CV #21: Pharma Lobbying In Canada Flooded With Gates’ Proxies/Allies

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

CLICK HERE, for #0: Theresa Tam; archives; articles; lobbying.
CLICK HERE, for #1: piece on Bill Gates, Pirbright, depopulation.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Coronavirus research at U of Saskatchewan.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Gates; WHO, ID2020; GAVI; Vaccines.
CLICK HERE, for #4: Gates using proxies to push vaxx agenda.
CLICK HERE, for #5: Crestview Strategy, GAVI’s lobbying firm.
CLICK HERE, for #6: people GAVI/Crestview lobbied follow Gates.
CLICK HERE, for #7: M-132, Canada financing pharma research.
CLICK HERE, for #8: Canada/WHO & “vaccine hesitancy” research.
CLICK HERE, for #9: Raj Saini, lobbied by big pharma (M-132).
CLICK HERE, for #10: pharma lobbying in Alberta legislature.
CLICK HERE, for #11: ON Pharma; Bill 160 Not Implemented.
CLICK HERE, for #12: 2006 report recommends surveillance/vaxx.
CLICK HERE, for #13: more on who Theresa Tam really is.
CLICK HERE, for #14: AbCellera gets $175.6M from Ottawa.
CLICK HERE, for #15: refusing forced medications and vaccinations.
CLICK HERE, for #16: Koch/Atlas, both sides in AB court challenge.
CLICK HERE, for #17: the CV industry emerging in Canada.
CLICK HERE, for #18: buying “vaccine bonds”; GAVI/GPEI grants.
CLICK HERE, for #19: the Vaccine Confidence Project.
CLICK HERE, for #20: aborted babies used for vaccine development.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Office of the Lobbying Commissioner.
CLICK HERE, for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

CLICK HERE, for AbCellera and the Federal Lobbying Commissioner.
http://archive.is/7w15g
CLICK HERE, for Merck & the Lobbying Commissioner.
http://archive.is/MljjW
CLICK HERE, for GAVI (Gates funded), & Lobbying Commissioner.
http://archive.is/zE7UT
CLICK HERE, for Gilead Sciences lobbying the Feds.
http://archive.is/t9ZUY
CLICK HERE, for Novartis Pharmceuticals lobbying the Feds.
http://archive.is/zNBIw
CLICK HERE, for Pfizer and lobbying Federal Government.
http://archive.is/fdk5U
CLICK HERE, for GlaxoSmithKline lobbying Ottawa.
http://archive.is/Pfv86
CLICK HERE, for Sanofi Pasteur lobbying the Federal Government.
http://archive.is/szVu6
CLICK HERE, for TEVA lobbying the Federal Government.
http://archive.is/dBTxv

CLICK HERE, for Sanofi/Gates partnership in 2014.
http://archive.is/TXd3c

CLICK HERE, for March 25, 2020 major partnership.
http://archive.is/OZ8qr
https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/

3. Context For This Piece

The topic of lobbying has been addressed in earlier pieces in the series, but let’s show just how big it is. The truth is, one can’t honestly discuss the vaccine push in Canada (or elsewhere), without getting into the influence peddling behind the scenes.

This is by no means everything. This is just the tip of iceberg. Still, it’s necessary for the public to see, in order to understand what’s going on.

Bill Gates Jr., is the face behind the vaccine industry today. He is a well known proponent for population reduction. He is also the son of Bill Gates Sr., former head of Planned Parenthood.

The companies listed below are lobbying the Federal Government (and Provinces too), to push the for vaccine research. Why? In part because The Gates Foundation Trust owns stock in several of these organizations. The Gates Foundation — a separate entity, but not really — spends money on these groups as well. In short, pharma bucks help push the agenda.

And what is the result of this?

(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.

(Ontario Premier Doug Ford pushes Vaxx agenda)

Does anyone notice that they all seem to be pushing the same talking points? It’s all about pushing a vaccine, and keeping some form of restriction or lockdown until that happens. Why are these people all talking the exact same way? It’s all about the pharma money.

Follow the money.

4. Gates Foundation Tax Returns

Link to search IRS charity tax records:
https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/

Let’s clarify here: there are actually 2 separate entities. The Foundation is the group that distributes money to various organizations and institutions. The Foundation Trust, however, is concerned primarily about asset management.

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION
EIN: 56-2618866
gates.foundation.taxes.2016
gates.foundation.taxes.2017
gates.foundation.taxes.2018

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION TRUST
EIN: 91-1663695
gates.foundation.trust.taxes.2018

What does the Gates Foundation Trust Own?

Company Type Of Stock Shares Total Value
Eli Lilly Corp Bonds $952,265
Gilead Sciences Common 21,250 $1,329,188
Gilead Sciences Corp Bonds $3,297,777
Laobaixing Pharma Common 831,829 $5,719,831
Merck Common 27,200 $2,078,352
Novartis Common 70,330 $5,995,662
Pfizer Common 39,500 $1,724,175
Roche Common 37,881 $9,353,059
Sichuan Kelun Common 2,818,448 8,480,098
Sinopharm Common 394,080 $1,655,978
Tasly Pharma Common 8,114,941 $22,693,515
Teva Fin BV Corp Bonds $819,555
Teva Fin IV Corp Bonds $9,465
Teva Pharma NE Corp Bonds $1,106,435

Why does Bill Gates promote the health and well being of these companies? It could (and probably does) have to do with that fact that he is a stockholder in them. Plainly put, he is part owner of these pharmaceutical companies.

Of course, this is only a tiny portion of the total assets within the trust. There are stocks and bonds in a wide array of industries and companies.

Interesting side note: There is almost $11 million of stock in SNC Lavalin owned by the Trust, $1.25M in Goldman Sachs, and about $14M in Blackrock’s various groups.

5. Lobbying And Pharmaceutical Money

  • Ablynx (a Sanofi company)
  • Autolus
  • Denali Therapeutics
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • Gilead Sciences
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Global Health Foundation (Gates Foundation)
  • Kodiak Sciences
  • Lyell
  • Merck (MSD)
  • Novartis Pharmaceuticals
  • Pfizer Inc.
  • Sanofi Pasteur
  • Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.

It was addressed in Part 14, the AbCellera grant, how many of the firm’s partners have been involved with the Gates Foundation, and some of the lobbying behind the scenes.

In addition to those partners in the above list, consider the following, as they also have direct or indirect ties to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation:

  • AbCellera itself
  • Apotex Pharmaceuticals
  • Bayer
  • GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance
  • VIDO-InterVac

6. AbCellera Biologics

As of March 2020, AbCellera is registered with the Lobbying Commissioner’s Office. There are no communication reports — yet — but AbCellera is set up and ready to go and start lobbying. Also worth noting is that AbCellera received $289,116.00 from Western Economic Diversification Canada last year, and expects to receive more this year.

In November 2016, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation gave AbCellera $645,000 to help develop antibodies to treat the tuberculosis infection. So when AbCellera is getting the current grant from the Canadian Government, is it really the Gates Foundation that is getting the money?

7. Apotex Pharmaceuticals

Apotex was involved in a scandal in 2017, where it’s alleged that there was illegal lobbying in 2015 of then-Candidate Justin Trudeau. Apotex owners Barry and Honey Sherman were murdered in 2017, around the time that M-132 was introduced in the Federal Parliament. While Apotex lobbying on the Federal sphere may have stopped, it is a very different story Provincially.

Apotex has a manufacturing base in Ontario, so it’s no surprise that they would try to influence the Government there. This will be the topic of a separate article, but the Apotex owners (Honey and Barry Sherman), were murdered in 2017. This was while there was an ethics investigation for illegal lobbying, and around the time that M-132 started up. M-132 was a motion for Canada to fund pharma research and distribute cheap drugs to Canadians — AND THE WORLD.

8. Bayer

Bayer has lobbied the Ontario Government several times in the last few years. Bayer is one of the partners that the Gates Foundation announced would help with CV vaccine research.

9. GAVI, The Vaccine Alliance

This has been addressed in earlier parts of the series, but the Gates funded GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations) has been lobbying the Federal Government since 2018. There are 20 communications reports on file.

This is probably the most well known link in the chain. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation helped found GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance in 1999. There was an initial grant of $750 million, and the Gates Foundation made regular contributions to GAVI, about $4 billion in total. The foundation essentially runs the show.

The Global Vaccine Alliance, as the name suggests, is an organization devoted to pushing vaccinations on the public all across the world. Bill Gates has long been a proponent of mass vaccinations.

Just 3 weeks ago, May 4, 2020, the Gates foundation released a press report for another $50 million worth of funding going to GAVI.

10. Gilead Sciences Canada

According to records from the Lobbying Commissioner’s Office, Gilead had 42 various registrations over the years, but has only lobbied the Federal Government 10 times. Seems a bit odd.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust owns stocks and bonds in Gilead. And the Foundation has contributed to Gilead’s research in recent years.

11. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)

There are 187 communications reports on file with the Office of the Lobbying Commissioner. Also noteworthy is that GlaxoSmithKline lobbies Provincially as well.

Year Company Amount
2011 GSK Biologicals $16,956,274
2012 GSK Biologicals $2,890,159
2013 GlaxoSmithKline $2,347,273
2014 GSK Biologicals $1,199,441
2014 GSK Biologicals $6,000,000
2014 GSK Biologicals $14,060,000
2014 GSK Biologicals $1,281,469
2015 GSK Biologicals $1,281,432
2016 GlaxoSmithKline $1,511,994
2016 GSK Biologicals $15,100,417
2017 GlaxoSmithKline $322,663
2017 GlaxoSmithKline $1,801,901
2017 GlaxoSmithKline $320,265

12. Merck Canada Inc.

Merck has been lobbying the Federal Government since 2001, on a variety of pharmaceutical related issues. There are 103 listed communications reports. And they are a major partner for AbCellera Biologics.

SEATTLE — The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation today announced that Richard Henriques has been appointed chief financial officer, effective April 19, 2010. He will be based in Seattle, Washington at the foundation’s headquarters.

Henriques will join the foundation from Merck, where he has served as senior vice president of finance and corporate controller since 2006. In this position, he focused on operations, governance, strategic planning, performance measurement, and cost management within the pharmaceutical and pharmacy benefit management industries.

Interesting side note: in 2010, the Gates Foundation scooped Richard Henriques from Merck, where he was a Senior VP.

Year Company Amount
2013 Merck KGAA $1,142,794

According to the most recent tax return, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust owns over $2 million worth of common stock in Merck. Presumably they’d like it to do well.

13. Novartis Pharmaceuticals

Novartis has been lobbying the Federal Government since 2007, and is one of AbCellera’s partners. There are 13 communications reports filed with the registry.

Year Company Amount
2016 Novartis Vaxx Diag. $1,537,375
2016 Novartis Pharma $659,154
2017 Novartis Biomed $1,541,000

According to the most recently available tax return, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust owns about $6 million worth of common stock in Novartis. Novartis lobbies the Canadian Government for causes that benefit Gates.

14. Pfizer Canada

Since 2007, Pfizer, one of AbCellera’s partners, has 143 communications reports filed with the Lobbying Commissioner’s Office. It has operated under a few different corporate titles though.

Year Company Amount
2016 Pfizer $1,813,282

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust owns about $1.7 million worth of common stock in Pfizer. Pfizer lobbies the Canadian Government for pharma related issues.

15. Sanofi Pasteur Ltd.

Sanofi is yet another one of AbCellera’s partners that has long been lobbying the Federal Government. Could have contributed to why AbCellera was able to get that $175.6 million contract from Ottawa.

Press Release: Inactivated Polio Vaccines Broadly Available for the World’s Children in the Drive toward Polio Eradication
.
Sanofi Pasteur
.
February 28, 2014
Sanofi Pasteur, the vaccines division of Sanofi (EURONEXT: SAN and NYSE: SNY), announced today its further commitment to the international community’s efforts to complete polio eradication. UNICEF, the organization that procures the vaccine to meet global needs, announced it will purchase significant quantities of Inactivated Polio Vaccine (IPV) from Sanofi Pasteur and make it available based on country needs and vaccination plans. To achieve the goal of polio eradication by 2018, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that by end 2015, all children receive routinely at least one dose of IPV in over 120 countries that solely use Oral Polio Vaccine.
.
In order to support rapid and widespread adoption of IPV, Sanofi Pasteur – the world’s largest producer of IPV – and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have developed a joint price support mechanism, including a financial contribution from both organizations.

In 2014, a partnership was announced between Sanofi Pasteur and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This was to promote more widespread polio vaccines, and work out a pricing scheme.

Year Company Amount
2015 Sanofi Pasteur $1,663,388
2016 Sanofi Pasteur $722,071

16. TEVA Canada Ltd.

Since becoming a registered lobbyist, there have been 94 communications made with various officials of the Federal Government, according to records in the Registry.

Year Company Amount
2015 Teva Pharmaceuticals $11,418,031

Friendly reminder: the Gates Foundation Trust owns at least a few million dollars worth of corporate bonds in various Teva branches.

17. VIDO-InterVac, Vaccine Center

The International Vaccine Institute (IVI) is a not-for-profit International Organization established in 1997 as an initiative by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). It is among the few organizations in the world dedicated to vaccines and vaccination for global health.

IVI is involved in all aspects of bringing a vaccine to reality: discover new technologies to make new vaccines or improve existing ones; develop promising vaccine candidates for licensure and World Health Organization (WHO) prequalification by transferring the technology to manufacturers and partnering with them on clinical development; deliver licensed vaccines in low-income countries by generating scientific data on the need for vaccines and the impact of vaccination for decision makers; building capacity in vaccinology in developing countries through technical assistance and training to promote self-sufficiency and sustainability in vaccines and vaccination; and building partnerships in Asia and globally for vaccines and global health.

This has long been a partner with InterVac (University of Saskatchewan). It is funded by the United Nations. However, it does get some hefty grants, from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

18. World Health Organization

This was addressed in Part 0, Part 3, and Part 13. Theresa Tam (who has no real biographical information available), is both a high ranking official with the World Health Organization, and Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer.

Canada is a member of the World Health Organization, and a regular contributor. As such, it seems to dictate Canadian health policies.

19. Major Gates Partnership Announced

SEATTLE, March 25, 2020 – Today, a consortium of life sciences companies announced an important collaboration to accelerate the development, manufacture, and delivery of vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments for COVID-19. The life sciences industry brings a range of assets, resources, and expertise needed to identify effective and scalable solutions to the pandemic, which is affecting billions worldwide. The impact on health systems, economies, and livelihoods is profound, and an effective response requires an unprecedented collaboration across governments, academia, the private sector, and the philanthropic community.

“This is an encouraging start in a critical area, because if any of these compounds are shown to be effective against COVID-19, it dramatically accelerates the path to product approval and scale up,” said Suzman. “While each of the consortium’s partners will also be pursuing independent efforts with national governments and others, we are optimistic that this unprecedented collaboration will provide a platform for a fundamentally different kind of partnership to help address this global health emergency.”

Companies participating in the collaboration include Bayer, BD, bioMérieux, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Merck (known as MSD outside the U.S. and Canada), Merck KGaA, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

About the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Guided by the belief that every life has equal value, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation works to help all people lead healthy, productive lives. In developing countries, it focuses on improving people’s health and giving them the chance to lift themselves out of hunger and extreme poverty. In the United States, it seeks to ensure that all people—especially those with the fewest resources—have access to the opportunities they need to succeed in school and life. Based in Seattle, Washington, the foundation is led by CEO Mark Suzman and Co-chair William H. Gates Sr., under the direction of Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett.

Announced in March 2020, this is a press release unveiling a major collaboration between the Gates Foundation, and a number of major pharmaceutical companies. Who’s on the list?

  • Bayer
  • BD
  • bioMérieux
  • Boehringer Ingelheim
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb
  • Eisai
  • Eli Lilly
  • Gilead Sciences
  • GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
  • Johnson & Johnson
  • Merck
  • Novartis
  • Pfizer
  • Sanofi Pasteur

An astute person will recognize several of these names as partners from the $175.6 million AbCellera grant awarded just a month ago. From the previous sections on lobbying the Federal Government, these same parties are trying to influence government policy. It’s clear that it really is Gates’ partners who are doing a lot of the legwork.

Also, several of these names are companies that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust owns stock in, and that the Foundation (again, 2 separate entities) spends money on.

20. Other Honourable Mentions

Yes, Gates donates to the Aga Khan Foundation.

Year Company Amount
2016 Pirbright Inst. $44,598
2016 Pirbright Inst. $385,144
2016 Pirbright Inst. $525,826
2017 Pirbright Inst. $100,000
2018 Pirbright Inst. $311,878

For a walk down memory lane: Pirbright became infamous a while back when it was learned they had patented a new group of coronaviruses and were funded by Gates.

Year Company Amount
2014 Microchip Biotech $7,717,271

There are other firms whose work could conceivably be used to advance the ID2020 agenda. This is just one of them.

21. Gates Is Behind Pharma Lobbying

While it obviously isn’t exclusively the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, they do play a very prominent role in pushing the vaccine agenda across the world. It should come as no surprise, given the amount of money they have tied up in this industry.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust owns stocks and bonds in many pharmaceutical companies. The Gates Foundation (yes, the Foundation and trust are separate), gives/spends money on those same pharma businesses — and others. There’s no altruism behind it, but rather a business decision.

It also would surprise no one, given the Gates Family has long had a love of eugenics, or population reduction. So one has to wonder what else will be slipped into these vaccines, when they are finally available.

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION
EIN: 56-2618866
gates.foundation.taxes.2016
gates.foundation.taxes.2017
gates.foundation.taxes.2018

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION TRUST
EIN: 91-1663695
gates.foundation.trust.taxes.2018

Take a look at the documents for yourself. The full list can be found here, just search for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Those 2 organizations will pop up.

The above sections are only a tiny piece of what is really going on. There are many, MANY companies and grants that are in the tax returns, but not listed in the article. For practical purposes, it can’t be done in a single article, or even a few. The returns run to hundreds of pages each.

Infanticide #8: Gates Foundation Funding Abortion Worldwide (CV #20)

The mainpage of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation webpage. The context of the quote can be seen in a whole other light, with the following information listed here.

1. Other Topics In Abortion/Infanticide

CLICK HERE, for #1: NY/VA legalize abortion up to birth.
CLICK HERE, for #2: killing babies who survive abortion.
CLICK HERE, for #3: UN says abortion is human right for all.
CLICK HERE, for #3: fallout and pushback on abortion.
CLICK HERE, for #5: ONCA says doctors must provide referral.
CLICK HERE, for #6: 9th Circuit pulls funding for chop shop.
CLICK HERE, for #7: China taking organs from live people.

2. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

CLICK HERE, for #0: Theresa Tam; archives; articles; lobbying.
CLICK HERE, for #1: piece on Bill Gates, Pirbright, depopulation.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Coronavirus research at U of Saskatchewan.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Gates; WHO, ID2020; GAVI; Vaccines.
CLICK HERE, for #4: Gates using proxies to push vaxx agenda.
CLICK HERE, for #5: Crestview Strategy, GAVI’s lobbying firm.
CLICK HERE, for #6: people GAVI/Crestview lobbied follow Gates.
CLICK HERE, for #7: M-132, Canada financing pharma research.
CLICK HERE, for #8: Canada/WHO & “vaccine hesitancy” research.
CLICK HERE, for #9: Raj Saini, lobbied by big pharma (M-132).
CLICK HERE, for #10: pharma lobbying in Alberta legislature.
CLICK HERE, for #11: ON Pharma; Bill 160 Not Implemented.
CLICK HERE, for #12: 2006 report recommends surveillance/vaxx.
CLICK HERE, for #13: more on who Theresa Tam really is.
CLICK HERE, for #14: AbCellera gets $175.6M from Ottawa.
CLICK HERE, for #15: refusing forced medications and vaccinations.
CLICK HERE, for #16: Koch/Atlas, both sides in AB court challenge.
CLICK HERE, for #17: the CV industry emerging in Canada.
CLICK HERE, for #18: buying “vaccine bonds”; GAVI/GPEI grants.
CLICK HERE, for #19: the Vaccine Confidence Project.

3. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Planned Parenthood in Hawaii
http://archive.is/YTZcT
CLICK HERE, for Planned Parenthood on abortion.
http://archive.is/ENpKT
CLICK HERE, for Planned Parenthood on elections.
http://archive.is/eNPkZ
CLICK HERE, for CDN Gov’t on abortion during CV pandemic.
http://archive.is/dBZqX

CLICK HERE, for Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
CLICK HERE, for IRS tax-exempt group search

EIN 13-1644147 Planned Parenthood Fed. of America
planned.parenthood.america.2017.tax.filings
planned.parenthood.america.2016.tax.filings

EIN 47-5312115 Planned Parenthood Global Inc.
planned.parenthood.global.2016.tax.filings
planned.parenthood.global.2017.tax.filings

4. Context For This Article

While Bill Gates and his foundation are working on various vaccines to help sterilize and depopulate the planet, there is still another angle to look at: abortion. It’s not surprise that The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is heavily involved in financing that as well.

Gates’ father is the former head of planned parenthood. Planned Parenthood, among other things, pushes for more access to abortion globally. Now his son funds research into vaccines that can cripple or sterilize people. This suggests a morbid fascination with eugenics. Anything to get the global population reduced it seems.

Aside from depopulation, there are a few other “benefits” to abortion: (a) a supply of body parts for transplanting; and (b) a supply of fetal tissue for vaccines.

Several of the articles in the CV series have focused on the lobbying that goes on behind the scenes. This is necessary to understand who is pushing the agenda, and why. It’s not random, but rather the result of public officials who can be influenced for the right price.

Politicians like Justin Trudeau seem to be completely on board. This applies both to the abortion push across the world, and the claims that mass vaccination is needed.

5. Gates Sr. Was Head Of Planned Parenthood

This is pretty well known at this point, but let’s just get the man himself to say it. Bill Gates’ father (Bill Gates Sr.), used to be the head of the pro-abortion group, Planned Parenthood.

6. Gates Jr. Helps Fund Planned Parenthood

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a big supporter of abortion worldwide. In fact, the group regularly donates to various branches of Planned Parenthood. Also see here.

Date Recipient Amount Donated
2020 Int’l PP Worldwide $500,000
2019 Int’l PP Europe $599,221
2019 Int’l PP Worldwide $500,000
2018 Shanghai Inst PP $1,628,290
2018 Int’l PP Worldwide $250,000
2018 Int’l PP Worldwide $99,000
2018 Int’l PP Worldwide $490,000
2016 Int’l PP Europe $8,025,807
2014 Int’l PP Worldwide $431,947
2013 Int’l PP Europe $6,973,371
2011 Int’l PP Worlwide $250,000
2010 Int’l PP Europe $7,298,377
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Europe $23,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Worldwide $14,990,698
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Europe $7,023,160
Pre-2010 Int’l PP West Wash $200,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Worldwide $10,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP West Washi $1,000,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Europe $3,024,011
Pre-2010 Int’l PP America $1,700,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Worldwide $800,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Worldwide $8,865,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP America $3,000,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Central Wash $75,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Canada $569,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Worldwide $2,845,268
Pre-2010 Int’l PP America $5,000,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Foundation $1,492,400
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Foundation $1,732,400
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Foundation $2,600,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP West Wash $500,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP America $115,000

These 32 records were found just on a quick search of “Planned Parenthood” while looking on the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation website. There may be more donations that are not listed.

7. Planned Parenthood Spending


planned.parenthood.2017.tax.filings

Consultant Fees Paid
McKinsey and Company $10,700,000
O’Brien Garrett $9,295,200
Grassroots Campaigns Inc. $5,087,535
MR Strategic Services Inc. $4,466,037
ATOS IT Outsourcing $3,327,475

(Section B: independent contractors)

Fun fact: if you look up non-cash contributions in the 2017 filings, it seems there were 1086 contributions of publicly traded securities. This totaled $28,321,324. Yes, Planned Parenthood USA received over $28 million worth of securities.

From the last page of the returns, it shows millions of dollars being shuffled around to related organizations.

Clearly, the Gates Foundation is not the only contributor to Planned Parenthood. However, it is something that it ideologically aligns with, and large sums of money are regularly donated. Much of the money goes to electing, and re-electing, politicians who support the abortion agenda.

8. PP Hawaii/Northwest Goes Global

Our Story
Since 2001, Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and the Hawaiian Islands (PPGNHI) has collaborated with eight global health nonprofits in seven countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America to improve the sexual and reproductive health of local communities. We believe that sexual and reproductive health is a human right, and that all people–regardless of where they live–should be able to exercise their sexual and reproductive rights. We also recognize that family planning and sexual and reproductive health care plays a critical, lifesaving role in global health.

Suzanne Cluett Fund
In 2005, we received a generous gift from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in honor of Suzanne Cluett, a long-time Planned Parenthood supporter and advocate for reproductive health and rights. With this grant, we established a permanent endowment, “Suzanne’s Fund”, which has enabled long-term stability and committed engagement of our Global Programs.

Suzanne’s commitment to international sexual and reproductive health started in Nepal in the 1960s and led to her serving in leadership positions at PATH and at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. A Washington state local, Suzanne was an enthusiastic believer in Planned Parenthood, serving as both board member and Chair of the PPGNHI Board, as well as a member of the national Planned Parenthood Federation of America Board.

One such portion of Planned Parenthood is this one, which is PP of the Great Northwest and the Hawaiian Islands. Much of its current status is due to the 2005 gift from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

9. Planned Parenthood Action Fund

Focusing on the United States for this section, let’s focus on the political arm of Planned Parenthood. This is the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which focuses on getting pro-abortion candidates into office.

EIN 13-1644147 Planned Parenthood Fed. of America
EIN 47-5312115 Planned Parenthood Global Inc.

The courts have protected safe, legal abortion throughout the United States since 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed access to abortion as a constitutional right in its Roe v. Wade decision.

Yet for years, abortion opponents have fought to turn back the clock: stacking federal courts with anti-abortion judges; passing unconstitutional legislation; spreading deceptions; imposing arbitrary restrictions; and waging one legal battle after another. Their ultimate goal? Reverse Roe v. Wade and make safe, legal abortion impossible to obtain.

Attacks on Roe began to ramp up in 2011, when anti-abortion politicians made massive gains in federal and state elections. Since then challenges to safe, legal abortion have mounted at a rapid clip. In some places, abortion restrictions have in fact made abortion harder to access. These restrictions fall especially hard on people with low incomes, for whom the cost of transportation, childcare, and taking time off work often combine to put abortion access out of reach.

A large part of what Planned Parenthood does involves political work to install pro-abortion politicians into office, and to try to defeat pro-lifers. Yes, it’s big, and crosses States, and even has global connections.

We Decide — and the Stakes Have Never Been Higher
More than three-fourths of voters say abortion should remain safe and legal. There is no state in which banning abortion is popular.

But anti-abortion politicians continue to try to undermine our rights and our access to reproductive health care, putting the ability of many people to obtain birth control, safe and legal abortion, and accurate sexual education in question — yet again.

We decide who our leaders are. We decide our future. At the ballot box this year, we — not out-of-touch politicians — decide what we do with our own bodies.

Interesting. All this talk about “my” body, but there seems to be little to no concern for the body that gets eliminated during an abortion. Aren’t leftists supposed to be concerned about the weak and vulnerable? Unborn children are as helpless as they come.

Money from Planned Parenthood is extremely effective at getting pro-abortion politicians into office. In the U.S., this typically means getting Democrats into office.

10. Fetuses Used For Body Parts

It took an undercover sting by David Daleiden to expose, but the truth about Planned Parenthood’s side business is finally out. It isn’t the “health care services” which make them rich, it’s the body part industry from murdered babies.

There’s nothing compassionate about this industry. The “clumps of cells” are being reused and recycled either for transplanting into other bodies, or further processed for medical research. See next section.

11. Fetal Tissue Used In Vaccines

Rather than go into a long spiel about this, let’s just consider the above video. This is from a 2018 Court deposition from Stanley Plotkin.

Now, could this be (part of) the reason that the Gates Family is so pro-abortion? Is a part of it to create an abundant supply of fetal tissue to use for his vaccine developments?

12. Protect Abortion During Pandemic

COVID-19 affects women and men differently. The pandemic makes existing inequalities for women and girls, as well as discrimination of other marginalized groups such as persons with disabilities and those in extreme poverty worse and risk impeding the realization of human rights for women and girls. Participation, protection and potential of all women and girls must be at the center of response efforts. These efforts must be gender-responsive and consider different impacts surrounding detection, diagnosis and access to treatment for all women and men.

The restrictive measures designed to limit the spread of the virus around the world, increase the risk of domestic violence, including intimate partner violence. As health and social protection as well as legal systems that protect all women and girls under normal circumstances are weakened or under pressure by the COVID-19, specific measures should be implemented to prevent violence against women and girls. The emergency responses should ensure that all women and girls who are refugees, migrants or internally displaced are protected. Sexual and reproductive health needs, including psychosocial support services, and protection from gender-based violence, must be prioritized to ensure continuity. We must also assume responsibility for social protection and ensure adolescent health, rights and wellbeing during schools close-down. Any restrictions to the enjoyment of human rights should be prescribed by law, and in accordance with international law and rigorously assessed.

We support the active participation and leadership of women and girls at all levels of decision-making, including at community level, through their networks and organizations, to ensure efforts and response are gender-responsive and will not further discriminate and exclude those most at risk.

It is crucial that leaders recognize the central role of Universal Health Coverage (UHC) in health emergencies and the need for robust health systems to save lives. In this context, sexual health services are essential. We recommit to the immediate implementation of the UHC political declaration by all. Funding sexual and reproductive health and rights should remain a priority to avoid a rise in maternal and newborn mortality, increased unmet need for contraception, and an increased number of unsafe abortions and sexually transmitted infections.

Around the world, midwives, nurses and community health workers are essential to contain COVID-19 and they require personal protective equipment. Safe pregnancy and childbirth depend on all these health workers, adequate health facilities, and strict adherence to infection prevention. Respiratory illnesses in pregnant women, particularly COVID-19 infections, must be priority due to increased risk of adverse outcomes. As our national and international supply chains are impacted by this pandemic, we recommit to providing all women and girls of reproductive age with reproductive health commodities. And we call on governments around the world to ensure full and unimpeded access to all sexual and reproductive health services for all women and girls.

Just when you think you have seen it all, there is a global coalition to keep access to abortion going during the “planned-emic”. Really, of all the things to focus on, abortion just has to be up there. It’s almost as if there was some other reason for doing so. This was caught previously by LifeSite, and is a stunning show of priorities.

A point of clarification, these parties “do” consider access to abortion to be a human right. They also regard it as a form of health care — although its intended purpose is to kill a person.

13. Eugenics And Greed Join Forces

Bill Gates Sr. was formerly the head of Planned Parenthood, which widely promoted abortion. This was done as a population control measure.

Bill Gates Jr., is heavily financing the vaccine industry. He also heavily funds groups like Planned Parenthood, resulting in a high supply of fetal tissue for his research. He also is on record saying he would prefer to have a less populated world, and cites problems like climate change in doing so.

Of course, a nationalist will point out that the abortion push leads to a declining birth rate at home. This will be used by globalist politicians to import a replacement population. Less local births and more incoming foreigners leads to the extinction of one’s people.

TSCE #19: Politicians Deliberately Keep Border Open In 2017/2018 Hearings

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

CLICK HERE, for #1: series intro and other listings.
CLICK HERE, for #2: suing for the right to illegally enter U.S.
CLICK HERE, for #3: the U.N.’s hypocrisy on sexual abuse.
CLICK HERE, for #4: fake refugees gaming the system.
CLICK HERE, for #5: various topics on subject.
CLICK HERE, for #6: Islamic sexual violence on women/children.
CLICK HERE, for #7: UNHCR party to S3CA, consultations req’d.
CLICK HERE, for #8: UN blurs line between smuggling/irregular.
CLICK HERE, for #9: more UNODC research into smuggling.
CLICK HERE, for #10: allowing illegals violates int’l treaties.
CLICK HERE, for #11: NGOs in court to open CDA’s borders.
CLICK HERE, for #12: the Zionist roots of Amnesty Int’l NGO.
CLICK HERE, for #13: Canadian Council of Refugees NGO.
CLICK HERE, for #14: NGOs coordinate illegal Roxham Rd. crossings.
CLICK HERE, for #15: Ex-Israeli Ambassador David Berger.
CLICK HERE, for #16: NGOs in court for decades to open borders.
CLICK HERE, for #17: reduced penalties for child sex crimes.
CLICK HERE, for #18: does CDN Gov’t support trafficking?

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for 42nd Parliament on illegals entering Canada.

Committee.Evidence.Sept.28.2017
Committee.Evidence.Oct.3.2017
Committee.Evidence.Oct.5.2017
Committee.Evidence.may.3.2018
Committee.Evidence.may.29.2018
Committee.Evidence.July.24.A.2018
Committee.Evidence.July.24.B.2018
Committee.Evidence.July.24.C.2018

3. Context For This Article

IN 2017 and 2018, the Federal Parliament held many hearings for illegal crossings into Canada. Politicians use weasel words like “irregular” to water down the language.

Far from being productive, the parties acted as if they were helpless to do anything. They also behaved as if securing the border were somehow a war crime. This was a pitiful display of going through the motions of appearing to address border security in a meaningful. Not addressing border security, but “appearing to address” border security.

The hearing will be quoted, and some short video clips added. To summarize, it was incredibly frustrating to watch elected officials acting in bad faith to ensure these crossings don’t happen.

True, at the time of writing this, the problem has been “fixed”. By that it means that crossing between border ports is now illegal, but fake refugees coming from the United States can gain entry via normal ports. Furthermore, Roxham Road has been converted into a regular border port.

Also worth pointing out, that politicians and the media are incredibly misleading when they talk about immigration in Canada. They frequently talk about the number of PERMANENT RESIDENCIES that are handed out, not the total number of people ENTERING THE COUNTRY, with pathways to stay. Assuming the numbers are even accurate (which is doubtful), it doesn’t even come close to painting the complete picture.

It’s a nice little bait-and-switch which prevents Canadians from fully grasping what is going on.


How many of these people remain? That has been addressed before, but there is no accurate count. There are a number of options to remain legally, and we don’t actually track people leaving to go anywhere except the U.S.

The main focus of this article, however, are the 2017/2018 hearing on people crossing illegally into the country. All parties are committed to just going through the motions.

4. Quotes From 2017/2018 Hearings

This timely scheduling of eligibility interviews is crucial because in order to apply for an open work permit, an asylum seeker must first have their initial eligibility interview, have their claim referred to the IRB, and undergo an immigration medical examination.
.
To also help ease pressures, IRCC has begun to fast-track all work permit applications across Canada from asylum claimants with a commitment to process these within 30 days. In most cases, asylum claimants become eligible for interim federal health program, IFHP, coverage only after an officer has determined that their claim is eligible to be heard before the IRB. IFHP coverage is now available to asylum seekers who enter Canada between ports of entry in Lacolle, and are being processed on or after June 1, for those who have not yet had an eligibility interview.
.
To date, more than 5,600 persons have been issued this interim federal health program coverage under this special provision.
.
In closing, Chairs, IRCC, with the CBSA and all other partners in the federal family, continue to address irregular migration in accordance with Canadian and international law and in keeping with our values of an open and welcoming country.

Keep in mind that this was September 28, 2017 when this testimony was given, so the numbers are now much, MUCH higher.

Joanne Crampton
In terms of someone crossing the border between the ports of entry, the RCMP would intercept the person or persons. We then advise them that they are breaking the law under the Customs Act by crossing the border between ports of entry. The persons are then detained. Their possessions are searched to ensure there is no contraband or other illegal items. Their person is searched, because they are under arrest under the Customs Act. We then verify their identification. We do background checks and local indices checks, as well as international indices checks. If there is no noted criminality or concerns for national security and, once we have interviewed them and had a lengthy discussion as to where they came from and what their intentions are, if nothing negative comes as a result of that, we pass the individual over to Canada Border Services for further processing.
.
Mr. Jacques Cloutier:
At this point, for the CBSA, we receive the individual from the RCMP, as well as the information collected by the RCMP. We proceed with fingerprinting, taking of biometric information, and a cursory interview to elicit additional information. We verify identity. In those cases where we are satisfied that there are no immigration-related issues from an admissibility perspective, these individuals would be released on the terms and conditions and given an appointment to complete their eligibility interview. In cases where issues are discovered, several actions are taken immediately, including completing the interview for eligibility in its entirety, or proceeding with detention if the person is deemed to pose a risk to the public.

People coming into Canada illegally are briefly detained, and often released into the country on a promise to appear at a later date for a hearing.

Hon. Michelle Rempel:
Thank you.
Earlier this week there was a CBC article stating that Nigerian asylum claims were wanting to come to Canada because they’re aware of the “pipeline”. What additional measures is IRCC taking to outreach into the broader international community that the asylum claim system is not a, quote, “free ticket” to Canada?
.
Mr. Michael MacDonald:
We did several things. The first was to look at our communications and outreach plan and determine the best way to reach the Nigerian diaspora population here as well as in the United States as well back in Nigeria itself.
.
Second, we are also liaising and working with our American colleagues. We have a mission overseas, as do other allied partners, so we’ve also gone back to our immigration program overseas to try to look for ways and ideas to reach populations
.
Hon. Michelle Rempel:
Thank you.
Over to Mr. Maguire.

Does this sound like someone who is actually opposed to illegals strolling into Canada?

Ms. Jenny Kwan:
I’m interested in the comment about the United States that everything is good on the safe third country agreement piece, yet we do know, for example, that Mr. Seidu Mohammed, who crossed over the in the dead of winter, and lost digits as a result of it. His claim was rejected in the United States, and yet when he came to Canada, his claim was accepted. This is an outed LGBTQ man from Ghana.
.
Amnesty International also did a study, if you will, though informal, and the people they interviewed indicated that they don’t feel safe in the United States. That’s why they are crossing over. There seems to be some discrepancy in terms of the reality, at least from the IRCC’s perspective and the government’s perspective, versus what people are experiencing on the ground, which I think is very important to note.
.
There was a large influx in the last year, I would say, and yes it peaked in the summer for Quebec. It peaked in Manitoba in the winter, so there are different periods of time when it peaked.
.
Do I understand correctly that these cases have been referred to the IRB, and that the vast majority of them have not been heard? What are the wait times for people waiting for their cases to be heard? How does that compare with previous times? In the meantime, in terms of the resources for these individuals, who is providing resources to house them? Is it the province, and has the government provided additional resources to the province to support these asylum seekers? Regarding the NGOs that are on the ground doing this work, are they provided with additional resources as well, and if so, how much?

Mr. Michael MacDonald:
The federal government does not provide direct support to provinces for asylum seekers awaiting their claims. The support comes at the permanent resident granting determination process, afterwards. That being said, we have taken various measures to help the provinces and to help asylum seekers by expediting across Canada all work permit applications and trying to—
.
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
If I may interrupt then, how many work permit applications have been processed and approved?
.
Mr. Michael MacDonald:
About six or seven weeks ago, we had over 6,000 work permit applications for all asylum seekers across Canada in our inventory. That is now almost eliminated, and we are processing in under 30 days any new asylum seeker’s work permit that is coming in from across Canada. We are doing those in well under 30 days. The idea is to help people get into the work force quicker.

