERE, for UN Millennium Development Goals.
CLICK HERE, for UNDP Water Governance Programme.
CLICK HERE, for UNEP Collaborating Center on Water and Environment.
CLICK HERE, for UNEP Freshwater Activities.
CLICK HERE, for UNEP Global Environment Outlook.
CLICK HERE, for UNESCO Institute for Water Education.
CLICK HERE, for UNICEF Water, Environment and Sanitation Program.
CLICK HERE, for WaterAid.
CLICK HERE, for Water Footprint Network.
CLICK HERE, for World Bank Group.
CLICK HERE, for World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
CLICK HERE, for World Economic Forum Water Initiative.
CLICK HERE, for World Health Organization.
CLICK HERE, for WWF International.

2. Preamble Of The Group

We also recognize the following:
● Water stress is expected to worsen in many parts of the world as a result of factors including urbanization and population growth, increasing food production, changing consumption patterns, industrialization, water pollution, and climate change.
● The main user of fresh water is agriculture. Though much less is used in manufacturing and services, these sectors can still contribute positively.
● Scarcity and related problems pose material risks but can also, when well managed, create opportunities for improvement and innovation.
● Unsafe drinking water and lack of appropriate sanitation profoundly affect the health and well-being of billions of people, including those who are our customers and employees. In this regard, we note the 2010 resolutions by the UN Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly recognizing the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation.
● Companies can have a direct impact on water management in their own business, as well as an indirect impact by encouraging and facilitating actions by those in their supply chains to improve water management.
● In order to operate in a sustainable manner, and contribute to the vision of the UN Global Compact and the realization of the Millennium Development Goals, companies have a responsibility to make water-resources management a priority.
● Individual and collective efforts – involving partnership with the public sector and civil society and through the supply chain – will be required to adequately address this crisis.

Some thoughts on the preamble:

  1. Changing consumption patterns is a threat to water supply, but the UN promotes mass migration to the West, which leads to people with previously LOW consumption levels now adopting HIGH consumption levels.
  2. Most water use due to agriculture, but that isn’t where the focus seems to be.
  3. UN recognizes water and sanitation as human rights, though interestingly the Human Rights Council is stacked with members who don’t believe in human rights.
  4. Companies have an obligation to make this agenda a priority.
  5. Collective efforts will be required. Can I assume that force and law will be needed in order to accomplish this?

3. Mandate Of The Group

The Mandate is governed by the Steering Committee, which oversees the initiative’s strategic, administrative, and financial arrangements. The CEO Water Mandate Steering Committee is composed of:
(1) Ten corporate representatives from diverse geographies who serve staggered two-year terms. Corporate representatives will be drawn from Action Platform participants only.
(2) One representative of the UN Global Compact Office
(3) Special Advisors representing different stakeholder interests and spheres
(4) Patron sponsors of the Action Platform – Water Security through Stewardship

The Secretariat makes decisions based on a consensus model. When consensus cannot be reached, a simple majority vote decides matters.

So the mandate seems to be fluid, to put it mildly. This “Steering Committee” will decide what the mandate will be, and consisted of these people.
Endorsing Company Members

  1. Troy Jones, Teck Resources
  2. Mark Weick, The Dow Chemical Company
  3. Carlo Galli, Nestlé
  4. Andre Fourie, ABInbev
  5. Naty Barak, Netafim
  6. Inge Huijbrechts, Radisson Hotel Group
  7. Feroz Koor, Woolworth Holdings
  8. Adriana Lagrotta Leles, SANASA
  9. Erika Korosi, BHP
  10. Michael Alexander, Diageo

Some observations on this list:

  • Teck Resources is a mining conglomerate, and Dow Chemical is (no shocker), a chemical company. Strange choices to have on your committee.
  • Interesting to note: The Radisson Hotel in Toronto has been converted into a migrant camp. Of course this could be a total coincidence.
  • Woolsworth Holdings is a retail giant based in South Africa.
  • SANASA is a banking institution.

While individual organizational efforts will be critical in helping to address the water challenge, collective efforts – across sectors and societal spheres – will also be required. Such multi-stakeholder collaboration can draw on significant expertise, capacities and resources. Utilizing frameworks such as the UN Global Compact, companies can participate in collective efforts to address water sustainability.

4. Collective Action

Therefore, we pledge to undertake the following actions, where appropriate, over time:

  • Build closer ties with civil society organizations, especially at the regional and local levels.
  • Work with national, regional and local governments and public authorities to address water sustainability issues and policies, as well as with relevant international institutions – e.g., the UNEP Global Programme of Action.
  • Encourage development and use of new technologies, including efficient irrigation methods, new plant varieties, drought resistance, water efficiency and salt tolerance.
  • Be actively involved in the UN Global Compact’s Country Networks.
  • Support the work of existing water initiatives involving the private sector – e.g., the Global Water Challenge; UNICEF’s Water, Environment and Sanitation Program; IFRC Water and Sanitation Program; the World Economic Forum Water Initiative – and collaborate with other relevant UN bodies and intergovernmental organizations – e.g., the World Health Organization, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and the World Bank Group

The collective action that they speak of, is collaborating with the United Nations, and approved partners. This is globalist control over water resources.

