Category: NGO/CS

Posted on

CV #25(C): Brian Pallister Hires Intelligence & Detention Firm G4S For “Security” In Manitoba

Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister has publicly floated the idea of a mandatory curfew, which he claims will be “limited”. He has since banned the sale of what he calls “non-essential goods” in stores. However, he is not being forthcoming with residents about G4S, the security firm he brought in.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy compromised, shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. Important Links

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_G4S#Immigrant-detainee_labour
(2) https://twitter.com/BrianPallister/status/1323638895586779136
(3) https://archive.is/p3MnX
(4) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/covid19-enforcement-update-manitoba-pallister-1.5804774
(5) https://archive.is/8brqz
(6) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-florida-shooting-g4s-idUSKCN0Z02QS
G4S: Services That We Offer
(7) https://archive.is/VnobR
(8) https://www.g4s.com/en-gb/what-we-do/care-and-justice-services/custody-and-detention-services
(9) https://archive.is/LEWya
(10) https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/entertainment/story/2020-09-24/garden-grove-approves-1-8m-contract-outsourcing-jail-security-service-to-g4s
(11) https://archive.is/UhceY
(12) https://www.g4s.com/what-we-do/care-and-justice
(13) https://www.g4s.com/en-us/media/news/2020/04/14/g4s-adds-ai-based-stabilitas-critical-event-intelligence-engine-to-roc-offering
(14) ttps://www.g4s.com/news-and-insights/insights/2018/08/30/the-future-of-drones-in-security
(15) https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/australia-to-deploy-drones-to-photograph-unmasked-faces-drivers-too-far-from-home
(16) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/G4S-Contact-Tracing-Info.pdf
(17) https://www.g4s.com/en-ca/vancouver
(18) https://indianexpress.com/article/business/companies/gates-foundation-sells-stake-in-britains-g4s/
(19) https://www.g4s.com/investors/regulatory-announcements/2016/12/02/agreement-reached-on-sale-of-g4s-israel

3. CBC Article And Video On Hiring G4S

Private security officers will crack down on rule breakers after shoppers crowded into big-box stores, where many bought non-essential goods during the first weekend of the province’s latest lockdown.

The province has hired security firm G4S Canada to boost its enforcement of COVID-19 regulations, and their personnel should be handing out tickets by this weekend, Premier Brian Pallister said Tuesday.

The province is also filing charges in addition to levying fines against those who took part in a rally in Steinbach this past weekend where protesters flouted COVID-19 regulations, Pallister said.

To start with the obvious question: who does Brian Pallister think he is, to determine what is and what isn’t “essential items” to purchase? Aren’t conservatives supposed to support free will and individual choice? And even if this were legitimate, why is it necessary to hire outside sources?

Beyond that, Pallister pitches this as glorified mall cops. However, this is disingenuous when you consider the other skills and resources G4S has. Perhaps this hiring is more about doing overall surveillance on Manitobans overall.

4. Mass Killer Omar Mateen Ex-G4S Employee

Bit of a sidenote: Omar Mateen, who killed 49 people in an Orlando nightclub in 2016, was an employee of G4S for years. They have been criticized for not doing enough to look into his background.

5. G4S Offers Consulting Services As Well

Whether threats are from crime or terrorism, or simply from entering new ventures markets or territories, we work to design and implement effective measures to mitigate or manage these risks. Should the unexpected happen, we can support clients in times of emergency or crisis.
.
We enable our clients to develop resilience to business risk by providing:
.
-Proactive intelligence gathering, analysis and research, using the latest techniques and processes
-World class risk advisory and mitigation services
-Outstanding crisis management and response capability
-Expert advice on risk management technologies.
–Specialist training and capacity building programmes

EVERY SOLUTION STARTS WITH UNDERSTANDING THE THREAT
Our team of 24/7 analysts provide insight and intelligence into the threats that our clients face. By understanding the threat we can use our expertise, global resources and intelligence to work with our clients to develop a solution which matches their exact requirements. With the aim of not only protecting people and assets but improving business efficiency.
.
We work with some of the world leading security consultants with expertise in Crowded Places, Aviation, High-Risk Environments, Secure by Design, Major Events, CNI, Counter-Terrorism, CBRN and Blast Modelling.

The client in this case is the Manitoba Government. What if the threat G4S was supposed to prevent was an informed population rising up tp assert its rights? This is much, MUCH more than simply doing local security for shopping centers. Here is a promotional video in Canada.

6. G4S Operates Private Prisons

G4S has been providing value for money, innovation, and social benefit within the criminal justice sector in the United Kingdom since the first private sector prison in the country was opened in 1992. Since then, expertise from around the business has been used to expand and improve our offering.

One of the services G4S offers is in private prisons. They have existed (at least in the UK), since 1992. In September of this year, Garden Grove switched to G4S. These services are also offered in Australia. It should be noted that G4S is also involved in running immigration detention as well.

7. Using AI To Track Covid-19 Hotspots

“The recent COVID-19 outbreak has made evident the need for local intelligence that can be globally communicated, as businesses with people and operations around the world need quick, comprehensive and actionable information to effectively respond to hotspots and make business-critical decisions daily,” said G4S Americas CEO John Kenning. “G4S ROC analysts are able to use the Stabilitas’ AI platform to provide customers with actionable data to help protect their employees, operations and assets. Our strategic partnership with Stabilitas enhances the integrated security service offerings we provide customers under our Security Operations Center (SOC) Practice.”

Stabilitas’ AI-based platform also equips G4S ROC staff to deliver real-time intelligence, travel risk management, asset visualization and mass notifications to clients, employees, travelers and assets to keep their operations secure, a particularly valuable resource in the face of rapidly evolving global threats such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The platform filters more than 17,000 trusted data sources across government, weather and geological, local and international, social media, IoT networks and other external data sources into a single feed that identifies critical events and correlates those on a global scale, far surpassing the capabilities of manual monitoring and analysis processes.

G4S claims to be able to better monitor and track outbreaks in this “pandemic” using artificial intelligence technology. Since they’ll be providing actual security, at least in Manitoba, this will effectively cut out the middleman.

8. G4S Implementing Drone Technology

G4S now has drones in its inventory, allowing it to conduct search and surveillance in places and ways that had not been previously possible. Australia has an application for this technology: catching people who aren’t wearing masks.

9. G4S Offers Tech For Contact Tracing

If you have an existing security access system, you may not realize that it can be used to supplement your contact tracing program. Access systems can track an employee or visitor and determine who else was in the same area at the same time. They provide timely information which is critical for contact protocols. You
can choose the amount of time to track. If an employee or visitor displays virus symptoms, these tools can tell you who that person may have come into contact with, and provide the data to notify other individuals who may have been exposed. Ongoing reports can be generated to maintain compliance and meet everchanging regulations.

G4S offers electronic visitor management systems to assist with contact tracing. These systems can prompt people to answer specific questions related to self-declaration (e.g. have you been in contact with anyone who has displayed symptoms of a fever in the past 14 days?) and can be used to alert personnel to any answers that may require secondary screening. As these systems are designed for employees and visitors to provide basic contact information, they can be used to generate a prescribed report as to who was in the building, when they were there and with whom they met.

Contact tracing benefits come from the basic information a user would enter when prompted, creating a contact list and a record of compliance as to who had entered, when they did and a phone number to reach them

G4S sees the contact tracing industry as an area for significant growth. Given the increase surveillance Governments are demanding, it seems smart from a business perspective.

10. G4S Also Involved In Airport Security

G4S is proud to provide services throughout the province of British Columbia.
.
G4S is Canada’s leading security service provider to the energy sector. G4S specializes in providing service to mining, forestry, retail, special events & property management. G4S provides screening services to airports throughout British Columbia and the Yukon in partnership with the CANADIAN AIR TRANSPORT SECURITY AUTHORITY (CATSA).

Yes, the same group involved with contact tracing, artificial intelligence, drones, and pandemic management also has a foothold in airport security in Canada.

11. Gates Foundation Sells Shares Of G4S Stock

Until the Spring of 2014, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was actually a co-owner of G4S, holding approximately 3% of the stock. However, it has since been sold off.

12. Sale: G4S Israel To FIMI Opportunity Funds

Effective December 31, 2015, G4S Israel was sold to FIMI Opportunity Funds for the equivalent of about 88 million British Pounds. Despite the change in ownership, G4S would still retain a presence in Israel. It’s denied that the sale had anything to do with BDS (ban, divest, sanction) efforts launched in many countries.