Again, still trying to speed up the work permits for illegals into the country. And NGOs that are on the ground? Aren’t these people at all concerned that NGOs are helping with people illegally coming into Canada?

Mr. Chair, Canadians can be assured that we’ve been monitoring the situation for many months and putting in place the necessary plans. Although it’s far from a routine situation that we’re facing, it’s one that we’ve been able to manage responsibly, effectively, and professionally. I’d like to take the opportunity to thank my department officials and officials in all the different agencies involved for how they’ve been able to rise to the challenge and respond with the utmost professionalism, nimbleness, speed, and ingenuity.

I’ll now outline the concrete ways in which we’re responsive. When we saw the numbers of irregular migrants begin to increase at the Lacolle border crossing, we were able to quickly mobilize in order to reassign staff and set up additional office space so that we could keep up with the volume and process asylum seekers quickly for their eligibility hearings. In fact, these efforts have enabled us to bring the eligibility processing timelines of from five to seven months down to from five to seven days.

We figured out a way to fast-track work permit applications from asylum claimants across Canada in order to alleviate the pressure on the social assistance budgets of provincial governments. This is an issue that was raised by the Government of Quebec, and we moved quickly to establish a new 30-day service standard for work permit applications so that asylum seekers may support themselves and become self-sufficient while they await the final decision on their claims. This minimizes the impact they have on provincial social assistance programs.

Similarly, we have built in flexibility to ensure that asylum seekers are covered under the interim federal health program immediately after background checks are completed, but while they are awaiting their initial hearing. This is important because we want to ensure that public health is protected, that asylum seekers have access to basic care, and that there is no undue burden on hospital emergency rooms and provincial health care budgets.

Mr. Chair, all of these are great examples of how we have been responding to an uncommon situation in an effective manner. At the same time, we’ve been working to dispel the false information that has prompted many to embark on a journey to cross our border. We know this situation is, in part, fuelled by misinformation on various social media outlets and other channels suggesting that certain groups of individuals will receive preferential treatment or be given status in Canada. This is, of course, incorrect, and all claimants have been and will continue to be treated according to existing laws.

We’ve taken a number of steps to dispel false information and inform people in Canada and the United States of the facts regarding the asylum process in Canada. In recent weeks, two of our colleagues, multilingual members of Parliament, travelled to the United States to help counteract this false information among different diaspora communities.

So Hussan is sending people to the United States to combat this false information. Has the Government met with American officials about closing the loophole in the Safe 3rd Country Agreement?

Michelle Rempel
I’m not asking you to comment on that, but rather on the following question. Has the government broached the topic of amending the safe third country agreement to cover claims made by people entering Canada through unofficial points of entry with the new American administration, especially as we renegotiate NAFTA? I think it could be argued that it would be hypocritical for the Americans to ask Canada to improve border security if they’re not willing to reciprocate.
.
Or, is the government content to allow the new administration a convenient option to encourage people to self-deport to our country with a minimum amount of American resources involved?
.
Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
I’d like to just begin by saying that we in no way encourage irregular migration. If your question is about Canada becoming sort of like a second option for people who have exhausted their options or feel that they’ve exhausted their options in the United States….
.
Hon. Michelle Rempel:
Just to clarify, my comment is whether or not the government has broached with the Americans the renegotiation of the safe third country agreement.
.
Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
We haven’t done that.
.
Hon. Michelle Rempel:
Thank you

The Immigration Minister at the time hadn’t even approached the Americans with regard to fixing the obvious loophole in the agreement.

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Scarborough—Rouge Park, Lib.):
.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
At the outset to both ministers, I’d like to thank you for your continued efforts in this and finding the appropriate balance in ensuring that Canada meets its international obligations under the refugee convention, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the convention against torture, and other international instruments. I think the manner in which both of your departments have handled this is extraordinary, and I’m quite proud to see this in action.
.
Also, Commissioner Lucki, it’s a pleasure to have you here. The historical shoes that you’ve put on are not lost on us and thank you for that.
.
I want to start, Mr. Hussen, with respect to your visit to Nigeria. Could you outline what specific engagements you had there, and what messaging you had for the Nigerian community?

Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
Thank you very much.
My visit to Nigeria was very productive. I visited the capital city of Abuja, as well as the commercial capital city of Lagos. In Abuja I met the permanent secretary of the Ministry of Interior, and on the same day I met the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Nigeria. I was able to indicate to both officials what we were facing. I made it very clear that, overall, the number of Nigerians coming regularly to Canada is actually high. There are a lot of visitors and tourists as well as international students and people who come through the express entry system, as well as the provincial nominee program.

In fact, the number that is coming irregularly is smaller than the regular numbers. However, it is an issue, and I emphasized to them the need for that government to co-operate closely with Canada on the issue of reiterating the message that we are always making, which is that we welcome newcomers, but we want people to come through regular migration.

The second request I had of the Nigerian government was that they should work closely with us to expedite the issuing of travel documents for Nigerian nationals who have exhausted the procedures and are set to be removed from Canada. On both of those requests, the Nigerian government officials I met, including the foreign minister, were clearly supportive and indicated very clearly that they will work with us on both those issues.

Very quickly, I also met representatives of various media outlets in Nigeria to, again, make the point that we value the contributions that Nigerian Canadians have made to our country, but that irregular migration is an issue. I also met civil society organizations who were very kind to let me know some of the challenges, some of the misinformation that was being fed to some of these officials.

How much more obvious does it have to be that these asylum claims are bogus? Hussan visits with Nigeria, and he works with their government to get replacement travel documents. Plenty of Nigerians come as tourists, as students and are admitted into the Provincial Nominee Program, yet there is a refugee crisis?

Hon. Michelle Rempel (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC):
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On May 23, in the Stanstead Journal, the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie was quoted as saying, “We had [a lot of] calls from local businesses last year telling us they would gladly go pick them up there and hire them,” since Canada is short on manpower and the influx of people entering illegally through Roxham Road is welcomed by a lot of people.
Do the ministers share the opinion of their colleague?

Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
The fact of the matter is that the issue of issuing work permits to asylum seekers was something that was brought to us through the intergovernmental task force on irregular migration. It was brought forward by the Province of Quebec. They felt that it was important for the federal government to help the Province of Quebec and other provinces expedite the issuing of work permits so that asylum seekers can support themselves as opposed to relying on provincial social services, and we’ve done that.

Hon. Michelle Rempel:
I would argue that planned, orderly migration, where we anticipate economic migration and match it to labour force needs would be a better management of Canada’s immigration system, especially since Quebec and Ontario have both expressed that some of the people who are illegally crossing the borders need to be diverted to other places in the country.
I will ask the minister very bluntly. Does he actually want to stop people from illegally entering the country at the Roxham Road border?
.
Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
The question is important because it gives me an opportunity to talk about the things that we are doing. We have consistently said that there is no free ticket—
.
Mr. David Tilson:
How about yes or no?
.
Hon. Michelle Rempel:
Just in the interest of time, I’d like a yes or no answer. Does the minister want to stop the vast influx of people illegally crossing the border at Roxham Road from the United States?
.
Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
Yes.

Hon. Michelle Rempel:
Does the minister then share the opinion that his minister colleague expressed that it is acceptable for businesses to go and pick up people at the Roxham Road crossing, and does he feel that this sentiment perhaps incents people to illegally cross the border?
.
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
We have a clear set of immigration rules and procedures, including rules and procedures dealing with asylum seekers. That is specifically dealt with in section 133 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and we have an obligation to ensure that the law is enforced, and that’s what we try to do in every case.
.
Hon. Michelle Rempel:
Thank you.

Hussan explicitly states that he wants to see the illegal crossings into Canada stop. However, the tone and urgency seems to be non-existent here. Hard to stop it when obviously bogus claims are from the United States are allowed through.

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP):
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the ministers.
My first question is for the Minister of Immigration. He mentioned that his officials are engaging in a discussion with the United States about the modernization of the safe third country agreement. I’m wondering whether, in those discussions, the government has the raised the issue of the problem being the United States itself. Every time the President utters or tweets some anti-immigrant, anti-refugee rhetoric, it creates a situation and there’s a reaction related to that. I wonder whether that has been brought up at the table with our U.S. counterpart.

Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
The discussions with respect to the safe third country agreement are in the early days. There are no formal negotiations—
.
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
Sorry, I’m just going to interrupt here.
My question is whether the minister has raised the issue on the asylum seekers crossing over to Canada as a result of the behaviour of the President of the United States.

Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
There are no formal negotiations with respect to the safe third country agreement. The discussions are essentially on opportunities to modernize the agreement.
.
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
Has there been informal discussion brought up from this government about the issue resting with the behaviour of the President of the United States?
.
[Expand]
Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
As I said earlier, the discussions have basically looked at the possibility of modernizing the agreement, as any 14-year-old agreement would be ripe for modernization.

Ms. Jenny Kwan:
That wasn’t my question to the minister. The minister fails to understand.
I’m trying to see whether the government has raised the issue, gone to the core of the issue. The core of the issue is not so much about the asylum seekers crossing over but what causes them to do that. Frankly, my view rests with the U.S. administration, and most particularly with the President himself. Has that been brought to the table?
Perhaps Minister Goodale can answer that question. Has his ministry, or his ministry officials, brought that forward?
.
Hon. Ahmed Hussen:
There was no misunderstanding of the question. I understood your question. We just have a different perspective on asylum seekers and how they should claim asylum. We have a UN-supported position—
.
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
Sorry, my question was to Mr. Goodale.

Hon. Ralph Goodale:
I’d make two observations in response to that, Ms. Kwan.
The first is that the beginning of this issue took place before there was a change in administration in the United States. There’s not a specific correlation that’s identifiable, because the numbers began before the government changed in the United States.
.
Secondly, we have raised with American officials, a concern that if they change policy with respect to the status of persons who have been given temporary protected status in the United States, that could have an impact on border management with Canada. We have encouraged the Americans, in every case, to give as much advanced notice as possible of their intention to make a status change, so that we can be prepared to deal with the consequences of that. Since we made that request to the Americans quite some time ago, they have adopted a practice of giving 18 to 20 months’ notice before an established change would come into effect.
.
We have observed that status changes in the United States could have an impact on the border. We have requested that they give advance notice if they have a status change in mind, and they have complied with that request. Now consistently, in every case I believe, they give us at least 18 months’ notice that they might have a status change in mind.

Yes, apparently the flood of “refugees” coming from the United States is the fault of the U.S. President. Canada is expected to act as a dumping ground for illegal migrants who don’t like Trump’s rhetoric.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC):
Thank you.
Minister Goodale, we have literally thousands of kilometres of highway that are enforced by the RCMP, which reports to you. Do we have RCMP eyes on every hundred metres of that highway in order to enforce those laws?
.
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
Not all the time.
.
Hon. Pierre Poilievre:
Thank you. That does answer my question.
You’ve mentioned that we cannot enforce the safe third party agreement across the entire Canadian border because we cannot have eyes on the entire Canadian border at all times. In other words, you’ve said that because we could not afford—and you’re right—to put officials on every square inch of the Canadian border, we could not possibly enforce the safe third country agreement across that space.
.
You rightly acknowledged, though, that the RCMP is able to enforce traffic laws and traffic rules, right across the thousands and thousands of kilometres of highway that we already have in existence. What would stop the government, then, from simply applying the safe third party agreement to the entire border for the purposes of illegal border crossings?

Hon. Ralph Goodale:
Mr. Poilievre, I mentioned at least three difficulties with that particular proposal.
One is the requirement for officers, which you in your question have acknowledged, and, I gather, agreed with, that makes that type of border enforcement rather impractical.
.
The second part of it is that if you have a border port of entry that is 9,000 kilometres long, you need to have, correspondingly, cooperation from the United States on the other side of the border—which they are, I think it’s fair to say, not likely to do. You have no counterpart.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre:
Have you asked?
.
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
It is an international boundary.
.
Hon. Pierre Poilievre:
Have you asked?
.
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
I have not asked that specific question.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre:
Wait a second here. You have not—
.
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
Mr. Poilievre, I would be delighted to—
.
Hon. Pierre Poilievre:
Excuse me, you just answered my question.
.
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
—and I’ll be very quick to report their answer to you.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre:
You just answered my question. You know, you’ve continually claimed that you can’t enforce the safe third country agreement because we can’t have eyes on every square inch of the border, but you admit that we enforce rules all the time in places where we don’t have law enforcement constantly observing. Secondarily, you have said that we cannot enforce the safe third country agreement because we do not have agreement from the United States of America. Now you admit that you haven’t even sought such agreement, which really does raise the question of whether or not you’re looking for a solution—

Hon. Ralph Goodale:
Yes, indeed, Mr. Poilievre—
.
Hon. Pierre Poilievre:
—or if you’re perfectly comfortable with the situation we have right now, where thousands of people are crossing illegally into this country.
.
My next question is this. Do the Americans automatically turn away every single…? Excuse me, do the Americans apply the safe third country agreement to anybody who enters outside a recognized point of entry? Yes or no?
.
Hon. Ralph Goodale:
That would be a question for IRCC to respond to.
Would you like to repeat it for Mr. MacKinnon?
.
Hon. Pierre Poilievre:
Do the American apply the safe third country agreement to anybody crossing from Canada into the United States of America between official, recognized ports of entry?
.
Mr. Paul MacKinnon:
No. The U.S. applies the safe third country agreement in exactly the reciprocal fashion that we apply it for south-north traffic.

Ahmed Hussan was asked this question in October 2017, and then Ralph Goodale is asked in July 2018. The Liberals claim that there is nothing they can do to fix the loophole in the Safe 3rd Country Agreement, which allows fake refugees from the U.S. to enter Canada. Goodale and Hussan also admit the Government hasn’t asked.

5. Conservatives Are Controlled Opposition

According to the CPC Policy Declaration, converting temporary workers into permanent residents is listed (Article 139), and so is erasing the borders with CANZUK (Article 152). Hard to be serious about border security when those policies are on the books.

At the 2:00 mark of the CANZUK video, Erin O’Toole explicitly talks about expanding CANZUK to other nations. He is not the only one to call for doing so. The 4 party set-up (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom), seems to be just a starting point.

One might wonder why Pierre Poilievre has relatively tame criticism of the Government’s open border policies, and why more isn’t done. He’s clearly aware of the issues around Canada’s border. One should also ask why he prominently flies an Israeli flag in his office during the “virtual Parliament”.

And one may question why the then-Immigration “Shadow Minister” seems so tepid about the vast scale of people entering the country (both legally and illegally). Here are some of her recent tweets.

Yes, that is the face of modern conservatism is this country. Mass migration of people into Canada who will work for less, and drive down the wages of Canadians. Forget about the tens of billions sent off due to remittances, or the impact of the reduced supply of jobs for Canadians. Forget about all of the problems that diversity and multiculturalism bring.

6. All A Dog-And-Pony Show

Canadians concerned about their borders should be outraged by what is going on. This Parliamentary system is one where parties go through the motions of trying to secure the border, but have no intention of actually doing so.

Recently, Trudeau announced a temporary stop to illegal crossings into Canada. This shows that the Prime Minister had the power — all along — to stop illegal entries. These hearing were a farce because it was completely unnecessary. All of this has been an act played out in front of the public.

Watch all of the clips if you can. But it will make your blood boil.

CV #19: The Vaccine Confidence Project, And “Vaccine Hesitancy”

Refusing to inject yourself (and family) with chemicals created by outsiders is apparently just a relationship problem. Nothing to do with what is actually in them, or the history of destroyed lives.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

CLICK HERE, for #0: Theresa Tam; archives; articles; lobbying.
CLICK HERE, for #1: piece on Bill Gates, Pirbright, depopulation.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Coronavirus research at U of Saskatchewan.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Gates; WHO, ID2020; GAVI; Vaccines.
CLICK HERE, for #4: Gates using proxies to push vaxx agenda.
CLICK HERE, for #5: Crestview Strategy, GAVI’s lobbying firm.
CLICK HERE, for #6: people GAVI/Crestview lobbied follow Gates.
CLICK HERE, for #7: M-132, Canada financing pharma research.
CLICK HERE, for #8: Canada/WHO & “vaccine hesitancy” research.
CLICK HERE, for #9: Raj Saini, lobbied by big pharma (M-132).
CLICK HERE, for #10: pharma lobbying in Alberta legislature.
CLICK HERE, for #11: ON Pharma; Bill 160 Not Implemented.
CLICK HERE, for #12: 2006 report recommends surveillance/vaxx.
CLICK HERE, for #13: more on who Theresa Tam really is.
CLICK HERE, for #14: AbCellera gets $175.6M from Ottawa.
CLICK HERE, for #15: refusing forced medications and vaccinations.
CLICK HERE, for #16: Koch/Atlas, both sides in AB court challenge.
CLICK HERE, for #17: the CV industry emerging in Canada.
CLICK HERE, for #18: buying “vaccine bonds”; GAVI/GPEI grants.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for the Vaccine Confidence Project (VCP)
http://archive.is/szSHr
CLICK HERE, for VCP funders and partner listings.
http://archive.is/Ah9Pw
CLICK HERE, for VCP’s mission statement.
http://archive.is/saio2
CLICK HERE, for GlaxSmithKline lobbying Federally.
http://archive.is/xxQJe
CLICK HERE, for VIDO-InterVac lobbying Federally.
http://archive.is/AYdhO
CLICK HERE, for Merck lobbying Federal Government.
http://archive.is/GH1Cy

CLICK HERE, for Vaccine Confidence Project’s Twitter.

3. Context For This Article

The topic of vaccine hesitancy was introduced in Part 8 of the coronavirus series. Now will explore a more organized group, which is the Vaccine Confidence Project. As the name implies, the group is researching in ways to make vaccines an easier sell to the public.

Note: They are not researching ways to MAKE vaccines more safe. Instead they are researching ways to CONVINCE people that they are safe. The goals are really quite different.

Also worth noting that several of the groups funding this project also have lobbying and financial ties to the Canadian Government. The conflicts on interest here cannot be downplayed.

In the next section the VCP group states — in their own words — what the goals of the program are. Just know that this project is being funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and other vested interests.

Also worth pointing out: this project is not just an isolated case. There are many, MANY more groups conducting research into vaccine hesitancy. Consider this as glorified market research.

4. What Is Vaccine Confidence Project?

Vaccine confidence concerns the belief that vaccination – and by extension the providers and range of private sector and political entities behind it – serves the best health interests of the public and its constituents. The Oxford English Dictionary defines confidence as “the mental attitude of trusting in or relying on a person or thing”. In light of that, we are not examining the well-studied domain of supply and access barriers to vaccination, but rather what is typically called the “demand” side of immunisation. However, our focus on confidence takes the “demand” rubric a step further than the more traditional notion of building demand through increasing knowledge and awareness of vaccines and immunisation to understanding what else drives confidence in vaccines, and the willingness to accept a vaccine, when supply, access and information are available. In other words, understanding vaccine confidence means understanding the more difficult belief-based, emotional, ideological and contextual factors whose influences often live outside an immunisation or even health programme but affect both confidence in and acceptance of vaccines.

The purpose of the project is to monitor public confidence in immunisation programmes by building an information surveillance system for early detection of public concerns around vaccines; by applying a diagnostic tool to data collected to determine the risk level of public concerns in terms of their potential to disrupt vaccine programmes; and, finally, to provide analysis and guidance for early response and engagement with the public to ensure sustained confidence in vaccines and immunisation. This initiative also defines a Vaccine Confidence Index™ (VCI) as a tool for mapping confidence globally.