Of course, while this wording sounds all lovely and flowery, it is not yet clear what sort of force will be used (if any) to ensure these goals are met.

Globalist regulation of water resources and determination over how it is used, and in what amounts. What could possibly go wrong?

Posted on

Abuse of Safe Third Country Agreement & Coming To Canada Under False Pretenses

CLICK HERE, for previous article on the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement (signed in 2002)

1. Interesting Cases

(1) CLICK HERE, for a marriage of convenience.
Liang v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, 2014 CanLII 90636 (CA IRB)

(2) CLICK HERE, for committing identity fraud in order to gain entry to Canada.
Shaikh v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 CanLII 89040 (CA IRB)

(3) CLICK HERE, for an actual terrorist wanting to stay in Canada.
Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1997 CanLII 5893 (FC)

(4) CLICK HERE, for a failed US asylum seeker, relying on falsified psychological documents.
X (Re), 2016 CanLII 152912 (CA IRB)

(5) CLICK HERE, for a failed US asylum seeker changing his story this time.
X (Re), 2013 CanLII 99499 (CA IRB)

(6) CLICK HERE, for an Indian man claiming to be from Tibet to gain asylum (Mariam Monself, take note).
X (Re), 2014 CanLII 100882 (CA IRB)

(7) CLICK HERE, for a “refugee” who lived illegally in the US for 14 years, then trying to claim asylum in Canada
X (Re), 2015 CanLII 44019 (CA IRB)

(8) CLICK HERE, for a wanted fugitive from China trying to get asylum in Canada.
X (Re), 2015 CanLII 107837 (CA IRB)

These 8 cases are just a small sample of the tidal wave of fraudulent “refugee” claims that have been made over the last several years. Although many get rejected, many still get through. This happens even when adjudicators admit that applicants have been deceptive.

2. UN Promotes Abuse Of S3CA

CLICK HERE, for the UN link.

Exceptions to the Safe Third Country Agreement with Canada

The U.S. and Canada have an agreement preventing people who first enter one country from applying for asylum or refugee status in the other. This means that if you entered the U.S. first and then try to apply for asylum in Canada, you may not be able to. However, there are exceptions to the agreement that may allow you to apply for asylum in Canada, even if you came to the U.S. first. For one thing, this agreement only applies to you if you are planning on arriving at entry ports on the U.S.-Canada land border. It does not apply if you plan on arriving in Canada at air or marine ports.

The following questions will determine whether you meet any of the exceptions that will allow you to apply for asylum in Canada at a U.S.-Canada land border even if you arrived in the U.S. first.

EXCEPTION # 1 Land Border Entry Ports Only

Are you going to arrive in Canada from a land border?

NO ==> You qualify under this exception!

YES ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

EXCEPTION # 2 Family Connections in Canada

Do you have any of the following family members in Canada?

  • A spouse
  • A common-law partner (a common law partner is person of the same or opposite sex with whom you are cohabiting in a conjugal relationship and have cohabited for at least a year.)
  • A legal guardian
  • A child
  • A father or mother
  • A brother or sister
  • A grandfather or grandmother
  • A grandchild
  • An uncle or aunt
  • A nephew or niece

NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

YES ==> Is your family member any of the following?

  • A Canadian citizen
  • A permanent resident
  • A protected person (i.e. determined to be a refugee or a person in need of protection)
  • Accepted in principle on humanitarian and compassionate grounds (removal order stayed under Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations 233)
  • 18 years of age or over and is a refugee claimant (and the claim has not been rejected, withdrawn, found abandoned or ineligible)
  • 18 years of age or over and is in Canada on a work permit or study permit (but check the exceptions)

    • YES ==> You qualify under this exception!
    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    EXCEPTION # 3 Unaccompanied Minor
    Are you under 18?
    NO ==> You do not qualify under the unaccompanied minor exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.
    YES ==> Were you accompanied here by your father, mother, or legal guardian? Are you married? Is your father, mother, or legal guardian in Canada or the United States?

    If NO to all these questions ==> You qualify under this exception!
    If YES to any of these questions ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    EXCEPTION # 4 Countries to which Canada Does Not Remove

    Are you a national of any of the following countries?

    • Afghanistan
    • Burundi
    • Democratic Republic of Congo
    • Haiti
    • Iraq
    • Liberia
    • Rwanda
    • Zimbabwe

    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    YES ==> Have you been convicted of any crimes?

    NO ==> You qualify under this exception!

    YES ==> You may not qualify under this exception. Canada does not admit people who have been convicted of certain crimes. Whether you qualify under this exception depends on the type of crime(s) you were convicted of.

