Category: World

Posted on

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

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

1. Interesting Cases

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. UN Promotes Abuse Of S3CA

CLICK HERE, for the UN link.

Exceptions to the Safe Third Country Agreement with Canada

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

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

EXCEPTION # 1 Land Border Entry Ports Only

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

NO ==> You qualify under this exception!

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

EXCEPTION # 2 Family Connections in Canada

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    EXCEPTION # 4 Countries to which Canada Does Not Remove

    Are you a national of any of the following countries?

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

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

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

    NO ==> You qualify under this exception!

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

    EXCEPTION # 5 Death Penalty

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

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

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

    EXCEPTION # 6 Valid Visa Exception

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

    YES ==> You qualify under this exception!

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

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

    Are you a national of any of the following countries?

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

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

    YES ==> You qualify under this exception!

    From Canadian Website

    CLICK HERE, for Canadian Government website.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    4. Canada Admits U.S. A Safe Country

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

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

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

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

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

    Posted on

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

    1. Important Links

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

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

    2. Why Invest Abroad?

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

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

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

    3. Income Tax Act

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

    4. Canada Pension Plan Act

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

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

    5. Can Foreigners Collect?

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

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

    6. Who Is CPPIB

    It has locations in:

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

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

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

      UN Topics CPPIB Indulges In:

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

    7. So-Called Sustainable Investing

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

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

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

    Posted on

    CBC Propaganda #14: Let’s Replace The Canadian Population

    Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG”
    Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.

    1. Important Links


    CLICK HERE, for CBC Propaganda Masterlist.

    (CBC wants less Canadian children)
    CLICK HERE, for “we’re only having 1 kids, and that’s okay”.
    CLICK HERE, for beware of middle child syndrome.
    CLICK HERE, for criticizing those with too many kids.
    CLICK HERE, for why I only have 1 child.
    CLICK HERE, for childless women changing culture.
    CLICK HERE, for not teaching a daughter to be polite.
    CLICK HERE, have less children to lower emissions.

    (and in case you think CBC just wants less children in general)
    CLICK HERE, for multiculturalism is critical to Canada.
    CLICK HERE, for border walls are useless.
    CLICK HERE, for nothing will stop migration.
    CLICK HERE, for Europe should have open borders.
    CLICK HERE, for Hungary’s Orban is a dictator for rejecting migration.
    CLICK HERE, for bigot Orban wanting a Christian nation.
    CLICK HERE, for Global Migration Compact is harmless.
    CLICK HERE, for Canada having 100M people by year 2100.

    (and to everyone’s favourite benevolent founder>
    CLICK HERE, for Soros is misunderstood.
    CLICK HERE, for Soros bullied out of Hungary.
    CLICK HERE, for Canada joining UN, Soros, to sponsor refugees.

    3. Why This Is Important


    There are many, many more links on both subjects, but this should provide sufficient evidence for now. CBC, Canada’s government run “news” agency, consistently reports on both of these topics.

      CBC pushes both:

    1. Reducing Canadian birth rate; and
    2. Mass migration of foreigners

    What are the consequences of these 2 initiatives? Well, when Canadians have less children, their birthrate falls, and the population declines. When you have mass migration, the declining population of Canadians is replaced by migrants and their descendants.

    Think this is hyperbole? Consider these points:

    • Shame families with many children
    • Having 1 kid is okay
    • Childless is the new culture
    • Have fewer kids to save the planet

    ….. and on the other side:

  • Borders are immoral and pointless
  • Multiculturalism is part of Canada
  • Only bigots reject migration
  • Canada’s population needs to be much bigger

    • 4. Consider Both Narratives

    First, starting with the fearmongering piece that climate change is destructive and can only be mitigated by altering human behaviour:

    >What’s the single best decision you can make if you want to decrease the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) being released into the atmosphere?

    That’s the question UBC researcher Seth Wynes and his co-author Kimberly Nicholas set out to answer in a new paper published this week.

    Their answer? Have fewer children.

    The other three choices they identified were eating a plant-based diet, avoiding air travel and giving up personal vehicles. But by their reasoning, having one fewer child overwhelmingly outweighs all other choices, due to all of the GHGs that child would be responsible for emitting over the course of their life.

    “To put it simply, adding another person to the planet who uses more resources and produces more carbon dioxide is always going to make a large contribution to climate change,” Wynes said.

    And on the flip side of the “have fewer children” message, do you think that these people will recommend much, MUCH reduced immigration so as to reduce emissions? Nope, not a chance. From the “Century Initiative” promotion:

    If Canada sticks with current practices, our population will grow to between 51 to 53 million by the end of the century.