Despite the historic success of immunisation in reducing the burden of childhood illness and death, episodes of public concerns and rumours around vaccines have occurred around the world, spreading quickly and sometimes seriously eroding public confidence in immunisation and ultimately leading to vaccine refusals and disease outbreaks.

This project seeks to address these unmet needs and monitor public confidence in immunisation programs by listening for early signals of public distrust and questioning and providing risk analysis and guidance to engage the public early and pre-empting potential programme disruptions.

In their own website, CVP describes their work as “information surveillance for early detection of public concerns”. In other words, the focus isn’t on creating safe and effective vaccines, but rather on convincing people that they are. The techniques involve amount to little more than emotional and psychological manipulation.

5. Partners/Funders Of Vaxx Confidence

Funders of Vaccine Confidence Project

  • European Commission
  • European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA)
  • Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Merck
  • University College London

Partners of the Vaccine Confidence Project

  • Brighton Collaboration
  • Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)
  • Chatham House
  • European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
  • European Commission
  • European Medicines Agency
  • Gallup International
  • Imperial College London
  • International Pediatric Association
  • International Vaccine Institute
  • LVCT Kenya
  • National University of Singapore
  • ProMED
  • Public Health England (PHE)
  • Public Health Foundation of India
  • Sabin Vaccine Institute
  • World Health Organization (WHO)

Yes, we have spent considerable time recently in this registry. This is the Office of the Lobbying Commissioner. Keep in mind, this only applies to people/groups who are lobbying at the Federal level. It doesn’t cover Provincial or Municipal influence peddling.

According to registry records, Yoo-Seok Hong, President of GlaxoSmithKline, has lobbied the Federal Government 187 times since becoming registered in 1996. GSK is listed as a funder of the Vaccine Confidence Project.

Looking at the same registry, Merck Canada is listed as having lobbied the Federal Government 103 times since they became registered in 2001.

This was addressed in Part 2 of the series, but worth bringing up again. VIDO-InterVac has partnered with the International Vaccine Institute. The IVI is based in South Korea, and gets funding from the Gates Foundation and the United Nations. VIDO-InterVac and IVI have their partnership working with the University of Saskatchewan.

This was covered in Part 13 of the series, but repeated here. Theresa Tam sits on the Independent Oversight and Advisory Committee for the WHO Health Emergencies Programme. In other words, she sits on a World Health Organization Board at the same time she is the Chief of Public Health in Canada. Her colleague, Geeta Rao Gupta, previously worked for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In fact, after the United States, the Gates Foundation is the largest contributor to the World Health Organization.


efpia-health-collaboration-guide_2019_final

The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations lists many partner organizations, several of whom have lobbied governments in Canada.

This was previously covered in Part 4 and Part 5 in the coronavirus series. GAVI, the Global Vaccine Allience (funded largely by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation), lobbied the Federal Government 20 times between 2018 and 2020.

Additionally, the Center for Disease Control (CDC), located in the United States, is heavily funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It greatly influences their decision making.

To repeat from before: this project has nothing to do with MAKING vaccinations safe or effective. Instead, the effort is to CONVINCE people that vaccines are safe and effective. This has nothing to do with conducting any sort of medical research whatsoever.

6. VCP’s Twitter Page

To begin with, the account was only created in February 2020, and has an extremely low following. But let’s take a look and see who they are connected to on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/VaxPsychStrath
https://twitter.com/trevormundel
https://twitter.com/IFPMA
https://twitter.com/voice_evidence

This is just a few of them. However, there is nothing to see here, and we should all just move along.

7. Tricks To Beat “Vaccine Hesitancy”

The World Health Organization has done considerable research on the subject of “vaccine hesitancy”. This of course is the natural reaction of people to be reluctant to put needles of unknown substances into their bodies.

Improving vaccination demand and addressing hesitancy
Increasing and maintaining vaccination uptake is vital for vaccines to achieve their success. Addressing low vaccination requires an adequate understanding of the determinants of the problem, tailored evidence-based strategies to improve uptake, and monitoring and evaluation to determine the impact and sustainability of the interventions.

Hesitancy in relation to vaccination may affect motivation, causing people to reject it for themselves or their children. Hesitancy can be caused by individual, group, and contextual influences, as well as any vaccine-specific issues.

Given the potential for hesitancy to rapidly undermine vaccination coverage in specific settings, it is important that all countries take steps to understand both the extent and nature of hesitancy at a local level, on a continuing basis. Accordingly, each country should develop a strategy to increase acceptance and demand for vaccination, which should include ongoing community engagement and trust-building, active hesitancy prevention, regular national assessments of concerns, and crisis response planning

It’s fair to take from this, that the efforts to understand hesitancy do not at all seem rooted in any altruistic motivation. Rather, they seem designed to form the basis to manipulate and otherwise persuade people into taking something that could be extremely harmful to them.


Meeting participants, from left to right: Kerrie Wiley, Neetu Abad, Gilla Shapiro, Alina Lack, Wenfeng Gong, Nick Sevdalis, Julie Leask, Monica Jain, Gustavo Correa, Noel Brewer, Saad Omer, Cornelia Betsch, Charles Wiysonge, Gillian SteelFisher, Lisa Menning, Eve Dubé

In May 2019, a group of people got together to come up with ways to make mass vaccination an easier sell to the public. Read the report and decide whether this is harmless enough.

The World Health Organization has released several other papers and research findings into vaccine hesitancy. Either they are moronic, or they truly think that what they are doing is for the best of humanity.
hesitancy.research
hesitancy.research.02
hesitancy.research.strategies.for.addressing
hesitancy.conclusions.for.addressing

In addition to the above research, there are questionnaires that are available. Asking and probing for certain types of information will give the illusion that you are concerned with the person’s well being.

hesitancy.survey.questionnaires

In January 2015, this paper was released, giving insight into the various reasons people are likely to avoid taking vaccines. It also provided helpful information to convincing the subject that it was still in their best interest.

hesitancy.recommendations.to.correct

There is of course more research available on the subject. But the point is that it has been extensively studied. A cynic might wonder if the WHO spends more effort researching ways to pitch vaccines to the public than they do researching to see if they are actually safe.

8. Programs Operate In Canada

Several such programs are already in operation in Canada, and are funded. Yes, Canada already has programs to combat “vaccine hesitancy”.

9. Tip Of The Iceberg

This article just scratches the surface of what is out there. Do a simple search, or go on YouTube and look up videos under the heading “vaccine hesitancy”. It is shocking the number of hits that will come up.

Why is there so much research being done on overcoming “vaccine hesitancy”? Quite simply, it is economics. Vaccines that are used globally are worth a lot of money. Therefore, considerable money and resources must be spent in convincing potential customers that it is a worthwhile product. Think of it as a glorified marketing strategy.

In the various videos, you may notice that the marketers never address the legitimate concerns people have about the safety of vaccines. Rather, they are going through the motions of “appearing to address” the concerns. Not the same thing.

Understand that this is little more than psychological manipulation in order to push an agenda. The well being of the people involved is a secondary concern — if it is one at all.

CV #18: Ottawa Sends IFFIm Money For “Vaccine Bonds”; GAVI/GPEI Grants

(Information on what the International Finance Facility for Immunization, or IFFIm, really is and does)

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

CLICK HERE, for #0: Theresa Tam; archives; articles; lobbying.
CLICK HERE, for #1: piece on Bill Gates, Pirbright, depopulation.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Coronavirus research at U of Saskatchewan.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Gates; WHO, ID2020; GAVI; Vaccines.
CLICK HERE, for #4: Gates using proxies to push vaxx agenda.
CLICK HERE, for #5: Crestview Strategy, GAVI’s lobbying firm.
CLICK HERE, for #6: people GAVI/Crestview lobbied follow Gates.
CLICK HERE, for #7: M-132, Canada financing pharma research.
CLICK HERE, for #8: Canada/WHO & “vaccine hesitancy” research.
CLICK HERE, for #9: Raj Saini, lobbied by big pharma (M-132).
CLICK HERE, for #10: pharma lobbying in Alberta legislature.
CLICK HERE, for #11: ON Pharma; Bill 160 Not Implemented.
CLICK HERE, for #12: 2006 report recommends surveillance/vaxx.
CLICK HERE, for #13: more on who Theresa Tam really is.
CLICK HERE, for #14: AbCellera gets $175.6M from Ottawa.
CLICK HERE, for #15: refusing forced medications and vaccinations.
CLICK HERE, for #16: Koch/Atlas, both sides in AB court challenge.
CLICK HERE, for #17: the CV industry emerging in Canada.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Trudeau’s GAVI/GPEI announcements.
CLICK HERE, for CBC announcement, Karina Gould.
http://archive.is/RxcxT
CLICK HERE, for International Finance Facility for Immunization.
http://archive.is/BCjMe
CLICK HERE, for IFFIm on “Vaccine Bonds” information.
http://archive.is/lPUOc
CLICK HERE, for Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI).
http://archive.is/NTy9J (2013 archive)
http://archive.is/iEvNd (2020 archive)
CLICK HERE, for the World Bank main page.
http://archive.is/iHVTJ (2019 archive)
http://archive.is/IPLo5
CLICK HERE, for World Bank, innovative financing.
http://archive.is/Cpx4c

CLICK HERE, for previous review on climate bonds.
CLICK HERE, for Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai debunks climate bonds scam.

3. Context For This Article

Several articles in the Canuck Law series on the CV “planned-emic” have focused on the lobbying and influence peddling behind the vaccine agenda. This one covers the recent plans to hand out more money under that guise. However, there is an interesting twist here.

The Federal Government recently announced it will be giving $790 million of taxpayers’ money to 3 separate institutions. 2 of the grants (the recipients are GAVI/GPEI) are for vaccine initiatives. The other is to for so-called “vaccine bonds”, (issued by IFFIm). Of course Canada doesn’t have the money to send abroad, but that doesn’t seem to be a problem.

The specific grants:

  1. $125M for Int’l Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm)
  2. $475M for GAVI, Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI)
  3. $190M for Global Polio Eradication (GPEI)

It’s the first item on this list that is the most concerning. The $125 million to IFFIm contribution won’t be paid directly for research and development. Instead, the IFFIm will issue bonds to the World Bank, who in turn will put those bonds on the market. The World Bank will pay money back to IFFIm, less profits that the bond holders will be making on the bonds.

Obvious question: Why aren’t we giving the money targeted for the IFFIm directly to GAVI, if that’s who will use it? Why are we including at least 3 middlemen (IFFIm, World Bank, and Investors)? Why is taxpayer money — or taxpayer debt — being used to help private interests advance their stock portfolios?

We know that GAVI is heavily financed by the Gates Foundation. Also, it turns out that IFFIm has its administrative costs heavily funded by GAVI. By extension, this means that the Gates Foundation is financing the operation of IFFIm. GAVI is just being used as an intermediary here.

4. Vaccine Bonds A Growth Industry

IFFIm is a role model for socially responsible investing in global development, which faces constant funding challenges and unpredictability. Vaccine Bonds provide investors with a unique opportunity to realise an attractive and secure rate of return and diversify their portfolios while helping save young lives. It’s not a donation, it’s an investment. IFFIm has been so successful, it has changed the face of global development funding.

IFFIm’s unique financing model for global health is built upon partnerships. IFFIm receives long term, legally binding pledges from donor countries and, with the World Bank acting as Treasury Manager, turns these pledges into bonds. The money raised via Vaccine Bonds provides immediate funding for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Since, 2000 Gavi has dramatically improved access to new and underused vaccines for children living in the world’s poorest countries.

Vaccine Bonds speed the availability of flexible funds for Gavi’s immunisation programmes and other initiatives on the ground, including unexpected emergencies. This saves more lives faster. Vaccine Bonds also lead to funding that is more predictable, enabling public health officials to plan vaccination campaigns well in advance. Forward planning strengthens local health systems and translates into healthier populations overall, a crucial building block for a successful economy.

So how does this work? Let’s go through the steps:

  • Nations make binding pledges to pay IFFIm at a later date
  • The IFFIm uses those pledges to generate bonds
  • The IFFIm then sells bonds to the World Bank for cash
  • The IFFIm gives its new money to GAVI for vaccines.
  • The World Bank sells bonds to outside investors
  • Investors make profits on their bonds (presumably)
  • Nations (over time) pay their commitments to IFFIm

Something is missing from this list, correct? Investors are making money off of their bonds, or else they wouldn’t buy them. There are also salaries and administrative costs to factor in. So where is the extra money coming from?

Hypothetically, bond owners can resell the bonds to other people. That does actually happen in practice. However, that would only work for a limited time. Furthermore, the market for such bonds is fairly limited.

One option is that the IFFIm would be selling the bonds at a discount to the World Bank (but still expecting full price from the donor nations). For example, Spain might issue a pledge for $10 million, and IFFIm will sell a bond to the World Bank for $9 million. The investor(s) will get $10 million back. In this scenario, GAVI ends up with $9 million, and investors with $1 million. Of course administrative costs need to be factored in.

Another option is that the donor nations will end up footing the bill for the returns that investors get. Using Spain again, they will pledge $10 million over a period of years, but then have to pay the full bonds plus perhaps another million in interest.

Either case is horribly inefficient. By adding these middlemen, it means that nowhere near the full amount of donor money is receiving its intended target. Either money is skimmed off the initial pledge, or the pledge turns out to be far more expensive than originally thought.

This isn’t to endorse GAVI’s agenda, but giving them the money directly would have meant they actually get the full amount. This setup means that a large percentage will never be received.

Much like with the climate bonds industry, vaccine bonds don’t actually contribute to public well being. In both cases, it allows private parties to profit off of the slush funds that are generated. These bonds don’t make the weather, or vaccines, any better. The two cases have considerable overlap.

The main difference is that while the climate change industry is simply a gigantic waste of public money, the vaccines that ultimately result can do incredible harm to the people who take it.

5. A Look At IFFIm’s Financials

According to the latest financial statement, IFFIm is sitting on $1.198 billion in equity (or assets minus liabilities). That being said, it’s difficult to see how much solvent this operation is. The bulk of their “assets” are pledges from nations down the road.

Disclaimer: This is not professional accounting information, just a lay impression from reading through the reports.

IFFIm 2006 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2007 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2008 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2009 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2010 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2011 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2012 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2013 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2014 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2015 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2016 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2017 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2018 Trustees Report and Financial Statements

According to the most recent IFFIm annual report, these were the trustees of the company at the time. Below are their public profiles.

Cyrus Ardalan, Board Chair: Mr Ardalan is Chairman of Citigroup Global Markets Limited and OakNorth Bank. He is also Chairman of the Financial Services Advisory Board of Alvarez and Marsal. Previously he was a Vice Chairman of Barclays Bank and has also held senior roles at BNP Paribas and the World Bank. He has served as Chairm as a member of the board of the Dubai International Financial Centre. Mr Ardalan was appointed as a director effective 1 January 2013 and as Chair of the IFFIm board effective 1 January 2018.
Bertrand de Mazières: Mr de Mazières is the Director General for Finance at the European Investment Bank (EIB) treasury operations and its support functions for equity, lending, borrowing, and funding operations. Prior to that, he was the Chief Executive of Agence France Trésor, the division of the Ministry of Economy Management. Mr de Mazières was appointed as a director effective 18 May 2018.
Christopher Egerton-Warburton: Mr Egerton-Warburton is an expert in the structuring and execution of innovative financing solutions and was instrumental in the creation of IFFIm. He is a partner with Lion’s Head Capital Partners, a merchant bank that provides advisory, financial structuring, capital raising and asset management services. Prior to that, he was Head of the Sovereign, Supranational and Agency team within the Debt Capital Markets group at Goldman Sachs International. Mr Egerton-Warburton was appointed as a director effective 1 January 2013 and concluded his second term as a director on 31 December 2018.
Doris Herrera-Pol: Ms Herrera-Pol retired from the World Bank where she was the Global Head of Capital Markets. Her team was responsible for designing the World Bank’s funding strategy and managing its multi-currency funding programme in global money, capital and derivatives markets. From 2002 to 2007, she led the team re -vanilla debt products, including global bonds and emerging market bond issues. Ms Herrera-Pol was appointed as a director effective 13 November 2015 and she is a member of the audit committee.
Fatimatou Zahra Diop: Ms Diop is a former Secretary-General of the Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO) where she was responsible for the coordination and management of the bank in its eight member countries as well as offices in Dakar and Paris. She co-founded and currently serves as Vice President of the board of Afrivac, a public-private partnership whose mission is to work with public and private sector partners to promote the need to strengthen the budgets of African countries with a view toward becoming independent from multilateral support. Ms Diop was appointed as a director effective 10 June 2015 and she is a member of the audit committee.
Helge Weiner-Trapness: Mr Weiner-Trapness is a founding partner of Quintus Partners, an independent financial advisory firm that provides strategic and investment advisory and capital raising services to a diverse client base of corporations, private investment firms, and institutions. Prior to that, he was the Managing Director and Co-Global Head of the Financial Institutions Group at Barclays Bank in Hong Kong and previously held senior positions at Asia Pacific Land, JP Morgan Securities, and Goldman Sachs. Mr Weiner-Trapness was appointed as a director effective 17 December 2018.
Marcus Fedder, Audit Committee Chair: Mr Fedder has been involved with microfinance for the past five years after spending more than 20 years in banking. He held senior positions at several financial institutions, including as Vice Chair of TD Securities, the Toronto Dominion Bank, with responsibility for all businesses in Europe and Asia-Pacific. Prior to that he was Treasurer of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and worked at the World Bank and in derivatives, starting his career at Deutsche Bank. He is a member of the supervisory board of TCX Fund. Mr Fedder was appointed as a director effective 1 January 2013.

These aren’t doctors or any sort of scientists or medical professionals. These are bankers whose job it is to turn the slush fund into a very profitable venture.

Various nations (Canada is now one) are pledging money to the IFFIm, who then turns around and issues bonds which it sells to the World Bank. Those bonds are then sold to private investors.

The steps for this were outlined in the last section. Again, what benefit does this give to donor nations? Either the bonds are sold at a discount, or donor nations will be paying the interest as well (or perhaps both). But this does generate a nice slush fund for the banker to play around with.

According to the last financial statement, on page 18, GAVI contributed $1 million (in U.S. dollars) to the Int’l Finance Facility for Immunization for administrative costs. Essentially this means that GAVI is funding the operation of IFFIm, or rather that the Gates Foundation is.

Nation Date Years Of Bond Amount ($USD)
Australia 2011 19 $176,463,000
Australia 2016 5 $26,469,000
Brazil 2018 20 $20,000,000
France 2006 15 $426,931,000
France 2007 19 $993,072,000
France 2017 5 $171,780,000
France 2017 5 $171,780,000
Italy 2006 20 $542,195,000
Italy 2011 14 $29,203,000
Netherlands 2017 5 $91,616,000
Netherlands 2009 7 $66,667,000
Norway 2006 5 $127,000,000
Norway 2010 10 $172,829,000
South Africa 2007 20 $20,000,000
Spain 2006 5 $217,015,000
Sweden 2006 20 $30,851,000
UK 2010 19 $319,225,000

Those listings are the “legally binding” pledges that various nations have made to IFFIm over the last 15 years. Doubtful that any nation ever held a referendum.

In February 2019, the IFFIm board issued a new indicative funding confirmation to Gavi of US$ 50 million comprised of US$ 45 million to help in the funding of new and underused vaccine support programmes and US$ 5 million to help in the funding of health systems strengthening programmes.

In March 2019, the IFFIm board approved a proposal for Gavi to support the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation through the issuance of IFFIm bonds backed by a new pledge from the Kingdom of Norway to IFFIm. CEPI is a global public-private partnership whose mission is to accelerate the development of vaccines against emerging infectious diseases and enable equitable access to these vaccines for people during outbreaks. The approved arrangement will accelerate the availability of funding for programmes by drawing on capacity to raise financing on international capital markets based on long-term pledges from its Grantors.