13. Why Is G4S Really In Manitoba?

Premier Brian Pallister made it seem like he was just hiring extra security guards due to a personnel shortage. However, when it’s considered what G4S does, and what they are capable of, what is the purpose of this? This certainly seems like overkill — unless there’s another agenda.

Yes, the company has been used for tickets and commercial security before. However, in light of everything going on, this doesn’t seem right.

If Ottawa or any Provincial Government ever wanted to give the order for G4S to start rounding up and detaining political dissidents, they would have the capability to do it.

Posted on

Green New Deal Group, Taking Lessons From The 2008 Banking Bailout

Think recent public efforts to convince the public to act on climate change just happened? No, they are the result of years of planning, and from an organization called Green New Deal Group.

There is some real strategy at play here. Divert people’s attention with protests, riots, and public movements, and the agenda can be quietly passed. After all, how much coverage do the various treaties we sign (and bills we pass), actually get?

1. About Green New Deal Group

As in past times of crises, disparate groups have come together to propose a new solution to an epochal challenge. The Green New Deal Group drew inspiration from the ambition of President Roosevelt’s comprehensive response to the Great Depression to propose a modernised version, a ‘Green New Deal’ in 2008. It was designed to kick start a rapid transition to a new economy shaped to prevent a climate breakdown and transform a failed financial system. The Green New Deal will power a renewables revolution, create thousands of green-collar jobs across the economy and rein in the distorting and socially-destructive power of the finance sector while making more low-cost capital available for pressing priorities.

Meeting since early 2007, the membership of the Green New Deal Group is drawn to reflect a wide range of expertise relating politics and economics, and the climate, nature and inequality crises. The views and recommendations of the Green New Deal series of reports, are those of the group writing in their individual capacities.

The Green New Deal Group is, in alphabetical order:
.
Larry Elliott, Economics Editor of the Guardian, Colin Hines, Co-Director of Finance for the Future, former head of Greenpeace International’s Economics Unit, Jeremy Leggett, founder and Chairman of Solarcentury and SolarAid, Clive Lewis, Labour MP, Caroline Lucas, Green Party MP, Richard Murphy, Professor of Practice, City University, Director Tax Research LLP, Ann Pettifor, Director, Policy Research in Macroeconomics (PRIME), Charles Secrett, Advisor on Sustainable Development, former Director of Friends of the Earth, Andrew Simms, Co-Director, New Weather Institute, Coordinator, The Rapid Transition Alliance, Assistant Director, Scientists for Global Responsibility. Geoff Tily Senior Economist, TUC

Those are the people who make up the Green New Deal Group. In essence, this is the brainchild behind the eco movement in recent years.

2. GNDG Used To Reboot After 2008 Crash

In the coverage of the causes and likely future effects of the credit crunch, such grim parallels are becoming commonplace. But it’s now time to move from problems to solutions, and here too the Depression can form a useful reference point. Franklin Roosevelt’s action programme for dealing with the aftermath of the late 1920s credit crunch was threefold: first, strictly regulate the cause of the problem – the greedy and feckless finance sector; second, get people back to work, and generate business opportunities by a New Deal. This invested billions of dollars in training, better working conditions and a huge range of infrastructural projects such as highways, dams and bridges. Finally, fund this in part by an increase in taxes on big business and the rich – a measure which also had the positive effect of dramatically decreasing inequality.

Today the re-regulation of finance is even being discussed among consenting free market adults in the columns of the Financial Times. My colleague, environmentalist Colin Hines, has fleshed out the details of a Green New Deal which could help re-boot the economy after the credit crash, while putting serious money into addressing climate change.

As a result of the 2008 crash, this group decided that it would make a great opportunity to completely remake their economy, and deal with climate change in the first place. They reasoned that if banks were worth pouring trillions into, then the environment must be as well. The argument does have some merit to it.

Notice that it’s compared to the “New Deal” that Franklin Delano Roosevelt launched in the 1930s. This is not the last time that comparison will come up.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced the U.S. public to the Green New Deal in 2019, just after taking office. It wasn’t some brainstorm she had, but had been drawn up many years ago. The YouTuber, Mr. Reagan, did address that AOC was a puppet, but he missed how far back the plan went.

3. GND Group To Solve “Triple Crunch”

Can I trust the bank to look after my money? Clickety clack. How much has my house fallen in value? Clickety clack. Will high fuel prices mean I can’t keep my car on the road? Can I afford to buy enough food for the family? Clickety clack. Will I lose my job, and why is everyone making me paranoid about climate change when there’s nothing I can do about it? Clickety, clickety clack … and then back to the beginning. The “triple crunch” of a credit-fuelled financial crisis, accelerating climate change and soaring energy prices – how did we get into this mess? In the face of so many simultaneous crises, we all have legitimate questions for the governments that allowed us to sleepwalk into this situation.

The Green New Deal was dreamed up as a way to solve multiple problems, such as: (a) financial crisis; (b) climate change; and (c) energy prices all at once.

While it’s nice to see the financial crisis addressed, this group seems to miss the elephant in the room: central banking. It’s that the Government legislates in such a way that the U.S. is forced to borrow — at interest — from the Federal Reserve, a private organization. Do they not know about any of this?

4. History Of The Green New Deal

Where the Green New Deal came from
.
The idea of a Green New Deal first arose at the time of 2007-2008 financial crisis roughly simultaneously in the us and the UK. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote an article in January 2007 that suggested the approach. The same year the UK-based Green New Deal group formed, independently developing and publishing the first full proposal for a Green New Deal in July 2008. The group’s report laid out the architecture of the Green New Deal for the first time: combining reining in the power of big finance and transforming the way that government manages the economy with a plan to transform the economy and society to meet the challenges of climate change. The group also published several subsequent reports developing the idea over the following years. The Green New Deal was then taken up by the Green Party in the UK, by Green parties across Europe and by the United Nations Environment Programme. In 2018, the idea was revived by us senator Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Sunrise Movement in the US following a meeting between a member of her team and UK Green New Deal group member Ann Pettifor. When AOC published a bill for the Green New Deal with Senator Edward Markey in February 2019 the idea caught on around the world.

Far from being some sort of a revolutionary, AOC was simply the latest person assigned to run with the agenda. While it is easy to mock the GND outright, it seems that elements of it are embedded within Agenda 2030 and the Great Reset.

5. UK PM Gordon Brown Promotes GND

Moving the UK to a low-carbon economy will create 400,000 new jobs over the next eight years, Gordon Brown has told a summit in London.
.
The prime minister called for an international “green new deal” to boost the environmental sector and help lift the global economy out of recession.
.
This will increase “confidence and certainty”, he added.
.
But unions and environmental groups called for more funding for green projects, along with better regulation.
The government has set a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050.

When he was Prime Minister of the UK, Gordon Brown openly called for a “Green New Deal” to rebuild the country after the banking collapse.

6. Green Quantitative Easing

As the Bank of England moves closer towards announcing an unprecedented third round of ‘Quantitative Easing’, experts are calling for this newly created money to be used more productively and effectively to achieve key social and environmental objectives. During the last round of Quantitative Easing (’QE’) the Bank of England purchased £275bn worth of government bonds with money it newly created. As the Bank of England prepares the ground to inject a likely £50bn to £75bn into the economy, the UK’s Green Party MP, Caroline Lucas, and Southampton University banking expert Professor Richard Werner, are calling for this money injection to be used for green projects that directly improve the environment and long-term quality of life, while creating many new jobs. Said Professor Richard A. Werner, Director of the Centre for Banking, Finance and Sustainable Development at the University of Southampton: “Many people would like money creation to be used to help the wider economy directly and to implement some badly needed green projects that would enhance the sustainability of the economy and improve the environment—as well as create new jobs.”

Green Quantitative Easing Paper

In 2012, Richard Werner submitted a proposal for “green quantitative easing”. In short, it would still involve printing off large sums of money. However, it would be spent on environmental causes, instead of being poured into banks.

7. GND Group UK Budget Submission

A Green New Deal Group briefing, The Green New Deal: Securing the Future, was sent to the Chancellor ahead of the March 2020 budget, with a letter signed by MPs from all the main opposition parties.