    EXCEPTION # 5 Death Penalty

    Have you been charged or convicted of an offence punishable with the death penalty in the country?

    YES ==> You MAY qualify under this exception. Canada does not admit people who have been convicted of certain crimes. Whether you qualify under this exception depends on the type of crime(s) you were convicted of.

    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    EXCEPTION # 6 Valid Visa Exception

    Do you have a valid visa to enter Canada, other than a transit visa?

    YES ==> You qualify under this exception!

    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    EXCEPTION # 7 Visa Required in U.S. But Not in Canada

    Are you a national of any of the following countries?

    • Antigua and Barbuda
    • Barbados
    • Botswana
    • Cyprus
    • Greece
    • Malta
    • Mexico
    • Namibia
    • Papua New Guinea
    • Republic of (South) Korea
    • St. Kitts and Nevis
    • St. Lucia
    • St. Vincent
    • Solomon Islands
    • Swaziland
    • Western Samoa

    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    YES ==> You qualify under this exception!

    From Canadian Website

    CLICK HERE, for Canadian Government website.

    Where the Agreement is in effect
    The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.:
    at Canada-U.S. land border crossings
    by train or
    at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S.

    Exceptions to the Agreement
    Exceptions to the Agreement consider the importance of family unity, the best interests of children and the public interest.
    There are four types of exceptions:

    1. Family member exceptions
    2. Unaccompanied minors exception
    3. Document holder exceptions
    4. Public interest exceptions

    Even if they qualify for one of these exceptions, refugee claimants must still meet all other eligibility criteria of Canada’s immigration legislation. For example, if a person seeking refugee protection has been found inadmissible in Canada on the grounds of security, for violating human or international rights, or for serious criminality, that person will not be eligible to make a refugee claim.

    Family member exceptions
    Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they have a family member who:

    • is a Canadian citizen
    • is a permanent resident of Canada
    • is a protected person under Canadian immigration legislation
    • has made a claim for refugee status in Canada that has been accepted by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB)
    • has had his or her removal order stayed on humanitarian and compassionate grounds
    • holds a valid Canadian work permit
    • holds a valid Canadian study permit, or
    • is over 18 years old and has a claim for refugee protection that has been referred to the IRB for determination. (This claim must not have been withdrawn by the family member, declared abandoned or rejected by the IRB or found ineligible for referral to the IRB.)

    Unaccompanied minors exception
    Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they are minors (under the age of 18) who:
    are not accompanied by their mother, father or legal guardian
    have neither a spouse nor a common-law partner, and
    do not have a mother, a father or a legal guardian in Canada or the United States.

    Document holder exceptions
    Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they:
    hold a valid Canadian visa (other than a transit visa)
    hold a valid work permit
    hold a valid study permit
    hold a travel document (for permanent residents or refugees) or other valid admission document issued by Canada, or
    are not required (exempt) to get a temporary resident visa to enter Canada but require a U.S.–issued visa to enter the U.S.

    Public interest exceptions
    Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if:
    they have been charged with or convicted of an offence that could subject them to the death penalty in the U.S. or in a third country. However, a refugee claimant is ineligible if he or she has been found inadmissible in Canada on the grounds of security, for violating human or international rights, or for serious criminality, or if the Minister finds the person to be a danger to the public.

    Making a refugee claim under the Safe Third Country Agreement
    For detailed information on making a refugee claim for protection in Canada at the Canada–U.S. border, please refer to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA).

    There are so many exemptions in this agreement that it’s difficult to find someone who “doesn’t” qualify on one or more grounds.

    4. Canada Admits U.S. A Safe Country

    Factor 3: Human rights record of the United States
    The United States meets a high standard with respect to the protection of human rights. It is an open democracy with independent courts, separation of powers and constitutional guarantees of essential human rights and fundamental freedoms.

    Factor 4: Whether the United States is party to an agreement with Canada for the purpose of sharing responsibility with respect to claims for refugee protection

    The Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States was signed on December 5, 2002, came into force on December 29, 2004, and remains in force.

    The US is a safe country. That “should” end the discussion on fake refugees coming here.

    After all, simply being in the country illegally isn’t a defense.

    Posted on

    Canadian Infrastructure Bank (and CIB Act)

    1. Important Links

    CLICK HERE, for CIB main page.
    CLICK HERE, for the Federal Gov’t website link.
    CLICK HERE, for frequently asked questions.
    CLICK HERE, for the statement of principles.
    CLICK HERE, for Investing in Canada.
    CLICK HEREfor the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act.
    CLICK HERE, for the Financial Administration Act.

    What is “Investing in Canada”?
    The Investing in Canada plan is based on three key objectives:

    1. Create long-term economic growth
    2. Support a low carbon, green economy
    3. Build inclusive communities

    It is: (I) spend your way to prosperity; (II) climate change scam; and (III) gender and racial agendas.