This is from page 23 of the latest report. IFFIm approved a proposal by GAVI…. Okay, so does GAVI need to get permission from IFFIm? Bonds were issued to back a new pledge from Norway.

Considering how long this whole thing has been going on for, one has to ask if the current “pandemic” is just an excuse to upscale the existing industry.

It doesn’t get much more cliché than this: The IFFIm is using 2 (yes 2) limited liability corporations (LLCs) in the Cayman Islands to issue certificates to run IFFIm’s operations. Now, the Cayman Islands is notorious for their bank secrecy laws. If the IFFIm is a completely legitimate organization, one has to wonder why they didn’t simply set up an LLC — or a trust — in the UK, where they are based.

6. Canada To Fund Global Vaxx Agenda

Canada is pledging $600 million to a global public-private partnership that works on vaccination campaigns in the world’s poorest countries, International Development Minister Karina Gould announced today.

In addition to the funding for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, Canada is committing $47.5 million annually over four years to support the Global Polio Eradication Initiative’s strategy, Gould said.

Gould made the announcement at the launch of the Group of Friends of Solidarity for Global Health Security virtual meeting, which she co-hosted with her counterparts from Denmark, Qatar, South Korea and Sierra Leone.

Money aside, there is something else to note: Karina Gould makes it clear that it is (supposedly) Canada’s job to provide vaccinations for the entire world.

“As a global community, we must work to ensure that those most vulnerable, including women and children, have access to vaccinations to keep them healthy wherever they live,” Gould said.

“COVID-19 has demonstrated that viruses do not know borders. Our health here in Canada depends on the health of everyone, everywhere.”

How convenient for Canada that all of the parliamentary hurdles have already been cleared for this. Raj Saini introduced M-132 back in November 2017. Hearings took place in the fall of 2018. Parliament formally adopted the recommendations in March 2019. See this piece and also this piece. The timing certainly worked out well.

Now the same pharmaceutical companies that were previously pushing for the passage of M-132 will be able to reap the rewards: Government contracts to develop vaccines. In a recent move, AbCellera received a $175.6 million grant to work on a coronavirus cure.

Rest assured, many more Government contracts will be handed out soon enough.

7. GAVI Gets Funding From Gates

This is probably the most well known link in the chain. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation helped found GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance in 1999, and has made regular contributions to it. The foundation essentially runs the show.

The Global Vaccine Alliance, as the name suggests, is an organization devoted to pushing vaccinations on the public all across the world. Bill Gates has long been a proponent of mass vaccinations.

It was addressed in part 4 and part 5 how GAVI gets some of their funding, and that GAVI has been lobbying the Federal Government for 2 years. Between March 2018 and January 2020, there are 20 communications reports, according to records from the Office of the Lobbying Commissioner. Part 6 of the series shows that many of the lobbied bureaucrats follow Bill Gates.

Crestview Strategy lobbyists have ties to various political parties across the spectrum, including the Conservative Party of Canada. This lobbying seems to have paid off, as GAVI’s fees for paid influencers have resulted in a significant Government contract.

With this announcement, the Trudeau Government will be handing $475 million to GAVI. This means that it will actually be giving $475 for Gates to control. Considering that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation remains one of the biggest donors to GAVI, no one can deny that Gates has significant influence over it.

8. GPEI Partners With Gates/GAVI

From its own website, it appears that the Global Polio Eradication Initiative partners with several prominent groups including:

  • World Health Oranization
  • Rotary
  • Center for Disease Control
  • UNICEF
  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • GAVI (Global Vaccine Alliance)

On paper, it looks like Canada is giving $190 million ($47.5M annually for 4 years), to a separate organization, but these groups all work together.

9. World Bank A Full Partner

From this 2018 speech, the World Bank outlined just how varied and widespread its goals really were.

As you know, UNCTAD estimates that achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGS) by 2030 will require $3.9 trillion to be invested in developing countries each year. It also notes that with annual investment of only $1.4 trillion, the annual investment gap is $2.5 trillion. Let me therefore take this opportunity thank the Group of Friends of SDG Finance for your leadership on mobilizing private finance to achieve these important goals. At the World Bank Group, we have equally strengthened our focus on mobilizing the private sector for development.

We have this dream of what the world should be like, and we only need $3.9 trillion per year to make it a reality. The article to too long to quote in its entirety, but there are some sections that need to be addressed.

Last year, the World Bank issued the world’s first global pandemic bond that will channel surge funding to developing countries facing the risk of a pandemic. It was designed to prevent another Ebola crisis, and was the first time that pandemic risk in low income countries was transferred to the financial markets. Such a facility, will enable the world to respond more promptly than it did when the 2013-2014 Ebola crisis happened, thereby minimizing the death toll and the negative impact on the economy.

To date we have provided $3.9 billion in catastrophe and weather risk transactions, of which nearly $2 billion has been executed in the last ten months. We have seen increased demand from clients as the frequency of extreme weather events has increased. Cat bonds that transfer risk to the capital markets have become an important complement to emergency funds, budget reserves, and contingent credit lines because it allows countries to leverage their budgets to offer greater protection when disasters strike.

Yes, pandemic bonds a are real thing, and they operate as a form of insurance. People are willing to buy these bonds when times are good, and returns are assured. However, when a pandemic (or multiple pandemics) occur, the funds get depleted pretty quickly. Hence the reluctance to payout initially.

New initiatives that we are also exploring include innovative mechanisms to expand financing for education, famine and World Bank seasoned loans to institutional investors. Examples are:
.
1) The Education Commission’s International Financing Facility for Immunization, IFFEd, a fund that will not only reduce the cost to developing countries of financing education projects but also increase the capacity of multilateral institutions to lend for education projects. IFFEd is supported by the World Bank and regional development banks. IFFEd has raised $2 billion for education with a goal of $10 billion. It is expected that every billion of aid will leverage $4 billion from development banks. On May 11, 2018 IFFEd was endorsed by the UN Secretary General.

Is the IFFed related to the IFFIm? Are funds just being moved around, or is this really the same group?

In this respect we partnered with Japan’s Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF) on research with respect to sustainable fixed income investing. We expect this research to promote strategies for including sustainability criteria in investment decisions. We are equally conducting research for the G20 by engaging investors to come up with concrete actions to scale up long-term sustainable investments and support the SDGs.

This is rather creepy. If anyone in Japan ever reads this article, consider pulling your money out of the pension plan.

The World Bank is buying bonds from IFFIm, and those bonds are based on pledges from donor nations. Considering the globalist nature of many World Bank Initiatives, is this an underhanded way to get nations to fund projects they otherwise couldn’t sell to the public.

10. Gov’t Is Throwing Money Away

The $125 million pledge that is going to the Int’l Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm), is essentially being used to create bonds for bankers to sell privately. Canadian taxpayer debt is being used to finance a portion of this slush fund, which doesn’t actually help improve global health.

The vaccine bonds in many ways parallel the climate bonds. Nations pledge large sums of money, and the handlers use those pledges to create bonds which are sold on the private market. Neither benefit the public at large, but they do make some people extremely wealthy.

As for the grants to GAVI and to GPEI, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation heavily finances both organizations. It is foolish to think that they are independent. Noted early, GAVI has been using the lobbying firm Crestview Strategy to push their agenda for the last 2 years. There are 20 communications reports on file.

The Federal Government has quite bluntly stated that they see providing “global health care” as critical to keeping Canadians healthy. Effectively, this is free health care for the world, paid for by Canadians. Or at least that is what Ottawa claims it believes.

Of course, mainstream outlets like the CBC won’t give you the entire story. Their job is to ensure Canadians don’t see the big picture.

Catherine McKenna: Co-Founder Of NGO, Canadian Lawyers Abroad

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for McKenna’s LPC page biography.
CLICK HERE, for 2013 posting on Canadian Lawyers Abroad.
http://archive.is/DYoQg
CLICK HERE, for Canadian Lawyers Abroad’s blog.
http://archive.is/fqUPW
CLICK HERE, for CLA search under “Catherine McKenna”.
http://archive.is/UOSKe
CLICK HERE, for Level Justice programs.
http://archive.is/zWgkW
CLICK HERE, for CLA changing its name.
http://archive.is/OlXub

Some Posts Written By McKenna
What Is Canadian Lawyers Abroad?
http://archive.is/UdqBw
Traditional Law Path A Losing Game.
http://archive.is/GbQ7q
CLICK HERE, for Should We Get Rid Of Articling?
http://archive.is/A61RA
CLICK HERE, for Becoming An International Lawyer, Part 1.
http://archive.is/zzC2I
CLICK HERE, for Becoming An International Lawyer, Part 2.
http://archive.is/FwR2w
CLICK HERE, for We’re Failing Our Children.
http://archive.is/6D4ky
CLICK HERE, for Articling, And 2011 LSUC Elections.
http://archive.is/VBZ4U
CLICK HERE, for 2011 – The Rights Of Spring.
http://archive.is/enUho

2. Context For This Article

When a person steps into public office, such as being a Member of Parliament, it is expected that they will have no other associations or obligations that will interfere with this role. They are expected to have no conflict of interest. For Ottawa MP Catherine McKenna, however, that is not the case.

She co-founded an NGO called Canadian Lawyers Abroad in 2006, which was aimed at getting Canadian law graduates to take on international matters. McKenna remained a director of this organization until the day of the 2015 election.

What does this group (whatever its name is) actually do? Looking at its profile, under the name Level Justice, it seems to focus on social justice and indoctrination for aspiring lawyers. Think of it as a sort of brainwashing movement, promoting a more globalist, or internationalist approach.

It also operates a student internship, where law students and graduates take on work abroad. This amounts to a summer or so or volunteer work abroad, working for NGOs. An interesting situation: even while running for office, Catherine McKenna was a director at an NGO, which tried to get law students to go work for other NGOs abroad. The annual reports do list where people have gone, but more information would have been nice on the work they do.

But looking at the reports issued, it seemed that this global internship was not the biggest focus. More efforts were spent on local initiatives.

3. “Candidate” McKenna Stayed On CLA Board

Today was a big week in the history of Canadian Lawyers Abroad. On Monday, Brittany Twiss came on board as our new Executive Director. The torch had officially passed from Yasmin Shaker and me, the CLA co-founders, to the next generation!

It is bittersweet to be leaving as ED of CLA (although I will still be on the board). I realize how lucky I have been to work with so many passionate and committed lawyers and law students who live up to CLA’s motto of using law to improve lives. We are lucky to count among our boosters (and my mentors) amazing leaders in the legal community including Allan Rock and Nathalie Des Rosiers (who very kindly gave us our first office at the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law), Bill Graham, Antonio Lamer, Ed Waitzer, Bob Rae, Greg Kane and Armand de Mestral. We also have thousands of law students who have come through our Student Chapter and Student Internship Programs who are now using their law degrees to build the rule of law and promote human rights in Canada and around the world.

McKenna remained on the Board of Canadian Lawyers Abroad, even though she was campaigning to become a Member of Parliament in the 2015 election. That page is from 2013, but it has to be asked: did McKenna remain on the Board after getting elected? Is she on the Board today? Is she using her position as an MP to push CLA’s agenda?

4. McKenna’s Posts On CLA Blog

About Catherine
I am a Co-Founder, former Executive Director and current Board Member of Canadian Lawyers Abroad. I am Executive Director of the Banff Forum and a lecturer at the Munk School of Global Affairs in Toronto.

Here, Catherine McKenna describes in broad strokes what her organization is, and what it’s goals are. Again, she remained a board member while running for public office, which is a huge conflict of interest.

How? In two ways. First, we run a Student Program that brings together law students from across the country who are passionate about using their law degree to make positive changes around the world. CLA provides a forum for discussion and debate and, through our Summer Internship Program, we offer students the possibility of gaining practical experience with our amazing partners in developing countries and Canada’s north.

Second, we develop innovative projects with our partners that will lead to positive, long-term changes in their communities. For example, we’re helping the KNUST Faculty of Law in Ghana set up a university legal clinic. University legal clinics have been a very successful model in Canada and Canadian lawyers and law students are well-placed to provide assistance. This project will give KNUST law students practical, real-life training and provide marginalized groups, in particular women and youth, access to desperately needed legal information and services. In the long-term, by promoting the rule of law and protecting human rights, this project will help reduce poverty and promote economic development in Ghana. We plan on replicating this pilot project with other partners around the world.

This all sounds great, but when you are an elected MP in Ottawa (or any riding) your allegiance is to the people of that riding. Remaining part of this organization makes McKenna look compromised.

In another article, McKenna outlines how law school is becoming a losing game, as there are more graduates than positions in articling available. She actually has a valid point, and the situation in the United States is much worse. Could this be a way of swaying more lawyers to her cause?

5. CDN Lawyers Abroad A.K.A. Level Justice

In September 2015, Canadian Lawyers Abroad underwent a name change and overhauled its website. However, its indoctrination agenda seems to be pretty much the same, so the changes are more cosmetic.


Level.Justice.Change.Of.Name
Level.Justice.2.Certificate.Of.Continuance.
Level.Justice.3.Bylaws.For.Organization
Level.Justice.4.Director.List.In.2014
Level.Justice.5.Change.Of.Corporate.Address
Level.Justice.6.Director.Change.October.2015.McKenna.Out

Looking at the corporate documents, it seems that Canadian Lawyers Abroad was renamed to LEVEL. CHANGING LIVES THROUGH LAW. It also looks like Catherine McKenna remained a Director at the organization until October 19, 2015. This was the day of the election which put her into office. Since there is no time listed, she may have only resigned after having won her seat.

6. CLA/Level Is Registered Charity

This is a bit confusing. McKenna stepped down as Executive Director in 2013. So, was she not considered a Director (according to the CRA) until this happened?

For Period Ending December 31, 2015
Receipted donations $82,191.00 (48.34%)
Non-receipted donations $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities $81,039.00 (47.66%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $6,788.00 (3.99%)
Total revenue: $170,018.00

Charitable programs $97,086.00 (79.87%)
Management and administration $0.00 (0.00%)
Fundraising $8,868.00 (7.30%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $15,597.00 (12.83%)
Total expenses: $121,551.00

Professional and consulting fees
$61,966.00

Note: There is no compensation listed for employees

For Period Ending December 31, 2016
Receipted donations $10,600.00 (7.54%)
Non-receipted donations $78,864.00 (56.07%)
Gifts from other registered charities $43,000.00 (30.57%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $8,200.00 (5.83%)
Total revenue: $140,664.00

Charitable programs $116,887.00 (90.23%)
Management and administration $12,652.00 (9.77%)
Fundraising $0.00 (0.00%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $129,539.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$72,746.00

Full-time employees (1)
Part-time employees (4)

Professional and consulting fees
$8,633.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$40,000 to $79,999 (1)

For Period Ending August 31, 2017
Receipted donations $0.00 (0.00%)
Non-receipted donations $110,300.00 (85.31%)
Gifts from other registered charities $18,992.00 (14.69%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $0.00 (0.00%)
Total revenue: $129,292.00

Expenses are listed as $163,006

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$96,529.00

Full-time employees (3)

Professional and consulting fees
$5,861.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$1 to $39,999 (2)
$40,000 to $79,999 (1)

For Period Ending August 31, 2018
Receipted donations $6,790.00 (1.71%)
Non-receipted donations $260,938.00 (65.58%)
Gifts from other registered charities $130,131.00 (32.71%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $28.00 (0.01%)
Total revenue: $397,887.00

Charitable programs $288,133.00 (91.80%)
Management and administration $25,747.00 (8.20%)
Fundraising $0.00 (0.00%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $313,880.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$220,568.00

Full-time employees (3)

Professional and consulting fees
$12,006.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$40,000 to $79,999 (1)
$80,000 to $119,999 (2)

For Period Ending August 31, 2019
Receipted donations $10,000.00 (2.96%)
Non-receipted donations $156,492.00 (46.30%)
Gifts from other registered charities $171,448.00 (50.73%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $25.00 (0.01%)
Total revenue: $337,965.00

Charitable programs $220,726.00 (89.76%)
Management and administration $25,171.00 (10.24%)
Fundraising $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $245,897.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$168,747.00

Full-time employees (3)

Professional and consulting fees
$13,524.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$40,000 to $79,999 (3)

7. Little Info On Elections Canada Site

A quick search into the financing section of Elections Canada shows very little. In fact, as of the time of writing this, there are 21 donations total with McKenna’s name on them. Most are for a few hundred dollars. So McKenna hasn’t been getting large donations from various groups.

8. Global Internship Program

In summer 2016, Level placed 20 student interns with NGOs in Canada, the US, Ghana, Namibia, Kenya, Thailand, India and Bangladesh, where they gained practical human rights research and advocacy experience. While Level has made the difficult decision this year to shift its focus to local and remote internship opportunities, we are proud to have facilitated international internships for over 220 students since 2005. I would like to take this opportunity to thank  our amazing partners for their support of our student initiatives, and their commitment to making justice a reality for some of the world’s most vulnerable populations.

Focused on an annual theme, Level’s Chapters organize community events, host conferences and panel discussions, and contribute research papers to an annual human rights journal. In 2016-17, our Chapters advanced awareness of women’s human rights both in Canada and abroad, and encouraged their peers to think critically about how they can use their budding legal skills to make a positive impact in their communities.

Through our Global Internship Program, 20 passionate and talented JD/LLB students spent the summer working for NGOs in Canada or overseas supporting grassroots efforts to increase access to justice and combat poverty, inequality and exploitation. Since 2005, over 220 students have advanced the mission of 45 organizations in 15 countries, while at the same time developing practical skills to advance their careers.

The quotes are from the annual 2016 report.
LJ.2014.annual.report
LJ.2015.annual.report
LJ.2016.annual.report
LJ.2018.annual.report

2014 through 2018 are available currently on the website.
On a serious note: one has to wonder how effective these students and new graduates would actually be. Not only would they have little to no experience in Canada, how could they contribute in countries where the culture and language are very different? How would they be able to operate in areas that might be highly suspicious of Westerners?

9. What This Group Does

From the looks of things, Canadian Lawyers Abroad, now called “Level Changing Lives Through The law”, or as “Level Justice”, runs a bunch of advocacy programs in Canada. The focus is on a social justice approach on crime, law, and access to representation.

The group has a “global internship program” which encourages law students and/or law school graduates to go abroad working for NGOs of other organizations. While the places are listed, it would be nice to know more about what these aspiring lawyers are in fact doing.

However, it appears that the bulk of the work has to do with domestic initiatives within Canada. That may explain the name change, as “Canadian Lawyers Abroad” left the impression that it was the bulk of their work.

Within Canada, it does seem to be focused on pitching the notion that poverty, racism and intolerance is what keeps people from getting access to justice. On the surface, this group seems to be noble and benevolent, though it views everything through the social justice lens.

CV #16: Koch/Atlas Ties On Both Sides Of Alberta Bill 10 Court Challenge

In the 1990s, Jason Kenney was the head of the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation. He has lobbied the Federal Government in that capacity.

The Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms belongs to the same organization that the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation does.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

CLICK HERE, for #0: Theresa Tam; archives; articles; lobbying.
CLICK HERE, for #1: piece on Bill Gates, Pirbright, depopulation.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Coronavirus research at U of Saskatchewan.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Gates; WHO, ID2020; GAVI; Vaccines.
CLICK HERE, for #4: Gates using proxies to push vaxx agenda.
CLICK HERE, for #5: Crestview Strategy, GAVI’s lobbying firm.
CLICK HERE, for #6: people GAVI/Crestview lobbied follow Gates.
CLICK HERE, for #7: M-132, Canada financing pharma research.
CLICK HERE, for #8: Canada/WHO & “vaccine hesitancy” research.
CLICK HERE, for #9: Raj Saini, lobbied by big pharma (M-132).
CLICK HERE, for #10: pharma lobbying in Alberta legislature.
CLICK HERE, for #11: ON Pharma; Bill 160 Not Implemented.
CLICK HERE, for #12: 2006 report recommends surveillance/vaxx.
CLICK HERE, for #13: more on who Theresa Tam really is.
CLICK HERE, for #14: AbCellera gets $175.6M from Ottawa.
CLICK HERE, for #15: refusing forced medications and vaccinations.