As the briefing, written by Green New Deal Group member Richard Murphy sets out, the Green New Deal Group have long argued that it is prudent for government to borrow (by issuing bonds) to invest in the transformation of our infrastructure and businesses while interest rates are low. The briefing shows how such government borrowing could be financed in a way that also creates a safe place for the nation’s pensions and savings, by making simple changes to existing tax incentives. Much of the £70bn saved annually in ISAs could then be invested in government-backed green bonds at an interest rate of 1.85% (the UK government’s current average cost of borrowing) and a quarter of the £100bn currently invested in pensions could be directed into Green New Deal investment.

A budget proposal was submitted to the UK Government in March 2020. It was written by the Green New Deal Group, and was able to get the signatures of many politicians.

8. Protests/Riots Partly Entirely For Show

In recent years, there have been loud environmental movements going on across the Western World. There have been efforts to shut down industries, pipelines, and society altogether. These people seem oblivious to the fact that shutting down oil (for example), would lead to a drastic reduction in their living standards.

However, this is a sleight of hand. Even though politicians appear to be turned off by the antics of violent protesters, they work behind the scenes to ensure that the goals are enacted anyway. Treaties such as Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, and the Great Reset are designed to achieve many of the same goals.

BOLD Like A Leopard wrote a great piece on some of the forces acting behind the scenes. It’s well worth the time to read.

Now we look at the bigger picture. While the public is distracted by very visible protests over environmental issues, just quietly implement them behind the scenes. People likely won’t notice. They are too focused on radicals who seem hell bent on destabilization, though those are distractions.

9. Bankers Run Climate Change Movement

This will seem a cruel twist, but central banks are heavily behind the green movement. One such group is the Network for Greening the Financial System, which currently boasts 75 members.

Hard to be part of the resistance when the financial sector supports, (or at least appears to support), green initiatives. It’s unclear, however, if the banks simply co-opted the movement, or whether they were always running things from behind the scenes.

Green New Deal Group Main Page
https://archive.is/ncRvA
WayBack Machine Archives

About Us: Green New Deal Group
https://archive.is/rxRpv
WayBack Machine Archive

https://greennewdealgroup.org/2008/04/
Guardian 2008: We Wanted A Green New Deal
https://greennewdealgroup.org/2008/07/
Guardian 2008 Article On The Triple Crunch
https://greennewdealgroup.org/2009/03/
Gordon Brown Calls For Global Green New Deal
https://greennewdealgroup.org/2009/07/
The Ecologist: Bailed Out Banks Should Fund GND
Green New Deal Group Budget Proposal
Network For Greening The Financial System

AOC: This Is Our World War II
Mr. Reagan: The Brains Behind AOC
NBC On Sunrise Movement

Posted on

Media In Canada Obedient To Gov’t Covid Narrative Largely Because Of Subsidies

Justin Trudeau (or his clone), and Theresa Tam take questions from the obedient and largely compliant media. Some highlights from the video include:

[1] No clear answer given about quarantine camps
[2] Journalists asked to be puppets and discredit alternative sources
[3] Social media censored/demonitized, made invisible by algorithm
[4] Information should be checked against official sources — not necessarily for accuracy
[5] Asking people to do testimonials, no specification it be true
[6] Innoculate people “from vaccine misinformation”
[7] Public should only trust official sources

One has to wonder why there is no skepticism whatsoever shown, and why members of the media are toeing the line like this. And there is a simple answer: money.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. Our democracy is thoroughly compromised, as shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. Important Links

Reminder: 2018 Fall Economic Update To Subsidize Journalism
2019 Budget For Canada

CLICK HERE, for Digital News Subscription Tax Credit.
https://archive.is/4of5V
WayBack Machine Archive

CLICK HERE, for Refundable Labour Tax Credit (25% of salaries)
https://archive.is/SKSh1
WayBack Machine Archive

CLICK HERE, for Canadian Periodical Fund. ($1.5M limit)
https://archive.is/yZP02
WayBack Machine Archive

CLICK HERE, for April 2020 announcement on media subsidies
https://archive.is/53cVu
WayBack Machine Archive

CLICK HERE, for Special Measures For Journalism (Covid)
https://archive.is/4JeLG
WayBack Machine Archive

3. Reminder Of $595M Media Grant In Nov 2018

Support for Canadian Journalism
A strong and independent news media is crucial to a well-functioning democracy. It empowers citizens by providing them with the information they need to make informed decisions on important issues, and also serves to hold powerful institutions—including governments—to account by bringing to light information that might not otherwise be made available to the public. In short, strong and independent journalism serves the public good—for Canada, and for Canadians. Canadians have a right to a wide range of independent news sources that they can trust, and government has a responsibility to ensure that Canadians have access to these kinds of news sources.

A New Non-Refundable Tax Credit for Subscriptions to Canadian Digital News Media
.
To support Canadian digital news media organizations in achieving a more financially sustainable business model,
the Government intends to introduce a new temporary, non-refundable 15-per-cent tax credit for qualifying subscribers of eligible digital news media.
.
In total, the proposed access to tax incentives for charitable giving, refundable tax credit for labour costs and non-refundable tax credit for subscriptions will cost the federal government an estimated $595 million over the next five years. Additional details on these measures will be provided in Budget 2019.

It was 2 years ago that this media subsidization was covered on this site. See page 40 in the report. The goal was to keep otherwise unprofitable media afloat usin taxpayer money in order to hold the Government to account, and to promote diverse ideas.

Now, if holding the Government to account, and promoting viewpoint diversity were the results, then it “may” be worthwhile. But as we will see, that’s not the goal at all.

4. 2019 Budget Includes These Measures

Supporting Canadian Journalism
A strong and independent news media is crucial to a well-functioning democracy. Recognizing the vitally important role the media play in helping citizens make informed decisions about important issues, in the 2018 Fall Economic Statement the Government announced its intention to introduce three new tax measures to support Canadian journalism:
• A new refundable tax credit for journalism organizations.
• A new non-refundable tax credit for subscriptions to Canadian digital news.
• Access to charitable tax incentives for not-for-profit journalism.
As previously announced, the Government will establish an independent panel of experts from the Canadian journalism sector to assist the Government in implementing these measures, including recommending eligibility criteria. Given the importance of ensuring that media outlets are able to operate with full independence, the Government proposes to establish an independent administrative body that will be responsible for recognizing journalism organizations as being eligible for any of the three measures.
Further details are available in Tax Measures: Supplementary Information.

That’s from page 173 of the 2019 budget. The goal is to provide: (a) tax credits for organizations; (b) tax credits for subscribers; and (c) further tax incentives for NFP journalism. More details are listed on page 373.

Of course, there will be an “independent panel” deciding on who gets this money. It can’t be too independent, since real journalists call out the lies and fabrications of governments.

5. Digital News Subscription Tax Credit

Qualifying subscription expense
A qualifying subscription expense is the amount a subscriber paid in the year for a digital news subscription with a QCJO that does not hold a license as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Broadcasting Act. To qualify for the credit, a digital news subscription must entitle an individual to access content in digital form that is primarily original written news.

How to apply
A new form, T622, Digital News Subscription Tax Credit, and process will be published so that organizations can get confirmation that the subscriptions they offer are eligible as qualifying subscriptions. Eligible subscriptions will be published on the CRA’s webpages.

Organizations whose subscriptions no longer qualify for the credit are required to inform their subscribers.

How to claim the credit
Individuals who have entered into an agreement with a QCJO for a qualifying subscription that is eligible, can claim the credit on their income tax return for the years 2020 to 2024.

This essentially amounts to pushing propaganda, since the Government can easily decide what does and does not count as a Qualifying Canadian Journalism Organization. It effectively subsidizes (at taxpayer expenses), outlets and topics it wants to see advanced.

However, this is not the only subsidy that is now in place.

6. Refundable Labour Tax Credit (25% Of Salary)

1. What is the proposed new refundable labour tax credit?
The budget proposes to introduce a new refundable labour tax credit (Tax Credit) on qualifying labour expenditures (Qualifying Labour) payable to an eligible newsroom employee of a qualifying journalism organization (Qualified Organization).

4. What is Qualifying labour?
Qualifying Labour for a taxation year includes the salary or wages payable by a Qualified Organization to an eligible newsroom employee in respect of the portion of the taxation year throughout which the organization is a Qualified Organization. The salaries and wages will be reduced by the total of all amounts of assistance that a Qualified Organization received or is entitled to receive in respect of the salary of eligible newsroom employees. The amount of Qualifying Labour will be limited to $55,000 in respect of each eligible newsroom employee.