    There are important links between public infrastructure and climate change, which is why climate change mitigation and adaptation needs to be considered in the investment decision-making process. Infrastructure Canada’s 2018 Bilateral Agreements with provinces and territories include a requirement to apply a Climate Lens assessment for certain projects. It also applies to all Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund projects and any winning proposals dealing with mitigation and adaptation under the Smart Cities Challenge. To assist project proponents, Infrastructure Canada has developed a guidance document found here: Climate Lens General Guidance to support carrying out these assessments. In addition, Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Canadian Centre for Climate Services can provide guidance and resources to be used for making climate-smart decisions when planning for the future.

    2. How Did This Happen?

    [Enacted by section 403 of chapter 20 of the Statutes of Canada, 2017, in force on assent June 22, 2017.]

    Some quotes from C.I.B. Act

    Canada Infrastructure Bank Act, Section 5(4):
    .
    Not a Crown agent
    (4) The Bank is not an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada, except when
    (a) giving advice about investments in infrastructure projects to ministers of Her Majesty in right of Canada, to departments, boards, commissions and agencies of the Government of Canada and to Crown corporations as defined in subsection 83(1) of the Financial Administration Act;
    (b) collecting and disseminating data in accordance with paragraph 7(1)(g);
    (c) acting on behalf of the government of Canada in the provision of services or programs, and the delivery of financial assistance, specified in paragraph 18(h); and
    (d) carrying out any activity conducive to the carrying out of its purpose that the Governor in Council may, by order, specify.

    In case anyone is wonder about the “Financial Administration Act” sections cited, the 2 Acts basically share the language and terminology.

    So the bank is not an agent of the Crown, except when

    • Giving investment or banking advice
    • Collecting and sharing information
    • Acting on behalf of the Government
    • Doing anything the Governor in Council specifies

    In other words, it is essentially a Crown agent.

    Purpose of Bank
    6 The purpose of the Bank is to invest, and seek to attract investment from private sector investors and institutional investors, in infrastructure projects in Canada or partly in Canada that will generate revenue and that will be in the public interest by, for example, supporting conditions that foster economic growth or by contributing to the sustainability of infrastructure in Canada.

    Interesting purpose. It is a Crown Agent (sort of) that seeks investment from private and institutional investors. Also, the projects only have to be “partly” in Canada.

    Whenever this government throws out the “sustainability” buzzword, one has to wonder if it is money being shovelled off to some UN project.

    note:
    Functions of Bank
    7 (1) In order to carry out its purpose, the Bank may do only the following:
    (a) structure proposals and negotiate agreements, with the proponents of infrastructure projects and with investors in infrastructure projects, with regard to the Government of Canada’s support of those projects;
    (b) invest in infrastructure projects, including by means of innovative financial tools, and seek to attract investment from private sector investors and institutional investors in infrastructure projects;
    (c) receive unsolicited proposals for infrastructure projects that come from private sector investors or from institutional investors;
    (d) support infrastructure projects by, among other things, fostering evidence-based decision making;
    (e) act as a centre of expertise on infrastructure projects in which private sector investors or institutional investors are making a significant investment;
    (f) provide advice to all levels of governments with regard to infrastructure projects;
    (g) collect and disseminate data, in collaboration with the federal, provincial and municipal governments, in order to monitor and assess the state of infrastructure in Canada and to better inform investment decisions in regards to infrastructure projects; and
    (h) perform any other function conducive to the carrying out of its purpose that the Governor in Council may, by order, specify.

    The C.I.B. may “only” do those things? Glad to know it has a tight leash. Except of course that the Governor in Council may order it to do just about anything else.

    3. A Bit Of Overreaching?

    Now, in Section 18 of CIB Act, we get to the extent of the investments allowed under the Act. Hold on, because it is a long list.

    18 In particular, the Bank may
    (a) make investments in any person, including by way of equity investment in, or by making a loan to or acquiring a derivative from, the person;
    (b) extend credit or provide liquidity to, or in relation to, any person;
    (c) acquire and deal with as its own any investment made by another person;
    (d) acquire and hold security or a security interest, including, in Quebec, a right in a security, of any kind and in any form for the due discharge of obligations under an investment or agreement that it makes;
    (e) surrender the security, security interest or right in the security and acquire and hold, in exchange, security or a security interest, including, in Quebec, a right in a security, of any kind and in any form;
    (f) realize the security, security interest or right in the security made, acquired or held by it on the investment or agreement;
    (g) exchange, sell, assign, convey or otherwise dispose of, or lease, the investment, agreement, security, security interest or right in a security;
    (h) enter into arrangements or agreements with, and act as agent or mandatary for, any department or agency of the government of Canada or a province, or any other body or person, for the provision of services or programs to, by, on behalf of or jointly with that body or person, and deliver financial assistance on their behalf under the arrangement or agreement;
    (i) accept any interest or rights in real property or personal property or any rights in immovables or movables as security for the due performance of any arrangement or agreement with the Bank;
    (j) determine and charge interest and any other form of compensation for services provided by the Bank in the exercise of its powers or the performance of its functions under this Act;
    (k) acquire and dispose of any interest or right in any entity by any means; and
    (l) acquire, hold, exchange, sell or otherwise dispose of, or lease, any interest or rights in real property or personal property or any right in immovables or movables and retain and use the proceeds of disposition.