2. Media Bias, Lies, Omissions And Corruption

CLICK HERE, for #1: Unifor in bed with Federal Gov’t
CLICK HERE, for #2: Global News’ selective truth on TRP granted.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Post Media owning most Canadian media.
CLICK HERE, for #4: conservative content dominated by Koch/Atlas.
CLICK HERE, for #5: origins of Malcolm’s “charity” True North Canada.
CLICK HERE, for #6: the people running the Post Millennial.
CLICK HERE, for #7: how to do research, investigative journalism.

3. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Unifor, $595M media bailout.
CLICK HERE, for Post Media’s near monopoly in Canada.
CLICK HERE, for Atlas/Koch in conservative media.
CLICK HERE, for previous review of True North Initiative.
CLICK HERE, for previous review of Post Millennial.

Alberta.Bill.10.Emergency.Powers
Alberta.Bill.10.JCCF.Legal.Challenge.April.30
CLICK HERE, for Office of the Lobbying Commissioner.
CLICK HERE, for the JCCF staff page.
http://archive.is/2fJYj
CLICK HERE, for CTF wanting Kenney to resign from office.
http://archive.is/etJls
CLICK HERE, for Atlas Network’s partner listings.
CLICK HERE, for a JCCF posting on Bill 10.
http://archive.is/2zCDw

4. Context For This Piece

Having a healthy opposition, or group fighting the government is generally a great thing. Having an organization challenge bad laws or decisions in court benefits society as a whole. In this case, the bad law is Alberta’s Bill 10, rushed through Parliament. No serious person would deny that there are positives to challenging it. This is especially true given the hyped nature of CV.

Bill 10, in short, is a gross overreach and overreaction in response to this coronavirus “planned-emic”. It steps on many freedoms Albertans are used to having.

In a larger sense, it seems that many Western leaders are using this as an opportunity to crack down on civil liberties, under the guise of security. See Section #4 for a few quotes.

The JCCF is right, that such a Bill passed, especially with little real debate is a problem. For that, they deserve credit.

That said, when the power BEING challenged, and the party DOING the challenging are owned by the same organization, the public needs to know about it. One can legitimately ask if the entire event is staged, or at a minimum, if there is some conflict of interest.

Such is the case here. The commonality is the Koch funded Atlas Network. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney is the former President of the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation, which is an Atlas Group. Many of his former colleagues are also part of Atlas. The Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms is also part of Atlas Network, and in fact, its founder also worked for the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation, though after Kenney stepped down.

A major problem is that none of these groups publicly admit belonging to the same institution: Atlas. There are 12 such think tanks in Canada, yet not one of their websites discloses their common bonds. This lack of transparency shows the whole Bill 10 proceedings in a whole new light.

5. Atlas Network’s Canadian Partners

  • Alberta Institute
  • Canadian Constitution Foundation
  • Canadian Taxpayers Federation
  • Canadians For Democracy And Transparency
  • Fraser Institute
  • Frontier Center For Public Policy
  • Institute For Liberal Studies
  • Justice Center For Constitutional Freedoms
  • MacDonald-Laurier Institute For Public Policy
  • Manning Center
  • Montreal Economic Institute
  • World Taxpayers Federation

There are 12 so-called “think tanks” in Canada which are part of Atlas Network. There were 13, but only 12 now. In the United States, about 140 operate. These groups push for globalist principles and are heavily funded by the Koch Brothers.

However, the individual websites don’t mention that these groups are have the same parent company, or even that they are linked in general. Interesting.

6. Challenge To Alberta’s Bill 10

DISCLAIMER: this article isn’t to defend Alberta ramming through Bill 10, nor is it an attack on the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms. Instead, it is to point out that both Jason Kenney and the JCCF have ties to the same organization.

Bill 10 was pushed through the Alberta Legislateure with minimal debate. This is especially bad considering how far reaching it is. The action brought by the JCCF is an attempt to get at least portions of that bill thrown out.

CALGARY: The Justice Centre is challenging the Alberta government and Minister of Health Tyler Shandro over using sweeping new powers under the Public Health Act via Bill 10 to provide police across the province with confidential patient medical information.

Bill 10 was rushed through the Legislative Assembly of Alberta in under 48 hours and passed on April 2, 2010 with only 21 out of 87 elected MLAs present and voting on the final reading. It provides sweeping, extraordinary, and nearly unlimited powers to any government minister at the stroke of a pen. Prior to Bill 10, the Public Health Act already gave extraordinary powers to Cabinet, the Minister of Health, and the Chief Medical Officer in the event of a public health emergency. These existing powers include taking a citizen’s real or personal property without consent, authorizing entry into a person’s residence without a warrant, requiring mass immunization of the public, and imposing mass public testing. Under these existing provisions, a minister could suspend – for up to 60 days – the operation of any existing law.

The Justice Centre warned last month that adding to these existing draconian powers, Bill 10 would allow a single Minister to unilaterally make new laws and create new offences for the populace without consultation with the Legislative Assembly. In response to concerns, the government initially claimed the changes were “minor” and “technical” in nature.

The allegations made here are certainly serious, but that is not the focus of the article. It is who controls both sides.

7. JCCF Part Of Atlas Network

John Carpay – President
John Carpay was born in the Netherlands, and grew up in British Columbia. He earned his B.A. in Political Science at Laval University in Quebec City, and his LL.B. from the University of Calgary. Fluent in English, French, and Dutch, John served the Canadian Taxpayers Federation as Alberta Director from 2001 to 2005, advocating for lower taxes, less waste, and accountable government. Called to the Bar in 1999, he has been an advocate for freedom and the rule of law in constitutional cases across Canada. As the founder and president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, John has devoted his legal career to defending constitutional freedoms through litigation and education. He considers it a privilege to advocate for courageous and principled clients who take great risks – and make tremendous personal sacrifices – by resisting the unjust demands of intolerant government authorities. In 2010, John received the Pyramid Award for Ideas and Public Policy in recognition of his work in constitutional advocacy, and his success in building up and managing a non-profit organization to defend citizens’ freedoms. He serves on the Board of Advisors of iJustice, an initiative of the Centre for Civil Society, India.

The President of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms also spent 4 years with the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation (2001 to 2005). Of course the CTF is also an Atlas group.

Not only was John Carpay a member of the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation (again, Jason Kenney’s old organization), but he was actually a registered lobbyist employed by the CTF. Kenney and Carpay both acted in lobbyist roles at some point for the CTF. Nice disclosure.

jccf.1.directors.founding
jccf.2.bylaws.rules
jccf.3.certificate.of.continuance
jccf.4.change.of.registered.address

The JCCF never mentions that it has a parent company (Atlas Network). Nor does it disclose that Atlas is the same parent company of the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation, which Jason Kenney used to head.

Does this make Bill 10 okay, or the challenge bad? No it doesn’t. However, for the purpose of openness, some real transparency would have been nice.

8. Jason Kenney’s Ties to Atlas

Even after Kenney became a Member of Parliament, his old organization, the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation, continued to lobby the Federal Government afterwards. Above are some of the meetings that took place.

“I only decided to do this in the past couple of weeks. I have a lot of things I’d like to finish in Ottawa. I’d also like to be in the House to say farewell to colleagues,” he said.
.
But it’s not soon enough for some.
.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, which Kenney led in the 1990s, says its position on Kenney is the same as it is for all politicians who are seeking office at another level — they should take an unpaid leave of absence.
.
Aaron Wudrick of the Canadian Taxpayer Federation says Jason Kenney should take unpaid leave while he seeks the Alberta PC leadership. (CBC)
.
“Politicians are elected, and paid, to do a job. If they are not doing that job, they shouldn’t be getting paid for it,” said Aaron Wudrick, a director with the federation.

Fast forward to 2016, the CTF is criticizing their former boss for continuing to hold a Federal seat, while campaigning to become Premier of Alberta.

They do have a valid point though. If Kenney is getting a salary as a Federal MP, he should be working in that capacity, not actively campaigning for a new job.

Beyond Kenney being the former President of the CTF, and using that to launch into politics, many of his co-workers (Provincially and Federally) also have various connections to Atlas.

9. Kenney’s Colleagues Have Atlas Ties

Let’s look at some specific examples of people that Jason Kenney has been associating with in his professional life. Here are some of the more prominent names.

  • Fellow ex-MP Maxime Bernier was Executive Vice-President of the Montreal Economic Institute. It is headed by Helene Desmarais, Paul Desmarais Jr’s wife.
  • Ex-Alberta MLA Derek Fildebrandt was a member of the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation. He was involved in a scandal for subletting a taxpayer funded apartment.
  • Kenney’s ex-staffer Candice Malcolm was part of the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation and the Fraser Institute.
  • Fellow ex-MP Joe Oliver is a member of the Manning Institute.
  • Fellow ex-MP Preston Manning is the head of the Manning Institute. In fact it is named after him.
  • Kenney’s ex-staffer Kasra Nejatian, is a Director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation. He is also a Director at True North Canada, though it’s not publicly disclosed.
  • Ex-Alberta MLA (and former Wildrose Leader), Danielle Smith, worked for the Fraser Institute for a short time in the 1990s.
  • Fellow ex-MP Chuck Strahl is a member of the Manning Institute. He was also part of the Trudeau Foundation.

This is of course by no means an exhaustive list. However, it’s worth pointing out that many prominent conservatives — many with ties to Jason Kenney — are all connected in some way to the same organization. It seems that Atlas is a stepping stone for people to get into politics. If you check the history of many of these people, they had some Koch/Atlas connection immediately prior to getting into politics. Or it helped get them further in politics.

Much of that information is detailed here, but it’s worth emphasizing just how controlled and consolidated “conservative” politics in Canada really is. All of these think tanks work for the same group.

10. Kenney’s Ex-Staffers Run Fake Charity

True.North.1.Certificate.Of.Amendment
True.North.2.Change.Of.Directors
True.North.3.Certificate.Of.Continuance

Malcolm seems to not be aware that her new “charity” is required to file annual returns. This will be a strange way to find out (if she ever reads it).

This was covered previously, but worth another mention because of how underhanded it is. Here are the main points to note.

  • Malcolm was previously a Staffer for Jason Kenney when he was Immigration Minister. So was her husband Kasra Nejatian. If you are going to establish a media outlet on immigration, it seems absurd to leave that connection out. It gives status.
  • Malcolm made her husband a director of the company without disclosing it publicly. In fact, you have to research the company to find that out.
  • As listed above, both Malcolm and Nejatian have ties to various Atlas groups.
  • While claiming to do “timely research into immigration issues”, a lot of what comes out is “Conservative Inc.” talking points on the subject.
  • Most importantly, Malcolm misleads and deceives about the real origins of this “charity”. While presenting herself as the founder, she omits that she simply took over and existing charity called the Independent Immigration Aid Association. Malcolm used an existing charity for the tax breaks since she likely wouldn’t qualify on her own. Saying she founded the “non-profit” branch, True North Initiative is technically true, but leaves readers with a distorted view. It is the charity part which makes her eligible for the tax breaks.

Worth mentioning: Press Progress also did a great piece on it.

One more point to add. Lindsay Shepherd works at True North Canada. Her boss is Candice Malcolm, an ex-Kenney staffer who was (is?) part of the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation. The CTF is the same group that Jason Kenney once ran. Shepherd is also a fellow with the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, the group suing the Alberta Government, which is now headed by Kenney. Nothing inherently wrong, though it’s strange how these people just flow between groups. Conservative Inc. must be one big happy family.

11. Honourable Mention: Spencer Fernando

Although the National Citizen’s Coalition is not an Atlas Group, it was once headed by Stephen Harper. It is disappointing to see Spencer Fernando, who claims to be independent, spouting CPC talking points on his website and elsewhere.

12. Same Group Influences Both Sides

Again, this is not in any way to justify ramming Bill 10 through the Alberta Legislature. Nor is it a claim that such legislation should not be contested. It hits out against Canadians’ fundamental freedoms, and clearly wasn’t very well thought through. Using the fake pandemic to take away people’s freedoms and civil rights is just plain wrong. This is a horrible bill.

Instead, it is to point out that both sides in this, (Jason Kenney and the JCCF), have connections to the same globalist organization: Atlas Network. And Atlas gets much of its funding from Koch. Yet the mainstream media does not mention it, let alone provide any details.

None of these 12 Atlas groups mention that they are affiliated with each other, let alone that they have the same parent company. For groups that demand transparency in government, it is rather hypocritical. That alone should be cause for concern.

A cynic might wonder if this legislation was pushed through specifically so that the JCCF could launch a challenge. But we will never know for sure.

Who’s Pulling Elizabeth May’s Strings?

Elizabeth May joined the Trudeau Foundation in 2005. Could that be part of why the Liberal party has always been so friendly towards her?

May is also a supporter of the (still hypothetical concept) of a world government run by the United Nations. She’s one of many globalist Canadian politicians.

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Elizabeth May’s Wikipedia page.
http://archive.is/y1zO4
CLICK HERE, for May’s profile with Trudeau Foundation.
http://archive.is/YzXmZ
CLICK HERE, for Revenue Canada searches for charities.
CLICK HERE, for Office of the Lobbying Commissioner.
CLICK HERE, for Sierra Club of Canada.
CLICK HERE, for Sierra’s 180 turn on immigration.

2. Why Dig Into Elizabeth May?

In terms of globalist politicians in Canada, Elizabeth May largely gets a pass. A significant part of it is that the Green party of Canada has only 3 seats, and is not a prominent party. It’s growing, yes, but it still relatively small.

Another reason may be that May might be ignored, and no actual digging into her past, is who she is connected to. Shining some more sunlight onto her may serve the public interest well.

  • Sierra Club
  • International Institute for Sustainable Development
  • Various groups lobbying her as an MP
  • Trudeau Foundation
  • Eco demonstrating

While May seems like just a typical environmental supporter, her various associations and affiliations should give people cause for concern. She is not who she appears to be.

3. May Ex-Executive Director, Sierra Club

Between April 1997, and February 2006, there are 17 communications reports between Elizabeth May and the Federal Government. She is a prior eco-lobbyist, and spent nearly a decade trying to influence policies in Canada.

Also noteworthy: now a Member of Parliament, May is frequently lobbied by various groups. Guess it has come full circle. In total, Elizabeth May’s name is attached to 525 communications reports, on a wide variety of topics.

sierra.club.1.director.change
sierra.club.2.bylaw.copy
sierra.club.3.certificate.of.continuance

May’s lobbying as head of the Sierra Club seems to be all environment related, but it does raise an interesting question: When she sits as a Member of Parliament, is she acting as the representative of the riding, or as a member of the ideology?

Sierra Today
.
Today, the Sierra Club Canada Foundation (SCCF) is a national registered charity that includes four chapters: Atlantic, Québec, Ontario, and Prairie, plus the Sierra Youth Coalition, a group whose mandate is to empower young people to become community leaders.
.
On the national level, we have earned an excellent reputation for our thoroughly researched positions and our ability to serve as a spokesperson for environmental issues Canada wide. On a regional level, the commitment of our volunteers makes us an effective advocate on the environmental issues affecting Canadians in their communities.
Following in the footsteps of John Muir, we sponsor programs that help to bring nature into the lives of children and adults.

From it’s HISTORY page, Sierra claims to be an advocacy organization devoted to environmental causes, and bringing awareness to the general public. Elizabeth May used to be the head of this organization.

Interesting side note: The Sierra Club (not just in Canada), used to be against having high levels of immigration. The main reason being that increased numbers of people put more strain on the environment. However, for a $100 million donation from David Gelbaum, the Sierra Club was completely willing to flip its stance. It seems anything is negotiable. More information on Gelbaum is available.

Reporting Period Ending December 31, 2014
Receipted donations $284,311.00 (36.48%)
Non-receipted donations $37,392.00 (4.80%)
Gifts from other registered charities $314,732.00 (40.39%)
Government funding $34,287.00 (4.40%)
All other revenue $108,567.00 (13.93%)
Total revenue: $779,289.00

Charitable programs $625,543.00 (69.95%)
Management and administration $177,577.00 (19.86%)
Fundraising $24,599.00 (2.75%)
Political activities $6,563.00 (0.73%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $60,041.00 (6.71%)
Total expenses: $894,323.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$474,307.00

Full-time employees (7)
Part-time employees (13)

Professional and consulting fees
$22,677.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$1 to $39,999
$40,000 to $79,999 (4)

Reporting Period Ending December 31, 2015
Receipted donations $294,471.00 (46.34%)
Non-receipted donations $8,124.00 (1.28%)
Gifts from other registered charities $242,348.00 (38.14%)
Government funding $13,862.00 (2.18%)
All other revenue $76,647.00 (12.06%)
Total revenue: $635,452.00

Charitable programs $295,412.00 (52.37%)
Management and administration $189,330.00 (33.57%)
Fundraising $59,347.00 (10.52%)
Political activities $19,962.00 (3.54%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $564,051.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$271,281.00

Full-time employees (5)
Part-time employees (13)

Professional and consulting fees
$87,031.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$1 to $39,999 (4)
$40,000 to $79,999 (2)

Reporting Period Ending December 31, 2016
Receipted donations $269,907.00 (60.64%)
Non-receipted donations $7,471.00 (1.68%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $26,251.00 (5.90%)
All other revenue $141,474.00 (31.78%)
Total revenue: $445,103.00

The Sierra Club claimed $434,604.00 in expenses in its T3010 filings

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$200,693.00

Full-time employees (6)
Part-time employees (9)

Professional and consulting fees
$128,893.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$1 to $39,999 (5)
$40,000 to $79,999 (1)

Reporting Period Ending December 31, 2017
Receipted donations $319,801.00 (58.98%)
Non-receipted donations $28,410.00 (5.24%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $88,471.00 (16.32%)
All other revenue $105,526.00 (19.46%)
Total revenue: $542,208.00

The Sierra Club also claimed $551,737.00 in expenses that year — line 4950 in it’s T3010 for that year.

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$315,747.00

Full-time employees (5)
Part-time employees (17)

Professional and consulting fees
$128,912.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$1 to $39,999 (3)
$40,000 to $79,999 (2)

Reporting Period Ending December 31, 2018
Receipted donations $250,400.00 (43.92%)
Non-receipted donations $7,977.00 (1.40%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $78,217.00 (13.72%)
All other revenue $233,593.00 (40.97%)
Total revenue: $570,187.00

Charitable programs $387,583.00 (61.61%)
Management and administration $114,807.00 (18.25%)
Fundraising $61,351.00 (9.75%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $65,327.00 (10.38%)
Total expenses: $629,068.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$337,381.00

Full-time employees (6)
Part-time employees (15)

Professional and consulting fees
$62,104.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$1 to $39,999 (3)
$40,000 to $79,999 (3)

The Sierra Club doesn’t take in anywhere near as much money as the Trudeau Foundation. Still, interesting to see how much it does get. The next one however, is swimming in money

4. Int’l Inst. for Sustainable Development

iisd.1.change.of.directors
iisd.2.organization.bylaws
iisd.3.certificate.of.continuation

Our big-picture view allows us to address the root causes of some of the greatest challenges facing our planet today—ecological destruction, social exclusion, unfair laws and economic rules, a changing climate. Through research, analysis and knowledge sharing, we identify and champion sustainable solutions that make a difference. We report on international negotiations, conduct rigorous research, and engage citizens, businesses and policy-makers on the shared goal of developing sustainably.
.
With offices in Winnipeg, Geneva, Ottawa and Toronto, our work impacts lives in nearly 100 countries. IISD is a registered charitable organization in Canada and has 501(c)(3) status in the United States.
.
IISD receives core and project funding support from numerous governments inside and outside Canada, United Nations agencies, foundations and the private sector. For more detail, view our annual report.
.
IISD’s work is organized around six programs and a core set of strategic goals. Our brochure provides a snapshot of our strategy and programs.