5. What salary and wages are eligible as Qualifying Labour?
Qualifying Labour will include salary and wages payable to an eligible newsroom employee in respect of a period on or after January 1, 2019. As such, salary and wages that are in respect of a period before January 1, 2019 will not be Qualifying Labour. In addition, salary and wages will be Qualifying Labour of an organization only if they are in respect of a period throughout which the organization is a Qualified Organization.

6. What is an eligible newsroom employee?
An eligible newsroom employee, in respect of a Qualified Organization in a taxation year, means an individual who:
is employed by the Qualified Organization in the taxation year; works, on average, a minimum of 26 hours per week throughout the portion of the taxation year in which the individual is employed by the Qualified Organization; at any time in the taxation year, has been, or is reasonably expected to be, employed by the Qualified Organization for a minimum period of 40 consecutive weeks that includes that time; spends at least 75% of their time engaged in the production of news content, including researching, collecting information, verifying facts, photographing, writing, editing, designing and otherwise preparing content; and meets any prescribed conditions.

Up to 25% of an employee’s salary (of the first $55,000) would be subsidized by the Government, or more correctly, by taxpayers. This means potentially $13,750 of an employee’s salary in total, and that’s per employee. This is designed for full time media outlets.

But these handouts aren’t limited to full time media outlets. Even part time, or infrequent periodicals can benefit from the taxpayer money.

7. Canada Periodical Fund ($1.5M Limit)

Limits of government assistance
Except for farm periodicals, we can fund up to $1.5 million per periodical.
.
Publication receiving the Government of Canada Refundable Labour Tax Credit (RLTC) are ineligible to the Aid to Publishers component of the Canada Periodical Fund.
.
The total financial assistance received from the Aid to publishers component of the Canada Periodical Fund and other levels of government (federal, provincial, territorial and municipal) cannot exceed 75% of any publisher’s total expenditures for the creation, production, marketing and distribution of magazines and non-daily newspapers.

The Canadian Periodical Fund will provide a magazine or non-daily publication with up to 75% subsidization, or $1.5 million, whichever is less. Although there are rules as to how much the publication must produce anyway, it’s still a significant amount of taxpayer money.

Also note: there is the disclaimer that “periodicals that contain offensive content in the opinion of the department of Canadian Heritage” may not receive funding.

8. Special Measures For Journalism (Covid-19)

And in case the magazine or periodical doesn’t qualify for subsidies under the Canadian Periodical Fund, there is a new program announced, the “Special Measures For Journalism”. That’s right, a special program to prop up alternative media outlets during this “pandemic”.

Objectives and expected results for the Special Measures for Journalism component
The purpose of the Special Measures for Journalism component is to provide short-term emergency financial relief to Canadian magazines and community newspapers during the COVID-19 crisis in 2020. The component will provide funds for the 2020-2021 fiscal year, to publishers that have a free circulation model or low levels of paid circulation, or are published in digital format. Please note that daily newspapers will not be eligible to this new component.

The component provides a flexibility to allow publishers to direct funds to the areas of greatest need. Recipients can spend the funds on a variety of publishing activities, such as content creation, production, distribution, or business development.

This initiative is above and beyond the $595 million expense that was announced back in 2018. This is specifically to keep media outlets going “through the pandemic”. Note: it excludes daily publications, which means that the more infrequent outlets would get it. It creates the huge conflict of interest by subsidizing outlets who most desperately need the money. And how much money?

The maximum amount that can be awarded to an eligible publication is $1,500,000.

Publication receiving the Government of Canada Refundable Labour Tax Credit (RLTC) can obtain funding from the Special Measures for Journalism component. Please note that the amount of any funding received will be deducted from the RLTC.

The total financial assistance received from Special Measures for Journalism and other levels of government (federal, provincial, territorial and municipal) cannot exceed 75% of any publisher’s total expenditures for the creation, production, marketing and distribution of magazines and community newspapers for the current fiscal year.

Again, this applies to non-daily publications, such as weekly or monthly outlets. These are typically the ones who would need it the most. Wonder if giving favourable coverage was a requirement.

If an outlet receives no subsidies, it could theoretically be subsidized under this program to the tune of 75%, or $1.5 million. If subsidies exist from other sources, it could still be topped up to reach that amount.

If a 75% subsidy amounted to $1.5 million, that would mean the organization in question ran up some $2 million in expenses in a year. Considering that non-daily outlets are excluded, most, if not all, of the less frequently published media companies would fall into these limits.

Similar to the Canadian Periodicals Fund, there is the disclaimer that “periodicals that contain offensive content in the opinion of the department of Canadian Heritage” may not receive funding.

This program is similar in many ways to the Canadian Periodical Fund, but removes many of the limitations that had been imposed.

9. Canadian Media Is Bought Off

Even for periodicals that didn’t qualify normally, there is now a grant of up to $1.5 million for the year. One has to assume that any coverage of the “pandemic” would be friendly towards the Government.

Regarding outlets that didn’t qualify beforehand, are they really going to bite the hand that feeds them? After all, if their coverage becomes too critical of the Government narrative, they may find that the CRTC concludes their content to be offensive.

Even without an access to information request, it’s possible to estimate how much an organization will take. If it’s a regular publication, and the approximately salaries are known, just multiply $13,750 times the number of employees. For less frequent publications, just multiply their total expenses by 75%. Far from exact, but these will provide rough estimates.

Now, are any of these media outlets likely to seriously challenge the Government on this “pandemic” narrative? Probably not.

Go back to the video at the start. Even Tam admits that social media censors, both by deleting content, and by using the algorithms to make them invisible.

10. Followup With Canada Revenue Agency

Hello ********,

The Government remains committed to supporting newsrooms while respecting the basic principle of journalistic independence.

Now, more than ever, strong and independent news media are essential to contribute to an informed public and an effective democracy.

To be eligible for the journalism tax measures, an organization must first be designated as a qualified Canadian journalism organization (QCJO). Once designated, a QCJO must then meet additional criteria for each of the tax measures:

· The Canadian journalism labour tax credit, a 25% refundable tax credit on salaries or wages payable in respect of an eligible newsroom employee for periods beginning on or after January 1, 2019.

· The digital news subscription tax credit, a 15% non-refundable personal income tax credit for digital news subscription costs paid by an individual to a qualified Canadian journalism organization, which applies to qualifying amounts paid after 2019 and before 2025.

· A new type of qualified donee called a registered journalism organization for not-for-profit journalism organizations, which is in effect as of January 1, 2020.

A QCJO that meets the additional criteria can claim the Canadian journalism labour tax credit by completing schedule T2SCH58 Canadian Journalism Labour Tax Credit and filing it with its return of income for the year.

The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has been receiving QCJO applications since December 2019. With the establishment of the Independent Advisory Board on Eligibility for Journalism Tax Measures (the Board) in March 2020, and the legislative amendments that were proposed in April 2020, the CRA is in a position to provide journalism organizations with the support they need, beginning with the QCJO designation.

You can find information about applying for QCJO designation and the application form at Qualified Canadian journalism organization.

The CRA is working with the Board to seek its recommendations on whether applicant organizations meet certain QCJO criteria related to original news content and journalistic principles and processes.

The confidentiality provisions of the Income Tax Act prevent the CRA from disclosing the names of organizations that have applied for, received, or been denied QCJO designation. We are able to advise that QCJO designations are now being issued, with files being addressed on the basis of the order they were received.

For more information on the tax measures to support journalism, please go to Frequently Asked Questions.

Sincerely,

************************

Media Relations| Relations avec les médias
Canada Revenue Agency | Agence du revenu du Canada
For media inquiries | Pour les demandes médiatiques : cra-arc.media@cra-arc.gc.ca

Posted on

CCS #7(B): NGOs Support Carbon Taxes In Court Cases, Have Other Interests

Originally featured as “The Resistance”, this group of politicians only pretends to oppose the fleecing of taxpayers. They endorse the climate change hoax 100%, and only argue against the Carbon tax on narrow technical grounds. Now this is finally at the Supreme Court of Canada.

But it’s not just politicians and their parties involved. A number of private groups are attempting to change the course, for their own selfish and ideological reasons.