    So sum up, the bank may:

    • Invest in any person
    • Extend credit to any person
    • Buy others’ investments
    • Enter into agreements with anyone
    • Acquire and release any asset

    Not only is this very overreaching, but there seems to be very little oversight or accountability here. Simply reporting to a Minister doesn’t seem adequate to keep unelected bureaucrats in check.

    Also, a fair point is an issue of deniability. If a Minister simply were to claim not to know something, or not to probe too deeply, this C.I.B. could still ensure that the bidding gets done.

    4. Information Is Privileged

    Privileged information
    28 (1) Subject to subsection (2), all information obtained by the Bank, by any of the Bank’s subsidiaries or by any of the subsidiaries of the Bank’s wholly-owned subsidiaries in relation to the proponents of, or private sector investors or institutional investors in, infrastructure projects is privileged and a director, officer, employee, or agent or mandatary of, or adviser or consultant to, the Bank, any of its subsidiaries, or any of the subsidiaries of its wholly-owned subsidiaries must not knowingly communicate, disclose or make available the information, or permit it to be communicated, disclosed or made available.
    .
    Marginal note:
    Authorized disclosure
    (2) Privileged information may be communicated, disclosed or made available in the following circumstances:
    (a) it is communicated, disclosed or made available for the purpose of the administration or enforcement of this Act and legal proceedings related to it;
    (b) it is communicated, disclosed or made available for the purpose of prosecuting an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament;
    (c) it is communicated, disclosed or made available to the Minister of National Revenue solely for the purpose of administering or enforcing the Income Tax Act or the Excise Tax Act; or
    (d) it is communicated, disclosed or made available with the written consent of the person to whom the information relates.
    .
    Offence
    31 A person who contravenes section 28 or 29 is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both.

    5. Illegal To Obtain This Info

    Let this sink in:

    1. The Canadian public is paying for these “investments”.
    2. The C.I.B. is not accountable to the public.
    3. We are not given the details of these “investments”.
    4. It is illegal to try to find out the details

    So much for using access to information to get details.

    6. Bank Pushes Agenda 2030

    At first glance, the Canada Infrastructure Bank seems to be just an investment firm, or a broker for the Federal Government. But looking a little deeper, it seems clearly designed to finance UN Agenda 2030 “sustainable development agenda”. Go through what its areas are, and it is all SDA/Agenda 2030.

    Globalist proposal wrapped in a nationalist packaging.
    Truly evil.

    Posted on

    CBC Propaganda #16: CPP “Invests” $2B In Mumbai, India

    1. Important Links

    CLICK HERE, for an honourable mention in the field of pensions, Bill Tufts. Author of the book: Fair Pensions For All.

    CLICK HERE, for CBC Propaganda Master List.
    CLICK HERE, for the CBC article.
    CLICK HERE, for the Canada Pension Plan Act.
    CLICK HERE, for the Income Tax Act.
    CLICK HERE, for Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board
    CLICK HERE, for sustainable investing link.
    CLICK HERE, for CPPIB proxy voting.
    CLICK HERE, for policies/guidelines (written in Chinese).
    CLICK HERE, for Policy on Responsible Investing (Signed in 2010)
    CLICK HERE, for CPPIB Areas of Investment.
    CLICK HERE, for climate change info.
    CLICK HERE, for human rights info.

    2. Why Invest Abroad?

    Canada Pension Plan Investment Board opened office in Mumbai this month
    .
    Canada’s pension fund is ready to invest $2 billion in affordable housing in Mumbai, a top Indian official said, in a move that would boost Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s goal of providing cheap housing to millions of people.
    .
    “A week back, the Canadian ambassador … informed me that the Canadian pension fund is ready to invest $2 billion in Mumbai for affordable housing,” Devendra Fadnavis, chief minister of Maharashtra state where Mumbai is located, told reporters.
    .
    The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board opened an office in Mumbai this month and has already committed to invest more than $2 billion in India.

    What the hell? The Canadian Pension Plan is something CANADIAN workers are forced to contribute to. Deductions are mandatory, and come right off your pay cheque. So “why” is this being invested in India, and to build cheap housing there?

    The Canadian Government is screwing with Canadians’ pensions, without their consent to do so.

    3. Income Tax Act

    2 (1) An income tax shall be paid, as required by this Act, on the taxable income for each taxation year of every person resident in Canada at any time in the year.
    .
    Marginal note:
    Taxable income
    (2) The taxable income of a taxpayer for a taxation year is the taxpayer’s income for the year plus the additions and minus the deductions permitted by Division C.
    .
    Marginal note:
    Tax payable by non-resident persons
    (3) Where a person who is not taxable under subsection 2(1) for a taxation year
    (a) was employed in Canada,
    (b) carried on a business in Canada, or
    (c) disposed of a taxable Canadian property,
    at any time in the year or a previous year, an income tax shall be paid, as required by this Act, on the person’s taxable income earned in Canada for the year determined in accordance with Division D.