That is from the ABOUT section in the International Institute for Sustainable Development website. Much more information is available.

Reporting Period Ending March 31, 2015
Receipted donations $30,150.00 (0.17%)
Non-receipted donations $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $2,695,846.00 (15.39%)
All other revenue $14,791,567.00 (84.44%)
Total revenue: $17,517,563.00

Charitable programs $15,178,878.00 (80.70%)
Management and administration $932,920.00 (4.96%)
Fundraising $1,398,027.00 (7.43%)
Political activities $969,206.00 (5.15%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $330,272.00 (1.76%)
Total expenses: $18,809,303.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$7,550,002.00

Full-time employees (55)
Part-time employees (10)

Professional and consulting fees
$6,609,852.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$80,000 to $119,999 (1)
$120,000 to $159,999 (4)
$160,000 to $199,999 (1)
$200,000 to $249,999 (1)
$350,000 and over (1)

Reporting Period Ending March 31, 2016
Receipted donations $58,330.00 (0.27%)
Non-receipted donations $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $4,096,046.00 (19.09%)
All other revenue $17,303,126.00 (80.64%)
Total revenue: $21,457,502.00

Charitable programs $18,176,377.00 (88.66%)
Management and administration $868,967.00 (4.24%)
Fundraising $757,087.00 (3.69%)
Political activities $295,296.00 (1.44%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $403,270.00 (1.97%)
Total expenses: $20,500,997.00

Total compensation for all positions
$7,894,255.00

Full-time employees (55)
Part-time employees (9)

Professional and consulting fees
$7,051,688.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$80,000 to $119,999 (3)
$120,000 to $159,999 (4)
$160,000 to $199,999 (1)
$200,000 to $249,999 (1)
$250,000 to $299,999 (1)

Reporting Period Ending March 31, 2017
Receipted donations $58,313.00 (0.27%)
Non-receipted donations $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $5,392,587.00 (25.14%)
All other revenue $15,996,324.00 (74.58%)
Total revenue: $21,447,224.00

Charitable programs $17,713,128.00 (84.06%)
Management and administration $1,318,103.00 (6.26%)
Fundraising $1,043,767.00 (4.95%)
Political activities $611,182.00 (2.90%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $385,607.00 (1.83%)
Total expenses: $21,071,787.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$8,488,461.00

Full-time employees (62)
Part-time employees (6)

Professional and consulting fees
$6,699,377.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$80,000 to $119,999 (4)
$120,000 to $159,999 (3)
$160,000 to $199,999 (1)
$200,000 to $249,999 (1)
$250,000 to $299,999 (1)

Reporting Period Ending March 31, 2018
Receipted donations $108,522.00 (0.45%)
Non-receipted donations $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities $369,353.00 (1.54%)
Government funding $8,278,278.00 (34.59%)
All other revenue $15,173,667.00 (63.41%)
Total revenue: $23,929,820.00

Charitable programs $20,661,401.00 (90.39%)
Management and administration $2,135,148.00 (9.34%)
Fundraising $58,686.00 (0.26%)
Political activities $2,450.00 (0.01%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $22,857,685.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$9,025,983.00

Full-time employees (75)
Part-time employees (6)

Professional and consulting fees
$7,462,609.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$120,000 to $159,999 (5)
$160,000 to $199,999 (3)
$200,000 to $249,999 (1)
$250,000 to $299,999 (1)

Reporting Period Ending March 31, 2019
Operations Outside Canada
10 countries
Other countries in Africa
Other countries in Europe
UGANDA
INDONESIA
CHINA
Other counties in North America
KENYA
JAMAICA
VIET NAM
Other countries in Central and South America

Receipted donations $168,502.00 (0.65%)
Non-receipted donations $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities $65,000.00 (0.25%)
Government funding $5,458,098.00 (21.17%)
All other revenue $20,088,179.00 (77.92%)
Total revenue: $25,779,779.00

Charitable programs $22,511,518.00 (90.91%)
Management and administration $2,133,829.00 (8.62%)
Fundraising $115,844.00 (0.47%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$9,945,650.00

Full-time employees (79)
Part-time employees (8)

Professional and consulting fees
$8,501,328.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$120,000 to $159,999 (5)
$160,000 to $199,999 (3)
$200,000 to $249,999 (2)

Here is their most recently available financial statement:
iisd.2018.2019.financial.statement

Should we be concerned that Elizabeth May’s former institution accepts money from the World Health Organization, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation?

Side note: The Azrieli Foundation is named after David Azrieli, the late Israeli media baron and billionaire. His grandson, Matthew Azrieli, owns the Post Millennial.

5. Lobbying Elizabeth May As An MP

The above examples are just a sample of the information that is available when searching “ELIZABETH MAY” in the lobbying registry. It seems that many eco-groups see an “in” for their cause with May in office. Of course May is being lobbied by other types of groups, but this bunch seems particularly prominent.

6. May Is Member Of Trudeau Foundation

Elizabeth May is an environmentalist, writer, activist and lawyer. She is a graduate of Dalhousie Law School and was admitted to the Bar in both Nova Scotia and Ontario. She has held the position of Associate General Council for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, representing consumer, poverty and environment groups in her work. In 1986, she became Senior Policy Advisor to then federal Environment Minister, Tom McMillan.

Ms. May is the author of seven books, BudwormBattles (1982), Paradise Won: The Struggle to Save South Moresby (1990), At the Cutting Edge: The Crisis in Canada’s Forests (Key Porter Books, 1998), Frederick Street; Life and Death on Canada’s Love Canal (Harper Collins, 2000, co-authored with Maude Barlow,) How to Save the World in Your Spare Time (Key Porter, 2006), Losing Confidence: Power, Politics and the Crisis in Canadian Democracy (McClelland and Stewart, 2009), and, with Zoe Caron, Global Warming for Dummies (John Wiley and Sons, 2008). Recipient of many awards and honours, she became in 1998 the first chair-holder of the “Elizabeth May Chair in Women’s Health and Environment” at Dalhousie University. She holds honourary doctorates from Mount Saint Vincent University and the University of New Brunswick. In 2005, she became an officer of the Order of Canada.

Formerly the Executive Director of the Sierra Club of Canada, Ms. May is a past member of the board of directors of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, and a member of the advisory board to the Environmental Commissioner, Office of the Auditor General of Canada. She is leader of the Green Party of Canada.

Talk about controlled opposition. The (now former) leader of the Green Party is also a member of the Trudeau Foundation, which is named after Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Guess there isn’t really much ideological differences between the parties.

Justin Trudeau pushed for Elizabeth May to be included in the 2011 debates, despite the Greens not holding a seat at the time. The Liberal Party and Green Party also previously agreed to not run candidates in the ridings of the other’s leader. May has always seemed friendly with Trudeau and the Liberals, and her membership here offers another explanation as to why that is.

This isn’t all of them, of course, but a few that are available publicly.

Trudeau.01.Bylaws.2020
Trudeau.02.certificate.of.continuance
Trudeau.03.director.change.david.emerson.out.2016
Trudeau.03.director.change.macbain.out
Trudeau.04.notice.of.filing.return.2019

Other current and former members include:

  • Ex-Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin
  • Ex-Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cromwell
  • Ex-Supreme Court Justice Louis LeBel
  • Ex-Supreme Court Justice Marie DesChamps
  • Ex-BC Supreme Court Judge Lynn Smith
  • Ex-Senator Michael Fortier
  • Ex-NDP Leader Ed Broadbent
  • Ex-Opposition Leader Megan Leslie
  • Ex-Cabinet Minister Chuck Strahl
  • Ex-Attorney General Anne McLellan
  • Ex-Deputy Attorney General John Sims
  • Ex-Deputy Minister Michael Horgan
  • Ex-Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard
  • Ex-PEI Premier Wade MacLauchlan
  • SNC Lavalin Director Jacques Bougie
  • Roy. L Heenan (Heenan Blaikie Partner)
  • John H McCall MacBain (Euro Climate Founder)

The Trudeau Foundation comprises Justices, and many high ranking officials from across parties. Elizabeth May is just one of the people in this organization. So why isn’t this heavily reported by the media? Also, how much money does the Foundation take in annually?

From a search on Revenue Canada’s website, we are able to see that the Trudeau Foundation takes in millions annually. It is a registered charity, so the information is publicly available. Here is data from recent years.

Reporting Period Ending August 31, 2015
Here are the Directors at the time.

Receipted donations $617,210.00 (7.17%)
Non-receipted donations $16,251.00 (0.19%)
Gifts from other registered charities $1,000.00 (0.01%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $7,977,622.00 (92.63%)
Total revenue: $8,612,083.00

Charitable programs $5,891,783.00 (89.40%)
Management and administration $683,008.00 (10.36%)
Fundraising $0.00 (0.00%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $15,521.00 (0.24%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $6,590,312.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$971,144.00

Full-time employees (9)
Part-time employees (2)

Professional and consulting fees
$376,636.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$40,000 to $79,999 (5)
$80,000 to $119,999 (3)
$250,000 to $299,999 (1)

Reporting Period Ending August 31, 2016
Here are the Directors at that time.

Receipted donations $122,066.00 (2.72%)
Non-receipted donations $122,798.00 (2.74%)
Gifts from other registered charities $52,500.00 (1.17%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $4,191,679.00 (93.38%)
Total revenue: $4,489,043.00

Charitable programs $6,551,877.00 (88.80%)
Management and administration $686,611.00 (9.31%)
Fundraising $124,183.00 (1.68%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $15,250.00 (0.21%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $7,377,921.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$1,186,681.00

Full-time employees (9)
Part-time employees (3)

Professional and consulting fees
$349,738.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$40,000 to $79,999 (5)
$80,000 to $119,999 (2)
$120,000 to $159,999 (1)
$250,000 to $299,999 (1)

Reporting Period Ending August 31, 2017
Charitable programs $5,189,590.00 (85.03%)
Management and administration $733,680.00 (12.02%)
Fundraising $164,533.00 (2.70%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $15,200.00 (0.25%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $6,103,003.00

Strangely, very strangely, there is no REVENUE being reported here. Did they not take any in, or is it just missing from the filings that are available?

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$1,204,006.00

Full-time employees (11)
Part-time employees (2)

Professional and consulting fees
$409,860.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$40,000 to $79,999 (7)
$80,000 to $119,999 (2)
$120,000 to $159,999 (1)
$250,000 to $299,999 (1)

Reporting Period Ending August 31, 2018
Here are the Directors listed at that time.
Receipted donations $25,374.00 (0.42%)
Non-receipted donations $39,503.00 (0.65%)
Gifts from other registered charities $50,000.00 (0.82%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $5,996,497.00 (98.12%)
Total revenue: $6,111,374.00

Charitable programs $3,996,014.00 (72.03%)
Management and administration $1,124,793.00 (20.27%)
Fundraising $412,005.00 (7.43%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $15,000.00 (0.27%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $5,547,812.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$1,418,973.00

Full-time employees (10)
Part-time employees (8)

Professional and consulting fees
$801,966.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$40,000 to $79,999 (6)
$80,000 to $119,999 (2)
$120,000 to $159,999 (1)
$250,000 to $299,999 (1)

Reporting period ending August 31, 2019
Here are the Directors listed on the T3010

Receipted donations $7,917.00 (0.13%)
Non-receipted donations $135,618.00 (2.23%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $5,936,983.00 (97.64%)
Total revenue: $6,080,518.00

Charitable programs $5,560,040.00 (86.25%)
Management and administration $739,268.00 (11.47%)
Fundraising $135,708.00 (2.11%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $11,350.00 (0.18%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $6,446,366.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$1,361,701.00

Full-time employees (11)
Part-time employees (5)

Professional and consulting fees
$607,970.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$1 to $39,999 (1)
$40,000 to $79,999 (5)
$80,000 to $119,999 (4)
$250,000 to $299,999

As the data shows (and it’s all freely available on the CRA website), the Foundation takes in millions annually. Why isn’t the group and its donors more carefully probed by the media?

It could be that several members of the mainstream media in Canada are also part of the Trudeau Foundation. Can’t exactly hold these people to account when they are part of the swamp as well

Yes, this could very well be why the Canadian media seems to have little interest in digging into Elizabeth May, or into the Trudeau Foundation more broadly. Huge conflict of interest here.

There is a ton of information on the Trudeau Foundation that needs to be public. That will be the focus of a separate article. But since many members of the Canadian media are also affiliated with the Trudeau Foundation, they won’t do meaningful reporting into the organization.

Nor will they report of the huge conflict of interest that Elizabeth May has, in leading the Green Party of Canada, but being part of a group named after a Liberal ex-Prime Minister.

7. Trans Mountain Pipeline Protests

[1] THE COURT: Ms. May’s circumstances and her conduct do not fit the pattern of others who have pleaded guilty to criminal contempt in these proceedings and who have been subject to $500 fines or community work service orders. Ms. May is not only a member of parliament, she is also the leader of a political party whose purpose is to have increasing influence on public opinion on matters of importance in Canada. In this instance Ms. May has sought to influence others to disobey the injunction.

[2] The rule of law is not a guaranteed feature of Canadian life. It needs constant vigilance to be sustained. It is not only judges who have that obligation; so does everyone else, most particularly those members of parliament who lead political parties. We can easily look to other places in the world to see where the rule of law has never existed or has been lost. The dire consequences are on the daily news that we all see. The law applies to everyone. Nobody is entitled to pick and choose the laws or the court orders they will obey because they believe they have a higher obligation. If they choose to do so and offer public defiance of a court order, the judges of this Court have a duty to respond to that defiance.

[3] As well as being a member of parliament, Ms. May is a lawyer. Lawyers enjoy privileges in our society such as that of professional advocates in the courts. With privilege comes responsibility. In this case Ms. May had a responsibility to obey the injunction and to persuade others to do so.

[4] I note that no law or order has prevented Ms. May or any other persons from protesting the building of the Trans Mountain Pipeline even near to the worksites. The injunction expressly preserves the right to peaceful, lawful and safe protest.

2018.BCSC.Elizabeth.May.fined.protest

On March 23, 2018, May violated a court order and staged a protest against the Trans Mountain Pipeline. She was arrested, and ultimately fined $1,500.

May has no problem with the illegal demonstration, even as she is a sitting Member of Parliament. How exactly does this help out her constituents?

8. Greens Support Wet’suwet’en Protests

The Official policy of the Green party is to support the protests against the Coastal GasLink Pipeline. However, even as the protests appear to be foreign funded, the Greens still support it. Included is a very interesting video by Rebel Media, exposing money coming in from the Tides Foundation, and other eco groups.

About Our Organization
The Office of the Wet’suwet’en was created as a central office for the Wet’suwet’en Nation. The Office offers many services throughout the traditional territories focusing on the main areas of Lands and Resources, Fisheries & Wildlife, Human and Social Services and Governance.
.
The Office of the Wet’suwet’en is located in Smithers, BC. Our office has been in its operation since 1994 however was affiliated with the Gitxsan Nation for many years. Our office is not an Indian band or tribal council. The Office of the Wet’suwet’en does not receive core funding (continuous funding from one year to the next) from any form of Government.
.
Based on the priorities set by the Board of Directors, staff must negotiate program funding through various sources from; federal and provincial governments and foundations. This situation creates added responsibility for management to ensure that programs meet goals to illustrate successes and generate support for continued funding. Accessing new monies requires proactive and persistent leadership while ensuring program goals are being met and growth is effective.
.
Our office is governed by the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs residing throughout the traditional territories. The Chiefs meet at least monthly and often weekly to address specific issues that management needs direction for. Meetings are held throughout the territories in various locations.
.
As a non-profit society, the Office of the Wet’suwet’en does not provide donations due to shortage of funds.

The Office is not an Indian band or tribal council? So it is just a group of people masquerading as Band members. It is an open admission that the group is a total fake.

It relies on funding from Federal and Provincial Governments, and Foundations? Would be interesting to see which foundations are vested in seeing this group through, especially since it isn’t actually the people with land rights.

9. May Isn’t Who She Claims To Be

Elizabeth May is a “Mentor” at the Trudeau Foundation, named after Liberal PM Pierre Elliot Trudeau. It partially explains why the Liberal Party is so friendly towards her, as she is part of that same organization. If the media weren’t in bed with the Trudeau Foundation, they would have reported on just how deep this runs.

May is a former Executive Director with the Sierra Club of Canada, a charity which takes in about half a million a year from various sources. She’s silent about the donations received in order for Sierra to become neutral on the topic of immigration. While acting as the Director, she lobbied the Federal Government on at least 17 occasions for various environmental issues. Now, a sitting Member of Parliament, she is lobbied herself by a host of various special interest groups.

May also was with the International Institute for Sustainable Development, which receives many millions a year. The IISD gets money from places like the World Health Organization, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

She has been arrested for criminal contempt for violating a court order, and her party supports the obviously fraudulent protests in BC.

These items are not an exhaustive list, but should provide some insight into the interests who are really controlling May and the environmental movement as a whole.

CV #14: About That $176M Grant That AbCellera Received From Ottawa….

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

CLICK HERE, for #0: Theresa Tam; archives; articles; lobbying.
CLICK HERE, for #1: piece on Bill Gates, Pirbright, depopulation.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Coronavirus research at U of Saskatchewan.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Gates; WHO, ID2020; GAVI; Vaccines.
CLICK HERE, for #4: Gates using proxies to push vaxx agenda.
CLICK HERE, for #5: Crestview Strategy, GAVI’s lobbying firm.
CLICK HERE, for #6: people GAVI/Crestview lobbied follow Gates.
CLICK HERE, for #7: M-132, Canada financing pharma research.
CLICK HERE, for #8: Canada/WHO & “vaccine hesitancy” research.
CLICK HERE, for #9: Raj Saini, lobbied by big pharma (M-132).
CLICK HERE, for #10: pharma lobbying in Alberta legislature.
CLICK HERE, for #11: ON Pharma; Bill 160 Not Implemented.
CLICK HERE, for #12: 2006 report recommends surveillance/vaxx.
CLICK HERE, for #13: More on who Theresa Tam really is.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for AbCellera’s website main page.
http://archive.is/ksLak
CLICK HERE, for the May 3, 2020 announcement.
http://archive.is/coqF2
CLICK HERE, for AbCellera’s list of partner companies.
http://archive.is/L9D7Y
CLICK HERE, for Navdeep Bains’ tweet announcing grant.
CLICK HERE, for AbCellera’s Twitter account.
http://archive.is/0cY5a

CLICK HERE, for AbCellera and the Federal Lobbying Commissioner.
http://archive.is/7w15g
CLICK HERE, for Merck & the Lobbying Commissioner.
http://archive.is/MljjW
CLICK HERE, for GAVI (Gates funded), & Lobbying Commissioner.
http://archive.is/zE7UT
CLICK HERE, for Novartis Pharmceuticals lobbying the Feds.
http://archive.is/zNBIw
CLICK HERE, for Pfizer and lobbying Federal Government.
http://archive.is/fdk5U
CLICK HERE, for GlaxoSmithKline lobbying Ottawa.
http://archive.is/Pfv86
CLICK HERE, for Sanofi Pasteur lobbying the Federal Government.
http://archive.is/szVu6

CLICK HERE, for Gates Foundation donates to AbCellera.
http://archive.is/0XZoT
CLICK HERE, for March 12 Nasdaq announcement for AbCellera.
http://archive.is/tey19

3. AbCellera’s May 3rd Announcement

VANCOUVER, British Columbia (May 3, 2020) – AbCellera announced today it has received a commitment of up to $175.6 million in support from the Government of Canada under Innovation, Science and Economic Development’s (ISED) Strategic Innovation Fund (SIF) to expand efforts related to the discovery of antibodies for use in drugs to treat COVID-19, and to build technology and manufacturing infrastructure for antibody therapies against future pandemic threats.