1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam

The entire climate change industry, (and yes, it is an industry) is a hoax perpetrated by the people in power. See the other articles on the scam, the propaganda machine in action, and some of the court documents in Canada. Carbon taxes are just a small part of the picture, and conservatives are intentionally sabotaging their court cases.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruling.
CLICK HERE, for Saskatchewan Courts, info for users.
CLICK HERE, for Ontario Court of Appeal ruling.
CLICK HERE, for ONCA challenge documents, pleadings.
CLICK HERE, for Alberta Court of Appeal ruling.
CLICK HERE, for ABCA challenge documents, pleadings.
CLICK HERE, for Supreme Court of Canada constitutional challenge.

CLICK HERE, for the David Suzuki Foundation.
CLICK HERE, for Int’l Emissions Trading Ass’n.
CLICK HER, for IETA’s governance and leadership.
CLICK HERE, for Int’l Carbon Reduction Offset Alliance.
CLICK HERE, for ICROA’s partners and members.
CLICK HERE, for Smart Prosperity Institute.

(also see the last section for many more links to parties attempting to intervene in the Carbon tax challenges. Note: that list is not exhaustive.)

3. NGOs To Profit From Climate Scam

  • Amnesty International
  • Canadian Labour Congress
  • Climate Justice Saskatoon
  • David Suzuki Foundation
  • Intergenerational Climate Coalition
  • International Emissions Trading Association
  • Smart Prosperity Institute

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation opposes the Carbon tax, but stays pretty neutral on the issue of climate change itself. It’s worth a mention for 2 reasons: (a) CTF is part of the Koch-funded Atlas Network; and (b) CTF was once headed by Jason Kenney, now Alberta Premier. Now, let’s take a look at a few groups.

4. David Suzuki Foundation

Revenue (August 31, 2018)
Receipted donations $5,820,601.00 (49.84%)
Non-receipted donations $784,563.00 (6.72%)
Gifts from other registered charities $2,727,009.00 (23.35%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $2,347,296.00 (20.10%)
Total revenue: $11,679,469.00

Expenses (August 31, 2018)
Charitable programs $7,378,892.00 (70.41%)
Management and administration $638,154.00 (6.09%)
Fundraising $1,779,300.00 (16.98%)
Political activities $583,341.00 (5.57%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $96,578.00 (0.92%)
Other $4,234.00 (0.04%)
Total expenses: $10,480,499.00

Revenue (August 31, 2019)
Receipted donations $6,847,386.00 (53.92%)
Non-receipted donations $1,132,648.00 (8.92%)
Gifts from other registered charities $3,242,143.00 (25.53%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $1,476,568.00 (11.63%)
Total revenue: $12,698,745.00

Expenses (August 31, 2019)
Charitable programs $8,738,812.00 (75.28%)
Management and administration $808,096.00 (6.96%)
Fundraising $1,964,567.00 (16.92%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $93,302.00 (0.80%)
Other $4,234.00 (0.04%)
Total expenses: $11,609,011.00

According to the Canada Revenue Agency, the Suzuki Foundation took in $12.7 million in the period ending in August 2019, and $11.7 million the previous year. There is clearly good money, so where is it going?

Suzuki Foundation 2019 Annual Report
Suzuki Foundation 2019 Audited Financials

How does pricing carbon pollution build more sustainable communities?
.
Putting a price on carbon pollution through a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system helps speed the transition to cleaner, better energy solutions. We have low-carbon alternatives to our largest emissions sources that are improving by the day.

Working toward a fair and effective national price on carbon pollution
For more than a decade, the Foundation has been a leading voice in calling for a carbon price in Canada. Through research, policy work and public engagement, we built support for this foundational climate change policy.

The Foundation offered the B.C. government support to introduce North America’s first carbon tax in 2008. Our policy experts met with leaders at all levels of government and across industries to advocate for a national approach to carbon pricing.

The Foundation is an intervener in court cases in Saskatchewan and Ontario to support the federal government’s right to implement fair and effective climate policies that include carbon pricing.

In both cases, the courts of appeal agreed with us that the federal government has the power to take national action to tackle climate change. With Parliament and cities across the country declaring climate emergencies, including carbon pricing in the solutions toolkit is essential to meeting Paris Agreement climate commitments and avoiding the worst impacts of climate breakdown.

Can we assume that they either bribed or leaned on the B.C. Government to get that Carbon tax imposed? The Suzuki Foundation doesn’t come right out and say it (though it’s implied), that making certain comforts unaffordable by various carbon pricing schemes will lead to this great transition. It’s stated that causing a drastic change in the Western lifestyle is the only way to do this.

The Foundation is also involved with Youth Climate Lawsuit. This has young adults trying weaponize the Courts by forcing Governments to adopt their environmental demands. The claim is that ignoring climate change violates Section 7 of the Canadian Charter, which is security of the person.

And of course, the Suzuki Foundation has attached itself to the various Carbon tax challenges. It’s fair to assume that Suzuki’s donors are paying him to advance (by whatever means), policies that will lead to more money coming in. In a sense, it’s like paying a lobbyist.

Suzuki’s recent donors include: Power Corporation, the Bronfman Foundation, Tides Canada, Smart Prosperity Institute, several anonymous donors, and many more.

5. International Emissions Trading Association

IETA Economic Potential Article 6 Paris Accord
IETA Partnership For Market Readiness

IETA is the International Emissions Trading Association. It is an organization that tries to monetize the climate change agenda, by convincing countries to pay out money for “polluting”. A quote from their market readiness report:

Understand what emissions trading is:
emissions trading is a market-based approach to controlling pollution by providing an economic incentive to achieve CO2 emissions reductions. To succeed in managing such a cap-and-trade system, your company will need strategic, technical and financial skills.

Find the appropriate department to coordinate the organisation: emissions trading is linked to climate change strategy. Climate strategy often lies between the sustainable development and finance functions. Emissions trading is about financial management, but it also implies a deep understanding of regulation, CO2 management strategy and a good technical knowledge of industrial installations which fall under the cap. Whichever the appropriate department is, the most important thing is to have a project manager. Start a working group: the working group should be able as a first step to define whether or not emissions trading could be managed internally or outsourced. A cost/benefit analysis should be carried out to evaluate the choice between delegating trading to a specialised broker or to carrying it out internally. Such an approach gives the opportunity to create a “CO2 network” within the company.

Assess possible optimisation among installations: if entities are spread geographically, a centralised option could be considered. For example, in the European emissions market it is often the case that installations of one company are spread across a number of member states. Local exchanges with local brokers co-exist with European CO2 exchange platforms and may be able to offer more targeted solutions.

Understand that none of this actually helps the environment. It is simply a way to get wealthy under a misleading banner of cutting pollution. This is an expansive wealth transfer scheme.

IETA received legal non-profit status from the government of Switzerland in June 2000, and received United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change non-governmental organisation accreditation in October 2000.

It should trouble Canadians that this “non-profit” with financial motivations to keep the Carbon tax should be filing for intervenor status in four court cases (Saskatchewan, Ontario, Alberta, & the Supreme Court). Theie interests are different than ours.

6. Smart Prosperity Institute

The Smart Prosperity Institute has a number of government and private sector donors, and perhaps most notably includes the Tides Foundation. SPI writes extensively about transitioning Canada to a low carbon economy, and is promoting the green bonds industry, and have partnered with HSBC and the Climate Bonds Initiative. They also push the “sustainable finance” narrative, and are enthusiastic supporters of the UN.

Smart Prosperity Institute’s annual “Green Bonds – State of the Market in Canada” reports provide unique insight on the role of green bonds in funding environment and climate-related projects in Canada. The annual report is a special supplement to the Bonds and Climate Change: The State of the Market global report and is prepared collaboratively with Climate Bonds Initiative. Commissioned by HSBC, the report marks specific highlights from the current year, emerging trends, and identifies specific opportunities for market development of green bonds in Canada.

Keeping the Carbon taxes intact is very much in their interest, as it is tied to many of the initiatives that SPI advances. Another NGO that Canadians should be weary of meddling in local affairs.

7. Amnesty International

Amnesty International was founded by Peter Benenson, grandson of Russian banker, Grigori Benenson. The organization has been used to bring large numbers of people from the 3rd World to the West. The group appears to have no direct financial motive, but rather an ideological one. It argues that forced Carbon taxes amount to a human rights issue for the planet. Is this not foreign interference though? AI is based out of Britain.