    4. Canada Pension Plan Act

    Amount to be deducted and remitted by employer
    21 (1) Every employer paying remuneration to an employee employed by the employer at any time in pensionable employment shall deduct from that remuneration as or on account of the employee’s contributions for the year in which the remuneration in respect of the pensionable employment is paid to the employee any amount that is determined in accordance with prescribed rules and shall remit that amount, together with any amount that is prescribed with respect to the contributions required to be made by the employer under this Act, to the Receiver General at any time that is prescribed and, if at that prescribed time the employer is a prescribed person, the remittance shall be made to the account of the Receiver General at a financial institution (within the meaning that would be assigned by the definition financial institution in subsection 190(1) of the Income Tax Act if that definition were read without reference to its paragraphs (d) and (e)).

    Quite clear: employers are obligated to deduct CPP from your pay.

    5. Can Foreigners Collect?

    [CPP Act] 107 (1) Where, under any law of a country other than Canada, provision is made for the payment of old age or other benefits including survivors’ or disability benefits, the Minister may, on behalf of the Government of Canada, on such terms and conditions as may be approved by the Governor in Council, enter into an agreement with the government of that country for the making of reciprocal arrangements relating to the administration or operation of that law and of this Act, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, arrangements relating to
    .
    (a) the exchange of such information obtained under that law or this Act as may be necessary to give effect to any such arrangements,
    .
    (b) the administration of benefits payable under this Act to persons resident in that country, the extension of benefits to and in respect of persons under that law or this Act and the increase or decrease in the amount of the benefits payable under that law or this Act to and in respect of persons employed in or resident in that country, and
    .
    (c) the administration of benefits payable under that law to persons resident in Canada, the extension of benefits to and in respect of persons under that law or this Act and the increase or decrease in the amount of the benefits payable under that law or this Act to and in respect of persons employed in or resident in Canada, and, subject to subsection (4), any such agreement may extend to and include similar arrangements with respect to any provincial pension plan.

    Canada can make reciprocity agreements with other countries. One must be extremely careful here to safeguard against abuse.

    6. Who Is CPPIB

    It has locations in:

    • Toronto, Canada
    • New York, USA
    • Sao Paolo, Brazil
    • London, England
    • Luxembourg
    • Sydney, Australia
    • Hong Kong, China
    • now, also Mumbai, India

    We are a professional investment management organization that invests the funds of the Canada Pension Plan on behalf of its 20 million Canadian contributors and beneficiaries.
    .
    The CPP Investment Board was established by an Act of Parliament in December 1997.
    We are accountable to Parliament and to federal and provincial ministers who serve as the CPP stewards. However, we are governed and managed independently from the CPP itself, and operate at arm’s length from governments.
    We take our responsibility to Canadians very seriously and operate with a clear mandate – to maximize returns without undue risk of loss.
    .
    Our detailed mandate and objectives
    .
    Our mandate is set out in legislation. It states that:
    We invest in the best interests of CPP contributors and beneficiaries.
    We have a singular objective: to maximize long-term investment returns without undue risk, taking into account the factors that may affect the funding of the Canada Pension Plan and its ability to meet its financial obligations.
    .
    We provide cash management services to the Canada Pension Plan so that they can pay benefits.
    .
    Our unique structure
    The CPPIB mandate is based on a governance structure that distinguishes us from a sovereign wealth fund. We have an investment-only mandate, unencumbered by political agendas and insulated from political interference in investment decision-making. Our management reports to an independent Board of Directors.
    .
    In carrying out our mandate, we aim to continually develop, execute and enhance the investment strategy that balances prospective risk and reward in order to ensure the long-term sustainability of the CPP Fund.

    CPPIB “claims” to be independent from government interference, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. In fact, going through their website, CPPIB parrots many of the talking points of the UN globalists.

      UN Topics CPPIB Indulges In:

    1. ESG (Environment, Social & Governance)
    2. PRI (Principles for Responsible Investing)
    3. Sustainable Investing
    4. Climate Change
    5. Water
    6. Human Rights
    7. Surprisingly, no gender references