In addition to the support from the Government of Canada, AbCellera is receiving support from the City of Vancouver. “The City of Vancouver is fully committed to ensuring AbCellera has the infrastructure needed as they accelerate finding a treatment for COVID-19,” said Mayor Kennedy Stewart, City of Vancouver. “We couldn’t be more proud to be on the front lines of this global effort thanks to the innovation and leadership of AbCellera.”

AbCellera is a privately held Canadian biotech with a drug discovery platform that searches and analyzes natural immune systems to find antibodies that can be used to prevent and treat disease. AbCellera’s technology, which combines high-throughput microfluidics, big data, machine learning, bioinformatics and genomics, identifies new first-in-class drugs and reduces the time it takes to bring treatments to clinic. AbCellera’s partners include leading biotechnology companies, global health organizations and six of the top 10 biopharmaceutical companies. AbCellera was founded in 2012, and completed a Series A financing round in 2018, which was led by DCVC Bio. For more information, visit www.abcellera.com.

AbCellera announces a $175.6 million contribution from the Federal Government to finance research to develop a vaccine for the coronavirus. This was also shared across social media platforms such as Twitter.

By itself, it seems harmless enough. However, there is much more behind this transfer. Let’s get into it.

4. AbCellera’s Various Partners

  • Ablynx (a Sanofi company)
  • Autolus
  • Denali Therapeutics
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • Gilead Sciences
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Global Health Foundation (Gates Foundation)
  • Kodiak Sciences
  • Lyell
  • Merck (MSD)
  • Novartis Pharmaceuticals
  • Pfizer Inc.
  • Sanofi Pasteur
  • Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.

AbCellera Biologics partners with many pharma companies. They also work with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which is obviously pushing the vaccine agenda.

5. Lobbying CDN Federal Government

As of March 2020, AbCellera is registered with the Lobbying Commissioner’s Office. There are no communication reports — yet — but AbCellera is set up and ready to go and start lobbying. Also worth noting is that AbCellera received $289,116.00 from Western Economic Diversification Canada last year, and expects to receive more this year.

Merck has been lobbying the Federal Government since 2001, on a variety of pharmaceutical related issues. There are 103 listed communications reports. And they are a major partner for AbCellera Biologics.

This has been addressed in earlier parts of the series, but the Gates funded GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations) has been lobbying the Federal Government since 2018. There are 20 communications reports on file.

Novartis has been lobbying the Federal Government since 2007, and is one of AbCellera’s partners. There are 13 communications reports filed with the registry.

Since 2007, Pfizer, one of AbCellera’s partners, has 143 communications reports filed with the Lobbying Commissioner’s Office. It has operated under a few different corporate titles though.

There are 187 communications reports on file with the Office of the Lobbying Commissioner. Also noteworthy is that GlaxoSmithKline lobbies Provincially as well.

Sanofi is yet another one of AbCellera’s partners that has long been lobbying the Federal Government. Could have contributed to why AbCellera was able to get that $175.6 million contract from Ottawa.

Is it clear now? AbCellera Biologics was able to secure this contract because several of his partners have been lobbying Ottawa (not to mention Provincial Governments as well) for pharmaceutical related issues. Getting this bid seems pretty straight forward.

There are other partners who are involved in the lobbying, but this is already getting redundant, so we will move on to other topics.

6. Gates Gave AbCellera $645,000

In November 2016, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation gave AbCellera $645,000 to help develop antibodies to treat the tuberculosis infection. So when AbCellera is getting the current grant from the Canadian Government, is it really the Gates Foundation that is getting the money?

7. AbCellera Boosting The Nasdaq?

March 12 (Reuters) – Eli Lilly Co LLY.N and privately-held AbCellera Biologics Inc on Thursday announced they would co-develop antibody products for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, a flu-like disease caused by the fast-spreading coronavirus.

With the collaboration, Lilly joins other drugmakers like Gilead Sciences Inc GILD.O and Biogen Inc BIIB.O in an attempt to develop a treatment for the disease which has caused more than 4,700 deaths globally.

“Our goal with AbCellera is to be testing potential new therapies in patients within the next four months,” Lilly’s Chief Scientific Officer Daniel Skovronsky said.

On March 12, Nasdaq.com announced that AbCellera and its partners would be working together to co-develop a vaccine for the coronavirus. The topic for another article, but it would be nice to dive in and see exactly who AbCellera Biologic’s donors are.

8. Heavy Lobbying Behind $175.6M Grant

The main take away from this is what many of AbCellera’s partners have been regularly and consistently lobbying the Federal Government. That Ottawa would hand out this kind of money is not surprising in the least.

To all readers: Know who is pushing the vaxx agenda. Know who is involved in influence peddling and cronyism. Our leaders are pushing for vaccines because they are puppets. Hopefully, some more details have become clear in this article.

CV #13: More On Who Theresa Tam Really Is

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

CLICK HERE, for #0: Theresa Tam; archives; articles; lobbying.
CLICK HERE, for #1: piece on Bill Gates, Pirbright, depopulation.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Coronavirus research at U of Saskatchewan.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Gates; WHO, ID2020; GAVI; Vaccines.
CLICK HERE, for #4: Gates using proxies to push vaxx agenda.
CLICK HERE, for #5: Crestview Strategy, GAVI’s lobbying firm.
CLICK HERE, for #6: people GAVI/Crestview lobbied follow Gates.
CLICK HERE, for #7: M-132, Canada financing pharma research.
CLICK HERE, for #8: Canada/WHO & “vaccine hesitancy” research.
CLICK HERE, for #9: Raj Saini, lobbied by big pharma (M-132).
CLICK HERE, for #10: pharma lobbying in Alberta legislature.
CLICK HERE, for #11: ON Pharma; Bill 160 Not Implemented.
CLICK HERE, for #12: 2006 report recommends surveillance/vaxx.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Tam’s bio: Chief Public Health Officer.
http://archive.is/Zk6X5
CLICK HERE, for Tam search on Royal College of Physicians
http://archive.is/8rBVY
CLICK HERE, for ON College of Physicians & Surgeons.
http://archive.is/0lvYA
CLICK HERE, for Theresa Tam, CPSO Practice Info.
https://archive.is/U1RSg
CLICK HERE, for Canada Public Health.
https://archive.is/C5r5z
CLICK HERE, for Tam’s World Health Org. profile.
https://archive.is/BFM3k
CLICK HERE, for WHO Committee Tam serves on.
https://archive.is/Qdi7Y

CLICK HERE, for Walid Ammar’s WHO profile.
https://archive.is/0Mo2x
CLICK HERE, for Hiroyoshi Endo’s WHO profile.
https://archive.is/sckoV
CLICK HERE, for Geeta Rao Gupta’s WHO profile.
https://archive.is/9Z6R3
CLICK HERE, for Jeremey Konyndyk’s WHO profile.
https://archive.is/o2zTK
CLICK HERE, for Malebona Precious Matsoso’s WHO profile.
https://archive.is/WItki
CLICK HERE, for Felicity Harvey’s WHO profile.
https://archive.is/cmouH

3. Constructing A Timeline

Unfortunately, there is very little information available on her. No date of birth, or place of birth beyond “growing up in Hong Kong”. Even at the schools she claims to have completed, there is no searchable information. One would think they would happy to boast about the accomplishments of their alumnus.

The following credential dates are from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, but it doesn’t look like Tam has actually practiced medicine at all. There are publications with her name on it, but the rest of her past is a mystery.

1965 – Tam is born in HK (source: Wikipedia)
1989 – U of Nottingham medical degree (CPSO profile)
1996 – U of Alberta pediatric residency completed (CPSO profile)
1997 – UBC fellowship in infectious diseases (CPSO profile)
1999 – Independent Practice Certificate issues (CPSO profile)

In her CPSO profile, Tam claims not to have used any other names, which would contradict speculation that she once went by the name “Tan Yongshi”.

4. Tam’s CPSO Profile Page

The information here can be found at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, (CPSO), the board which licenses doctors. The profile lists “EDUCATION” as coming from the University of Nottingham (in the UK) in 1989. Yes, it was followed up with the College of Physicians and Surgeons that it referred to a medical degree. However, no undergraduate degree is listed.

It also lists finishing a University of Alberta pediatric residency in June 1996. Severn years? That seems to be a particularly long time to finish, so what was she doing in the meantime?

The fellowship in the University of British Columbia in pediatric infectious diseases was finished in September 1997.

What’s interesting though is that in researching these schools: Nottingham, UAlberta and UBC, there is no mention of Theresa Tam at all. Once would think that a graduate who is not “Canada’s top doctor” would warrant special attention and adoration. But there isn’t any mention of her at all.

It also states:

First certificate of registration issued: Independent Practice Certificate

However, Tam was getting into government around that time. It doesn’t look like she ever practiced — ANYWHERE. Yet she has become “Canada’s Top Doctor”. She graduated medical school in 1989 and never got a license to practice until a decade later?

5. No Practice Information In Profile

Dr. Theresa Tam was named Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer on June 26, 2017. She is a physician with expertise in immunization, infectious disease, emergency preparedness and global health security.

Dr. Tam obtained her medical degree from the University of Nottingham in the U.K. She completed her paediatric residency at the University of Alberta and her fellowship in paediatric infectious diseases at the University of British Columbia. She is a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and has over 55 peer-reviewed journal publications in public health. She is also a graduate of the Canadian Field Epidemiology Program.

Dr. Tam has held several senior leadership positions at the Public Health Agency of Canada, including as the Deputy Chief Public Health Officer and the Assistant Deputy Minister for Infectious Disease Prevention and Control. During her 20 years in public health, she provided technical expertise and leadership on new initiatives to improve communicable disease surveillance, enhance immunization programs, strengthen health emergency management and laboratory biosafety and biosecurity. She has played a leadership role in Canada’s response to public health emergencies including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), pandemic influenza H1N1 and Ebola.

Dr. Tam has served as an international expert on a number of World Health Organization committees and has participated in multiple international missions related to SARS, pandemic influenza and polio eradication.

Again, it doesn’t appear from this that Theresa Tam has ever actually practiced medicine. Her first authorization for independent practice was issued in 1999, and she has been in various Government roles for 20 years now.

To get even stranger, it appears that the profile provided here is a cut and paste equivalent of the World Health Organization profile for Tam.

6. Identical Photo/Profile With WHO

Dr. Theresa Tam was named Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer on June 26, 2017. She is a physician with expertise in immunization, infectious disease, emergency preparedness and global health security.

Dr. Tam obtained her medical degree from the University of Nottingham in the U.K. She completed her paediatric residency at the University of Alberta and her fellowship in paediatric infectious diseases at the University of British Columbia. She is a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and has over 55 peer-reviewed journal publications in public health. She is also a graduate of the Canadian Field Epidemiology Program.

Dr. Tam has held several senior leadership positions at the Public Health Agency of Canada, including as the Deputy Chief Public Health Officer and the Assistant Deputy Minister for Infectious Disease Prevention and Control. During her 20 years in public health, she provided technical expertise and leadership on new initiatives to improve communicable disease surveillance, enhance immunization programs, strengthen health emergency management and laboratory biosafety and biosecurity. She has played a leadership role in Canada’s response to public health emergencies including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), pandemic influenza H1N1 and Ebola.

Dr. Tam has served as an international expert on a number of World Health Organization committees and has participated in multiple international missions related to SARS, pandemic influenza and polio eradication.

Sound familiar? It is a cut-and-paste equivalent of what is listed in the Canadian profile. Lazy writing, or is she just serving 2 masters?

7. WHO Committee Tam Serves On

PURPOSE 1. The purpose of the Independent Oversight and Advisory Committee (the Committee”), for the WHO Health Emergencies Programme (“the Programme”), established by the Director-General, is to provide oversight and monitoring of the development and performance of the Programme, guide the Programme’s activities, and report its findings through the Executive Board to the Health Assembly. The Committee will advise the Director-General on issues within its mandate. Reports of the Committee will be shared with the Secretary General of the United Nations and with the United Nations’ InterAgency Standing Committee.

WHO.independent.advisory.committee

Tam is in the obvious conflict of interest in both being:
(a) Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer;
(b) serving on this WHO Committee

So does she serve Canada, or the World Health Organization?

Dr Geeta Rao Gupta has over 20 years of experience in international development programming, advocacy and research with UNICEF.

Prior to her appointment as Deputy Executive Director (Programmes), Dr Rao Gupta served as a senior fellow at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation from 2010 to 2011. She acted as the senior adviser to the Global Development Programme on the strategic direction and management of a cross-cutting range of issues and projects.

One of the WHO Committee Members that Tam works with was previously a senior fellow at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Would be interesting to ask her take on mass vaccinations. Now, let’s see who else is on the Committee.

Prior to his appointment, Mr Konyndyk worked for Mercy Corps, a global relief and development organization, as its Director of Policy and Advocacy. From 2008 to 2013, he led high-level strategic outreach to governments, donors, the UN, and other partners with a focus on resilience and humanitarian responses to Sudan, Syria, and the Horn of Africa. From 2003 to 2008, he served as the American Refugee Committee’s Country Director in South Sudan, Uganda, and Guinea, designing and leading humanitarian responses in conflict and post-conflict settings. Mr Konyndyk earlier served as a Refugee Officer with the US Department of State’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration where he managed the Bureau’s portfolio for the Balkans. In addition, he led non-governmental organization relief programmes in Kosovo and Albania following the Kosovo refugee crisis.

For those not familiar, Mercy Corps is an NGO who aims to flood the West with migrants and refugees from Africa and the Middle East.

8. Pharma Funding World Health Org., 2017

WHO.Contributions2017Listings

Note: this is by no means an exhaustive list. However, it should provide some insight as to who is funding the World Health Organization, and give a hint as to what the agenda is.

From Schedule 2:

Institution Amount of Money
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation $324,654,317
World Bank $145,568,331
GAVI Alliance $133,365,051
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) $18,251,940
Vital Strategies $10,647,550
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) $7,365,666
Hoffmann-La Roche and Co $6,628,090
Gilead Sciences Inc. $3,124,450
Merck Sharp and Dohme Chibret $1,652,226
Bayer AG $1,158,060
Rockefeller Foundation $748,945
Merck $510,000
Novartis $500,000
International Organization for Migration (IOM) $332,290
Kitasato Daiichi Sankyo Vaccine Co., Ltd(PVS) $220,155
Path Vaccine Solutions(PVS) $294,582
Fluart Innovative Vaccines Ltd. $73,645
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of PH $88,069
Path Vaccine Solutions (PVS) $73,385
Open Society Institute Budapest Foundation $55,000
Int’l Fed. of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Ass’n $50,000

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the biggest individual donor (excluding nations). Geeta Rao Gupta is a former Senior Fellow at the Gates Foundation. She is also one of the people on the World Health Org. Committee that Theresa Tam works on.

While Tam is “supposed” to be representing the interests of Canadians, her other employer, the World Health Organization, receives large funding from:

  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • World Bank
  • GAVI Alliance (Gates funded
  • The Pharma lobby

Side note: The UN Development Program is helping to fund the International Vaccine Institution (which partners with VIDO-InterVac at the University of Saskatchewan). Gates and GAVI help fund that too.

Can it be any surprise that Tam sees mass vaccination as the solution to this so-called “pandemic” in Canada? After all, it’s what her employers want to see happen. And this is hardly the only time this has happened. Certainly individual countries do make significant contributions to the WHO, but the pharma lobbying can’t be ignored.

9. Pharma Funding World Health Org., 2018

Also worth a look is the 2018 statement of contributions.
WHO.Contributions.Statement.2018

From Schedule 2:

Institution Amount of Money
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation $228,970,196
GAVI Alliance $158,545,964
World Bank $20,556,661
UNITAID $19,688,301
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, Malaria $14,769,596
Hoffmann-La Roche and Co., Ltd $6,624,600
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) $6,504,848
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) $5,482,827
Medimmune $2,086,169
KNCV Tuberculosis Foundation $2,045,388
Merck & Co., Inc $1,184,398
Novartis $500,000
Kitasato Daiichi Sankyo Vaccine Co., Ltd $294,427
Islamic Development Bank $200,000
World Hepatitis Alliance $200,000
SK Bioscience $122,678
Fluart Innovative Vaccines Ltd. $73,607
Int’l Fed. of Anthroposophic Medical Ass’s $50,000
Takeda Pharmaceuticals International GmbH $19,702

Again, this is nowhere near everyone who contributes to the World Health Organization. However, these are some of the parties who fund it. And Theresa Tam sits on this committee, at the same time she claims to be acting in the best interests of Canadians.

10. Tam A WHO Veteran

How international health emergencies are handled holds lessons for Canadian public health on a range of fronts, from infectious diseases to opioid misuse. That’s the view of Dr. Theresa Tam, who became Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer on an interim basis when Dr. Gregory Taylor retired in December 2016. A competition now underway will determine who will eventually fill the spot, but neither the Privy Council Office, which appoints the position, nor the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) has provided a timeline.

Tam has served on three World Health Organization (WHO) emergency committees: Ebola, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and poliovirus. Emergency committees are convened under the International Health Regulations (IHR) to decide whether disease outbreaks constitute “public health emergencies of international concern” and what measures should be taken to deal with them. Canada has had members on all six of the emergency committees established since the IHR came into force in 2007.

Tam served on several WHO Committees in the 2000’s, and was already “considered a veteran” when appointed to the current role. A Google Scholar search will come up with publications in her name, but they are in the last 20 years or so.

Still it doesn’t help determine what she was doing prior to 2000. Very little information available for the early years.

11. Who Is Theresa Tam Really?

It’s difficult to say. Beyond some very limited information available online, there is next to nothing on her past and early years. Her profile states “growing up in Hong Kong”, and “born in 1965”, yet provides no details.

The schools Tam graduated from don’t have any searchable information on her, which is extremely odd, given her high profile. She graduated medical school in 1989 but doesn’t appear to have obtained a license until 1999. Tam then spent the next 20 years in various Government public health roles, and it seems not to have practiced medicine at all.

Tam did co-author a 2006 report (see CV #12) recommending that vaccination be available to the entire population, and that surveillance apparatus be in place. In fact, she co-authored many research papers in the 2000s. She also participated in the 2010 film “Outbreak” and talked about putting tracking bracelets on, and forced quarantine. Tam spend years in various World Health Organization roles, which is a serious conflict of interest.

While acting as Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer, she sits a World Health Organization Committee. She is part of that Committee along with an ex-Gates Foundation operative. The WHO gets a substantial amount of funding from:

  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • World Bank
  • GAVI Alliance (Gates funded
  • The Pharma lobby

In fact, if you read through the previous articles in the series, you will see that a lot of the parties funding WHO (GAVI, GlaxoSmithKline, etc…) are the same ones lobbying the Provinces and Federal Government in Canada. In some sense it “isn’t” a conflict of interest, as Tam’s employers are funded by same special interest groups.

Is Theresa Tam even a Canadian citizen? When did she arrive? There’s no specific information available to the public. She’s like a ghost.