8. Constitutional Challenges: SK, ON, AB, SCC

(A.1) SK COA Ruling On Carbon Tax
http://archive.is/tNe2k
(A.2) Saskatchewan Court Of Appeal Reference Question
(A.3) SKCA Attorney General Of Canada
(A.4) SKCA Attorney General Of Ontario
(A.5) SKCA Attorney General Of New Brunswick
(A.6) SKCA Attorney General Of British Columbia
(A.7) SKCA Canadian Taxpayers Association
(A.8) SKCA David Suzuki Foundation
(A.9) SKCA International Emissions Trading Association
(A.10) SKCA United Conservative Association
(B.1) ONCA Ruling On Carbon Tax
http://archive.is/tbMTC
(B.2) ONCA Reference Documents
(B.3) ONCA Attorney General Of Ontario
(B.4) ONCA Attorney General Of Canada
(B.5) ONCA Attorney General Of Saskatchewan
(B.6) ONCA Attorney General Of New Brunswick
(B.7) ONCA David Suzuki Foundation
(B.8) ONCA Intergenerational Climate Coalition
(B.9) ONCA International Emissions Trading Association
(B.10) ONCA Attorney General Of Ontario Reply
(B.11) ONCA Attorney General Of Canada Reply
(C.1) ABCA Ruling On Carbon Tax
http://archive.is/guxXF
(C.2) Alberta Court Of Appeal Reference Question
(C.3) ABCA Attorney General Of Alberta
(C.4) ABCA Attorney General Of Canada
(C.5) ABCA Attorney General Of Ontario
(C.6) ABCA Attorney General Of Saskatchewan
(C.7) ABCA Attorney General Of New Brunswick
(C.8) ABCA Attorney General Of British Columbia
(C.9) ABCA International Emissions Trading Association
(C.10) ABCA Attorney General Of Alberta Reply
(C.11) ABCA Attorney General Of Canada Reply
(C.12) Jason Kenney Repeals Carbon Tax
http://archive.is/Q1gGb
(C.13) Kenney Supports New Carbon Tax
http://archive.is/wTYoE
(C.14) Kenney To Hike New Carbon Tax
http://archive.is/jbLjN
(D.2) Supreme Court Of Canada To Hear Challenge
(D.3) SCC Attorney General Of Ontario
(D.4) SCC Attorney General Of Canada
(D.5) SCC Attorney General Of Saskatchewan
(D.6) SCC Attorney General Of Alberta
(D.7) SCC Attorney General Of New Brunswick
(D.8) SCC Attorney General Of Manitoba
(D.9) SCC Attorney General Of British Columbia
(D.10) SCC Amnesty International
(D.11) SCC Canadian Labour Congress
(D.12) SCC David Suzuki Foundation
(D.13) SCC Intergenerational Climate Committee
(D.14) SCC International Emissions Trading Association
(D.15) SCC Smart Prosperity Institute
(D.16) SCC Attorney General Of Ontario Reply
(D.17) SCC Attorney General Of Canada Reply

One common thread throughout these challenges is that all parties agree climate change is a threat to humanity. This includes parties challenging the Carbon taxes.

Posted on

TSCE #9(C): Canada’s Bills/Treaties Undermine Hague Convention On Child Abduction

Today is the 40th anniversary of the Hague Convention on Child Abduction. This is to focus on the civil side (such as custody issues). While this seems impressive, Canada has done much domestically and internationally to undermine and weaken the principles. Even the UN has studied the connection between illegal border crossings and smuggling, trafficking and child exploitation. Quite simply, without real borders, the Hague Convention is meaningless.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

For the previous work in the TSCE series. This is the 40th anniversary of the Hague Convention of Child Abduction. However, Governments ensure that it will continue. Also, take a look at open borders movement, the abortion and organs industry, and the NGOs who are supporting it. This is information that won’t be found in the mainstream or alternative media.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for the Hague Convention treaty itself.
Hague Convention Civil Treaty
CLICK HERE, for Canada’s announcement on 40 year anniversary.

CLICK HERE, for Agenda 21, full treaty.
CLICK HERE, for Gov’t info on Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for text of Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for the many exemptions in S3CA.

CLICK HERE, for FIPA agreement Canada/China.
CLICK HERE, for previous review on FIPA.
CLICK HERE, for CD18.5, sanctuary for illegals in Toronto.
CLICK HERE, for Toronto EC5.5, human and sex trafficking resolution.
CLICK HERE, for Canadian Labour Congress on sanctuary cities.

CLICK HERE, for CANZUK International website.
CLICK HERE, for proposed expansion of CANZUK zone.
CLICK HERE, for review of new USMCA (NAFTA 2.0)
CLICK HERE, for link to official Agenda 2030 text.
CLICK HERE, for review of UNSDA Agenda 2030.
Text Of Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda
CLICK HERE, for text of New York Declaration.
new.york.declaration.2016

CLICK HERE, for Bill C-6, citizenship for terrorists.
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-32, lowering age of consent for anal.
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-75, reduced criminal penalties.
CLICK HERE, for 2nd review of Bill C-75 (child offences).
CLICK HERE, for asking if Gov’t actually supports trafficking.

UN Global Migration Compact (Full Text)

OTHER SOURCES:
CLICK HERE, for UN Review On Smuggling Migrants.
CLICK HERE, for UN Convention On Transnational Crime.
http://archive.is/q0XqK
CLICK HERE, for UN Protocol Against Human Trafficking.
http://archive.is/cjnJt
CLICK HERE, for UN Opt. Protocol On Rights Of The Child.
http://archive.is/onmrr
CLICK HERE, for UN Global Initiative To Fight Trafficking.
http://archive.is/Fjuv6
CLICK HERE, for UN Protocol To Prevent/Punish Trafficking.
CLICK HERE, for UN Rights Of The Child, Sale, Prostitution, Porn.
http://archive.is/onmrr
CLICK HERE, for Eliminate Worst Forms Of Child Labour.
http://archive.is/OZQM
CLICK HERE, for the Rome Statute, Int’l Criminal Court.
CLICK HERE, for Canada’s antitrafficking strategy, 2019-24.
http://archive.is/15ov0

3. Quotes From Hague Convention (Civil) Treaty

Article 3
The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where –
a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and
b) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or
would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.

Article 4
The Convention shall apply to any child who was habitually resident in a Contracting State immediately before any breach of custody or access rights. The Convention shall cease to apply when the child attains the age of 16 years.

Article 5
For the purposes of this Convention –
a) “rights of custody” shall include rights relating to the care of the person of the child and, in particular, the right to determine the child’s place of residence;
b) “rights of access” shall include the right to take a child for a limited period of time to a place other than the child’s habitual residence.

Article 8
Any person, institution or other body claiming that a child has been removed or retained in breach of custody rights may apply either to the Central Authority of the child’s habitual residence or to the Central Authority of any other Contracting State for assistance in securing the return of the child.
The application shall contain –
a) information concerning the identity of the applicant, of the child and of the person alleged to have removed or retained the child;
b) where available, the date of birth of the child;
c) the grounds on which the applicant’s claim for return of the child is based;
d) all available information relating to the whereabouts of the child and the identity of the person with whom the child is presumed to be.
.
The application may be accompanied or supplemented by –
e) an authenticated copy of any relevant decision or agreement;
f) a certificate or an affidavit emanating from a Central Authority, or other competent authority of the State of the child’s habitual residence, or from a qualified person, concerning the relevant law of that State;
g) any other relevant document.

Article 13
Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Article, the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that –
a) the person, institution or other body having the care of the person of the child was not actually exercising the custody rights at the time of removal or retention, or had consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal or retention; or
b) there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.
.
The judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the
child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate
to take account of its views.
.
In considering the circumstances referred to in this Article, the judicial and administrative authorities shall
take into account the information relating to the social background of the child provided by the Central
Authority or other competent authority of the child’s habitual residence.

Article 17
The sole fact that a decision relating to custody has been given in or is entitled to recognition in the requested State shall not be a ground for refusing to return a child under this Convention, but the judicial or administrative authorities of the requested State may take account of the reasons for that decision in applying this Convention.

In short, this is an international agreement to enforce child custody orders, or family disputes. Note: the children don’t have to be return if administrators determine there is some danger. Unfortunately, this seems entirely subjective.