    7. So-Called Sustainable Investing

    SUSTAINABLE INVESTING
    We believe that organizations that manage Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) factors effectively are more likely to create sustainable value over the long-term than those that do not. As we work to fulfill our mandate, we consider and integrate ESG risks and opportunities into our investment decisions.
    .
    At CPPIB we consider responsible investing simply as intelligent long-term investing. Over the exceptionally long investment-horizon over which we invest, ESG factors have the potential to be significant drivers – or barriers – to profitability and shareholder value. For these reasons we refer to what many call ‘Responsible Investing’ activities simply as Sustainable Investing. Given our legislated investment-only mandate, we consider and integrate both ESG risks and opportunities into our investment analysis, rather than eliminating investments based on ESG factors alone. As an owner, we monitor ESG factors and actively engage with companies to promote improved management of ESG, ultimately leading to enhanced long-term outcomes in the companies and assets in which 20 million CPP contributors and beneficiaries have a stake.
    .
    CPPIB has established governing policies, approved by our Board of Directors, to guide our ESG activities. Our Policy on Responsible Investing establishes how CPPIB approaches ESG factors within the context of our sole mandate to maximize long-term investment returns without undue risk of loss. Our Proxy Voting Principles and Guidelines provide guidance on how CPPIB is likely to vote on matters put to shareholders and communicate CPPIB’s views on governance matters.

    This is rather chilling. The whole agency reads like it is a branch of the UN. Canadians’ pensions and pension contributions are in the hands of people who put UN virtue signalling at the forefront.

    However, the CBC article (see the first photo), details NONE of this. Instead, it is touted as some great success.

    Posted on

    CBC Propaganda #15: Giving Free Drugs To Prison Inmates

    1. Important Links

    CLICK HERE, for the CBC article.
    CLICK HERE, for CBC Propaganda Master List.
    CLICK HERE, for a related CBC “safe injection” article review.
    CLICK HERE, for the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act of Canada.
    CLICK HERE, for an article from the Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies.
    CLICK HERE, for the 1991 Regulated Health Professionals Act.
    CLICK HERE, for an interesting malpractice case.

    2. Drug Injections To Reduce Harm

    Correctional service ‘exploring’ new harm-reduction measure, union says Drumheller Institution a possible site.
    .
    Canada’s prisoner service is considering opening overdose prevention sites as it expands a needle-exchange program that is now offered at a fifth institution for offenders who inject smuggled drugs.
    .
    In a statement, the Correctional Service of Canada says it “is in the early stages of exploring overdose prevention sites as another harm-reduction measure option for inmates.”

    Let’s clear something up. Needle exchange is “already” operational, and at least 5 prisons have them. Apparently being complicit in drug use in prison is harm reduction.

    And these “overdose prevention sites” are essentially free narcotics except with doctor supervision.

    Proponents say Drumheller Institution in Alberta is being looked at as a potential site, which would allow offenders to use illicit drugs under medical supervision. The correctional service did not respond to inquiries to confirm that.
    .
    Jason Godin, president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, said he has long lobbied for overdose prevention sites and that one has been proposed for Drumheller.
    .
    “At the very least, let’s start opening up (the sites) so we can get away from the needle-in-the-cell thing,” he said, adding supervised drug use would involve health-care professionals at a particular area in a prison instead of guards having to deal with inmates injecting smuggled drugs in their cells.
    .
    He said the needle-exchange program, which began last year, should be scrapped because nurses and doctors aren’t available at most institutions after 4 p.m. in case inmates overdose so sites dedicated to prevention make more sense, as long as they are adequately staffed.

    The needle exchange program isn’t staffed properly, so let’s scrap it and start outright providing drugs directly to prisoners. This is harm reduction? And should prison staff be in the business of providing illicit drugs to inmates?

    Wouldn’t this actually have the opposite effect of rehabilitation? Won’t people find it more advantageous to get arrested more in order to obtain free drugs?

    I can sympathise with the guards wanting safer work atmosphere, but this might be a case of the cure being worse than the disease. And are taxpayers expected to foot the bill?

    The correctional service said its needle-exchange program is aimed at preventing the spread of blood-borne diseases, such as HIV and hepatitis C, as well as skin infections from shared equipment as part of other harm-reduction measures including access to peer-support workers and the opioid substitution medications methadone and Suboxone.
    .
    The Nova Institution for Women in Truro, N.S., implemented a prisoner needle-exchange program earlier this month after it was introduced last June at Grand Valley Institution for Women in Kitchener, Ont., and the Atlantic Institution in Renous, N.B.
    .
    It was expanded to the Fraser Valley Institution for Women in Abbotsford, B.C., and the Edmonton Institution for Women this year.
    .
    Godin said at least two security issues have been reported since the needle-exchange program was rolled out, one involving a missing needle and another when an inmate left his injection kit out with the cell door open, potentially allowing unauthorized access to the equipment that could have posed a danger to guards or others.

    Oh, the cognitive dissonance here. Prison staff say that this is aimed at preventing the spread of diseases, yet admits that human error can very easily cause more people to be put in danger.

    And again, why are the prisons aiding and abetting in drug use? Isn’t that … “ILLEGAL”? And as for these supervised injection sites, does illicit drug use become legal as long as a doctor writes a prescription?