4. Announcement From Global Affairs Canada

Statement
October 25, 2020 – Ottawa, Ontario – Global Affairs Canada
.
The Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Honourable David Lametti, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, today issued the following statement:
.
“Today, we mark the 40th anniversary of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
“Every year, in Canada and abroad, thousands of children are wrongfully taken across international borders by a parent or guardian in violation of rights of custody. This has devastating effects on families, and it is the children who suffer the most. Children must be at the heart of family justice, and mechanisms like the Hague Convention on child abduction are essential in order to assist them in these terrible situations.
.
“Canada, along with 100 contracting states, continues to support this global effort to protect children from wrongful removal or retention and return them to their country of residence. We continue to call on the global community to join us and to ratify this important convention.
.
“We are committed to working with our international partners to continue to protect children and to reinforce the operation of the convention.”

While this all sounds fine, it should be noted that Canada has done a lot, both domestically, and with international treaties to weaken and undermine the spirit of this agreement.

What other treaties or bills do this?

5. Canada’s Bills/Treaties Since 1980

Here are some of the major developments in Canada in the last few decades. All of these either weaken the borders and/or reduce the criminal penalties involved.

  • UN Agenda 21 (1992)
  • Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement (2002)
  • FIPA (2012)
  • Sanctuary cities (First in 2013)
  • CANZUK: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK (2015)
  • UN Agenda 2030 (2015)
  • New York Declaration (2016)
  • Bill C-6 citizenship for terrorists (2016)
  • Bill C-32/C-75 (2018)
  • UN Global Migration Compact (2018)
  • USMCA, NAFTA 2.0 (2020)

It doesn’t matter who’s in power. They’re all globalists.

6. Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement

CONVINCED, in keeping with advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its Executive Committee, that agreements among states may enhance the international protection of refugees by promoting the orderly handling of asylum applications by the responsible party and the principle of burden-sharing;

ARTICLE 8
(1) The Parties shall develop standard operating procedures to assist with the implementation of this Agreement. These procedures shall include provisions for notification, to the country of last presence, in advance of the return of any refugee status claimant pursuant to this Agreement.
(2) These procedures shall include mechanisms for resolving differences respecting the interpretation and implementation of the terms of this Agreement. Issues which cannot be resolved through these mechanisms shall be settled through diplomatic channels.
(3) The Parties agree to review this Agreement and its implementation. The first review shall take place not later than 12 months from the date of entry into force and shall be jointly conducted by representatives of each Party. The Parties shall invite the UNHCR to participate in this review. The Parties shall cooperate with UNHCR in the monitoring of this Agreement and seek input from non-governmental organizations.

Source is here. Serious question: why have Canada and the United States signed an agreement that quite clearly gives the UN a seat at the table?

The treaty was pretty ineffective anyway, given that people could still get into the country as long as they BYPASSED legal border ports. Now, thanks to the Federal Court, the agreement is effectively dead.

Of course, the tens of thousands entering Canada illegally in recent years pales in comparison to the hordes of LEGAL migrants entering under various programs.

7. FIPA Between Canada And China

FIPA largely eliminated the border between Canada and the Chinese. This means that Chinese nationals can freely enter Canada, almost without restrictions. They can also bring their own security to look after their national interests. Makes it easy to smuggle products — or people — into Canada.

8. Sanctuary Cities Forming In Canada

In 2013, Toronto became the first city in Canada to officially obtain status a sanctuary city. It was supported by “conservatives” Doug and Rob Ford. How are child custody agreements supposed to be enforced overseas when children can simply disappear in one of them?

Now list includes: Toronto, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Edmonton and others. In the 2018 Ontario election, the NDP campaigned on turning Ontario into a sanctuary province.

9. CANZUK (CDA, Australia, New Zealand, UK)

The Trans-Tasmanian Partnership is an agreement between Australia and New Zealand to let citizens work and freely travel in each other’s countries. CANZUK would essentially be an expansion of that agreement by adding both Canada and the UK. This is an actual open borders arrangement which could be further expanded.

CANZUK International was formed in 2015, and members of the CPC are some of its biggest supporters.

It’s also interesting how the justifications have changed. Previously, it was about opportunity. Now it’s about containing Chinese influence, which Conservatives allowed to grow in the first place. One obvious example is FIPA.

10. UN Agenda 2030, Sustainable Development

Agenda 2030 was signed in September 2015 by then PM Stephen Harper. It signs away more of Canada’s sovereignty to the “sustainable development agenda”, and makes mass migration across international borders even easier. So-called conservatives would be hard pressed to explain why this is okay, but why the Paris Accord and UN Global Migration Compact are so wrong. There is a lot of overlap with the content.

Worth a mention is that “Conservative” Brian Mulroney was in power in 1992 when Agenda 21 was signed in Brazil.

11. New York Declaration, UN GMC Prelude

This was signed in September 2016, just a year after Agenda 2030. The UN Global Migration Compact was largely based on this text. Both agreements are to make it easier to bring large numbers of people across borders, and to establish international standards. It’s not difficult to see how this would make child abduction and transportation easier to do.

12. Bill C-6, Citizenship For Terrorists

It cheapens Canadian citizenship when anyone can get it. This is especially true for convicted terrorists and traitors. There’s also the increased likelihood of people gaming the system to avoid being sent back, for say crimes against children.

13. Bill C-32/C-75, Reducing Criminal Penalties

If the government is concerned about the well being of children, then why would they introduce a bill to water down criminal penalties for sex crimes against children, and reduce the age of consent?

  • Section 58: Fraudulent use of citizenship
  • Section 159: Age of consent for anal sex
  • Section 172(1): Corrupting children
  • Section 173(1): Indecent acts
  • Section 180(1): Common nuisance
  • Section 182: Indecent interference or indignity to body
  • Section 210: Keeping common bawdy house
  • Section 211: Transporting to bawdy house
  • Section 242: Not getting help for childbirth
  • Section 243: Concealing the death of a child
  • Section 279.02(1): Material benefit – trafficking
  • Section 279.03(1): Withholding/destroying docs — trafficking
  • Section 279(2): Forcible confinement
  • Section 280(1): Abduction of child under age 16
  • Section 281: Abduction of child under age 14
  • Section 291(1): Bigamy
  • Section 293: Polygamy
  • Section 293.1: Forced marriage
  • Section 293.2: Child marriage
  • Section 295: Solemnizing marriage contrary to law
  • Section 435: Arson, for fraudulent purposes
  • Section 467.11(1): Participating in organized crime

Bill C-75 “hybridized” these offences. What this means is that they were initially to be tried by indictment (felony), but now prosecutors have discretion to try them summarily (misdemeanor). Of course, there were plenty of Section 83 offences (terrorism) that were also hybridized.

14. UN Global Migration Compact

What is strange about the UNGMC is that its text explicitly undermines its stated goals. While the UN supposedly opposed smuggling, the agreement says people shall not be punished. And while condemning trafficking, the UN provides advice and guidance on how to do it more successfully.

15. USMCA, More Than Just Trade

The new USMCA (U.S., Mexico & Canada Agreement) is far more than just a trade agreement. It ensures that more “workers” will be coming across the borders, and cedes areas of labour rights to the UN.

16. How Does Any Of This Help Children?

Remember, this is the 40th anniversary on the Hague Convention on Child Abduction. Member states, (of which Canada is one), should take seriously the obligation to ensure that children are not taken across borders illegally, even if it’s by a parent, or some other guardian.

Instead, Canada signs treaties and passes bills that ensure that this will continue. Erasing borders, and reducing penalties does nothing to deter child smuggling. In fact, it only encourages it.

Sure, these changes don’t explicitly state moving children around illegally is a major goal (or even a goal at all). But as borders become less meaningful, this will certainly increase.

Posted on

IBC #7: Debt For Nature Swaps, Usury & Exploitation Masked As Compassion

Some background information on how this process works (in theory at least). See here and here. Does it matter that many countries are unable to repay their loans? To the creditors, not really, as there is always another way.

These “swaps” involve selling a country’s debt (at a discount) to a 3rd party, but one who has its own agenda.

1. More On The International Banking Cartel

For more on the banking cartel, check this page. The Canadian Government, like so many others, has sold out the independence and sovereignty of its monetary system to foreign interests. BIS, like its central banks, exceed their agenda and try to influence other social agendas. See who is really controlling things, and the common lies that politicians and media figures tell. And check out the climate change hoax as well, as the 2 now seem intertwined.

New Development Financing, a bait-and-switch.

2. Important Links

UN New Development Finance Paper
UN.new.development.financing.2012.178pages

UNDP Explaining Debt-For-Nature Swaps

CLICK HERE, for World Economic Forum, debt swap support.
https://archive.is/LTw1r

World Bank Working Paper, March 1990

CLICK HERE, for World Wildlife Fund Climate fund page.
https://archive.is/43sHz

3. Debt Used As A Weapon Against Nations

This cannot be emphasized enough. Countries take foreign loans in times when they are desperate, and often are unable to meet the terms to pay them back. This is a form of predatory lending. What may end up happening is that those debts are sold to people and organizations who have their own agenda.

And where do these loans originate in the first place? Many are (debt financed) by countries like Canada, the U.S., and in Europe. Western nations — who use private parties to borrow money from — borrow money which is then handed over as loans to the 3rd World. Those loans are distributed to countries who can’t pay them back. They are then forced into options like debt-for-nature.

4. World Economic Forum & Climate Swaps

Debt swaps can be one solution to tackle both challenges at once. Traditionally, these instruments represent an exchange of the existing debt contract with a new one, where the previous contract is normally “written down”, or discounted. Usually, this action is associated with specific conditions for investments, agreed both by the creditor and the debtor. In the past, such instruments have also been used to achieve climate-related objectives.

The idea of a “debt-for-climate” swap was first conceived during the 1980s by the then Deputy Vice President of the World Wildlife Fund, Thomas Lovejoy, in the wake of the Latin American debt crisis. The idea was simple: an NGO would act as a donor, purchasing debt from commercial banks at its face value on the secondary market, hence providing a level of relief on the debt’s value. The title of the debt would then be transferred to the debtor country in exchange for a specific commitment to environmental or conservation goals, performed through a national environmental fund.

In 2018, the Seychelles government worked with The Nature Conservancy, Global Environment Facility (GEF), and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to develop a debt-for-nature swap for $27 million of official debt, to set up vast areas of protected marine parks for climate resilience, fishery management, biodiversity conservation and ecotourism.

This came out just the other day. The World Economic Forum, which pushed for a declaration of a pandemic also goes on about how this can be used to advance the green agenda. But don’t worry, it’s not preplanned or anything.

5. UNDP Explains Risks And Consequences

Cons
.
-DNS have only resulted in relatively small amounts of debt relief, limiting their impact in reducing developing countries’ debt burden;
–Transaction costs might be high compared to other financing instruments; negotiations can be time-consuming, spanning several years and might result in limited debt reduction or discount rates. The length of the design and negotiation phase of a DNS can span one to three years, mostly depending on the willingness of the parties and the complexity of the deal.

Risks
.
-Lengthy negotiations. Disagreement between the creditor and debtor country on conservation goals or other details of the agreement can increase the costs of the operation.
–Currency exchange risks, the impact of which (and the response strategy) is dependent on the financial structure of the DNS. The currency risk can be mitigated, for example, by making payments in local currency at the spot rate on the day payments are due. In the latter case the risk is lower for the entity managing the DNS cash flow.
–Inflation risks, the value of future payments in local currencies might be highly by inflation. Mitigation strategies to inflation risks are similar to the ones for currency exchange risks.
-The DNS might prevent the possibility of negotiating a more comprehensive and favourable debt treatment (debt relief and restructuring).
-The debtor-country might not be able or willing to respect its commitments. Fiscal and liquidity crises can undermine the capacity of the debtor-government to meet its obligations.
-Management risks related to the capacity of the fund selected to administer grants from the DNS proceeds, including mismanagement, corruption and failures in the identification of good projects to be financed.
-While rarely reported, it is possible that the projects financed might create discontent in local communities (e.g. removal of access to resources by local communities).
-ODA substitution (no additionality). While a DNS is an option for increasing ODA, it might just substitute for other committed flows.
-The debtor-country may lose sovereignty in deciding about the spending of public resources. Grants may be disbursed according to donors’ preferences, which in turn might or might not better mirror local conservation needs. In most DNS the debtor-government decides in agreement with the creditor(s) about the modalities of funds’ disbursements, both participating in the boards of the trust fund responsible for grant-making.
-Debt swaps may be tied to the purchase of goods or services for the creditor(s).

There are an awful lot of drawbacks to getting involved with this sort of loan. Specifically, countries cede their sovereignty, are forced into conditions they don’t like, and it may not even result in much of a debt reduction.

6. World Bank 1990 Working Paper On Swaps

The first debt-for-nature agreement (Bolivia) was the only one in which land was set aside, and development restrictions adopted, as a result of the agreement. This deal was extremely controversial at first, as many Bolivians thought that the country had relinquished sovereignty to the international environmental group. There is, however, no transfer of land ownership, and development decisions are not based on agreements between the local environmental groups, the government, and the regional population. The Bolivian government has been slow in dispersing the local currency funds, and controversies have arisen over the development use of the buffer areas.

Finally, prior to the debt-for-nature concept, environmental groups had little or no direct contact with either commercial banks or debt countries’ finance ministers. Debt-for-nature swaps, however, have entailed intense negotiations between all three groups, leading to a network of relationships that may prove valuable to international environmental groups beyond simply debt-for-nature agreements.

Much of the interest in using official debt for debt-for-development swaps first began as a result of the 1988 Toronto Economic Summit, in which the G-7 countries established guidelines that allowed Paris Club Creditors to forgive debt to the poorest of the Sub-Saharan countries. One of three options given to Paris Club creditors was to forgive up to one-third of the debt of the developing country (with the other two being extended maturities and lower interest rates). France has generally chosen the first option, while the United States (until July 1989) has been reluctant to forgive debt.

World Bank Working Paper, March 1990

This scheme has been going back many decades. The basic principle is that countries are loaned money they cannot realistically afford to pay back. Loans are then forgiven — or reduced — but with strings attached. One such arrangement is the debt-for nature swaps.

Although the land isn’t officially ceded, for all practical purposes it is.

7. Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation, Seychelles

In 2017, the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation helped finance a debt-for-nature swap with the Republic of Seychelles to set aside some 400,000 square kilometers of water for conservation.

8. World Wildlife Fund Conservation Finance

Debt-for-Nature Swaps
WWF has worked with the U.S., French, German, Dutch, and other creditor countries to structure foreign debt-for-nature swaps, including the first one in Ecuador in 1987. Since 2001, WWF has helped design several debt-for-nature swap agreements under the Tropical Forest Conservation Act (and previously under the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative). Both mechanisms were formed to relieve the debt burden of developing countries owed to the U.S. government, while generating funds in local currency to support tropical forest conservation activities. Capital raised through debt-for-nature swaps can be applied through trust funds or foundations specifically set up to channel funding to local biodiversity conservation.

Carbon Finance
WWF believes that carbon finance, if used appropriately, will play a critical role in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to biodiversity conservation, and promoting a range of local economic and social values. WWF is developing pilot carbon projects in Peru, Brazil, Central Africa, Indonesia and Nepal to capitalize on the rapidly growing potential for carbon finance. We contribute to these efforts by securing private and public financing for carbon projects and providing technical support to implement carbon finance mechanisms.

The World Wildlife Fund is quite involved in financing the nature-for-debt swaps. Should make Canadians wonder what is the real reason Trudeau and Butts present themselves as eco-warriors.

9. Gerald Butts, Megan Leslie Head(s) of WWF

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Gerald Butts was once the President and CEO of World Wildlife Fund Canada. This conflict of interest isn’t limited to the Liberals though.

Megan Leslie used to be the Deputy NDP Leader, and was Deputy Opposition Leader for a time. Now, this Trudeau Foundation Director is also the head of the World Wildlife Fund.

It’s also worth a mention that Elizabeth May, the former Green Party Leader is also with the Trudeau Foundation. She was, at a time, Head of Sierra Club Canada. At least 3 of the major Federal parties are compromised, and in bed with the eco-lobby.

10. Mockingbird Foundation Of Canada

To see a little deeper just how many tentacles the Trudeau Foundation has, see these connections between the House of Commons, the Senate, the Courts and the media. Truly disgusting.

11. Usury Disguised As Humanitarianism

Despite what is said publicly, there is nothing compassionate about what is happening. Countries are taking loans they can’t pay back, and are forced to cede sovereignty in order to “service the debt”. Not at all what we are led to believe.