    “Inmates who participate in the (program) are required to keep their needle kit safely stored in their cells,” it said, adding a lost kit or one with unaccounted-for items as well as unauthorized use of equipment could result in an inmate being disciplined.
    .
    The service said 13 inmates have been approved for the needle-exchange program at the five institutions but only five people are participating in the program because the remainder were either released or transferred to prisons that have not yet begun offering the service.
    .
    Peter Brown, a former offender who served three federal sentences at various institutions in Eastern Canada between 1992 and 1999 for crimes including robbery, said a needle-exchange program as well as overdose prevention sites are essential behind bars because drug use is common.

    This is absurd. If inmates and cells are routinely searched for safety and contraband measures, “why” would requiring selected inmates to have it in their cells be a good idea? They are criminals. Moreover, couldn’t anyone who knows about their status rob them at almost any time.

    Drug use is common in prison? That is true, but “why” should the public be allowing and financing it?

    Brown said he used bleach provided by the correctional service to repeatedly rinse his needles and syringes to try and avoid transmission of HIV and hepatitis C. The service said bleach is still distributed to inmates for that reason.
    .
    Sandra Ka Hon Chu, director of research and advocacy for the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, said bleach is not as effective a method of avoiding transmission of blood-borne diseases as clean needles, which the group began lobbying for nearly two decades ago in keeping with similar programs in many European countries.

    The staff is aware of the problem, and provides bleach, which can be extremely dangerous in the hands of drug addicted inmates. No concern for prison staff, just for the inmates shooting up.

    Yes, drug use is often a problem among inmates. However, getting them treatment, and re-establishing something of a normal life would be much more beneficial to everyone in the long term.

    As for the needle exchange, and the proposed “safe-injection” sites, shouldn’t the public have some say in the matter?

    3. Canada’s Drug Act

    Possession of substance
    4 (1) Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall possess a substance included in Schedule I, II or III.
    Marginal note:
    Obtaining substance
    (2) No person shall seek or obtain
    (a) a substance included in Schedule I, II, III or IV, or
    (b) an authorization to obtain a substance included in Schedule I, II, III or IV
    from a practitioner, unless the person discloses to the practitioner particulars relating to the acquisition by the person of every substance in those Schedules, and of every authorization to obtain such substances,     from any other practitioner within the preceding thirty days.

    Definition of medical emergency
    4.1 (1) For the purposes of this section, medical emergency means a physiological event induced by the introduction of a psychoactive substance into the body of a person that results in a life-threatening situation and in respect of which there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person requires emergency medical or law enforcement assistance.

    Marginal note:
    Exemption — medical emergency
    (2) No person who seeks emergency medical or law enforcement assistance because that person, or another person, is suffering from a medical emergency is to be charged or convicted of an offence under subsection 4(1) if the evidence in support of that offence was obtained or discovered as a result of that person having sought assist­ance or having remained at the scene.

    Marginal note:
    Exemption — persons at the scene
    (3) The exemption under subsection (2) also applies to any person, including the person suffering from the medical emergency, who is at the scene on the arrival of the emergency medical or law enforcement assistance.

    Marginal note:
    Exemption — evidence
    (4) No person who seeks emergency medical or law enforcement assistance because that person, or another person, is suffering from a medical emergency, or who is at the scene on the arrival of the assistance, is to be charged with an offence concerning a violation of any condition of a pre-trial release or probation order relating to an offence under subsection 4(1) if the evidence in support of that offence was obtained or discovered as a result of that person having sought assistance or having remained at the scene.

    Marginal note:
    Deeming
    (5) Any condition of a person’s pre-trial release, probation order, conditional sentence or parole relating to an offence under subsection 4(1) that may be violated as a result of the person seeking emergency medical or law enforcement assistance for their, or another person’s, medical emergency, or as a result of having been at the scene on the arrival of the assistance, is deemed not to be violated.
    2017, c. 4, s. 2; 2018, c. 16, s. 195.1.
    Previous Version

    Possession, sale, etc., for use in production of or trafficking in substance
    7.1 (1) No person shall possess, produce, sell, import or transport anything intending that it will be used
    (a) to produce a controlled substance, unless the production of the controlled substance is lawfully authorized; or
    (b) to traffic in a controlled substance.

    Drug treatment court program
    10(4) A court sentencing a person who is convicted of an offence under this Part may delay sentencing to enable the offender
    (a) to participate in a drug treatment court program     approved by the Attorney General; or
    (b) to attend a treatment program under subsection 720(2) of the Criminal Code.

      So what can we take away here?

    1. Drug use not illegal if you obtain authorization
    2. You won’t be charged with drug use for calling for medical aid
    3. You won’t be charged if you call in for “another’s” drug use
    4. You won’t be breaching:
      • Pre-trial conditions
      • Probation
      • Parole
      • A conditional sentence
      • From calling in for emergency medical attention
    5. Trafficking okay if legally authorised
    6. Provisions exist to allow criminals to get treatment

    Although the review might seem like a cold indifference to people with drug problems this is not the case. I want them to be treated and move on with their lives.

    However, supplying drugs and drug paraphernalia is (in my view) a very bad way to handle the problem.