    A non-profit group called The Century Initiative advocates doubling that, to 100 million. That’s about triple our current population.

    “We recognize that it may be counterintuitive,” Shari Austin, CEO of the Century Initiative, told The Sunday Edition’s guest host Peter Armstrong.

    It’s the only way, she argued, that Canada can face the economic challenges ahead and strengthen its international influence.

    Currently, Canada accepts 310,000 immigrants per year. The Century Initiative suggests that number should be closer to 450,000.

    “It’s a big, audacious goal,” she conceded. But it has been done before. Since 1945 to the present day, Canada’s population has tripled.

    “A mix of people wanting to contribute to the economy and wanting to have children,” Austin explained.

    That doesn’t mean that refugees aren’t welcome.

    “We also have ethical obligations to make sure we do our fair share to help bring people to a better life,” she clarified.

    She also sees this as a way to create “a more diverse, more interesting, dynamic population.”

    “It’s an exciting opportunity to be proactive about what we want to look like in fifty years, in a hundred years. It’s also an opportunity to leave a better world for our kids and our grandkids.”

    It is interesting the contrast in the arguments.
    CBC uses ENVIRONMENTAL and HEALTH reasons to push for less Canadians to have less children. However,
    CBC uses ECONOMIC and MULTICULTURAL claims to push for more immigration (or migration)

    Nice bait-and-switch.

    To be fair, CBC does have many authors and contributors. However, the overall pattern is impossible to ignore. CBC regularly releases content pushing for Canadians to have less children. At the same time it sings the praises of open borders, mass migration and multiculturalism.

    5. George Soros Puff Piece

    The financier is also famously active as a philanthropist. Through his Open Society Foundations, he has given billions to NGOs in more than 100 countries to “build vibrant and tolerant democracies,” according to its website.

    Why is Soros controversial?

    Emily Tamkin, a staff writer for Foreign Policy magazine, compares Soros’s public image to a mirror in the Harry Potter novels. When a character looked in that fictional mirror, they would see what they desired most.

    “He’s like that, but with the thing that you revile most,” she told The Current’s Anna Maria Tremonti.

    CBC also has done many flattering puff pieces on Soros. They claim he is misunderstood, and that it is bigots projecting their own prejudices onto him. No real objectivity here.

    6. Is This Illegal?

    Under the letter of the law, probably not. But consider the following:

    Marginal note:
    Public incitement of hatred
    319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
    (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
    Marginal note:

    Wilful promotion of hatred
    (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
    (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

    Does this promote hate and harm against Canadians? I would think so, but sadly no judge ever would. The CBC, which uses our tax dollars to advocate for our own replacement is just so wrong.

    7. StatsCan Aware Of Decline


    Here is a recent report:

    Fertility rates among Canadian women continue to decrease

    The total fertility rate (TFR) for 2015 was 1,563 births per 1,000 women. In 2016, the TFR was 1,543 births per 1,000 women. The TFR in Canada has shown a general decline since 2008, when it was 1,681 births per 1,000 women. The TFR is an estimate of the average number of live births that 1,000 women would have in their lifetime, based on the age-specific fertility rates of a given year.

    Taking mortality between birth and 15 years of age into consideration, developed countries such as Canada need an average of around 2,060 children per 1,000 females to renew their population based on natural increase and without taking immigration into account. The last year in which Canada attained fertility levels sufficient to replace its current population was 1971.

    While the TFR is a good indicator of fertility in Canada as a whole, this national average can hide major provincial and territorial differences. From 2000 to 2016, Nunavut was the only province or territory to consistently have fertility levels above the replacement rate, with a TFR of 2,986 live births per 1,000 women in 2016. With the exception of the Prairie provinces and the Northwest Territories, every other province and territory had TFRs during this period that rarely exceeded 1,700 births per 1,000 women.

    In 2016, for the 16th consecutive year, Saskatchewan had the highest TFR among the provinces, at 1,934 births per 1,000 women. It was followed by Manitoba (1,847), the Northwest Territories (1,793) and Alberta (1,694). British Columbia was the province with the lowest fertility rate at 1,404 births per 1,000 women, followed by Nova Scotia (1,422) and Newfoundland and Labrador (1,425).

    Sustainable Development Goals

    On January 1, 2016, the world officially began implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development — the United Nations’ transformative plan of action that addresses urgent global challenges over the next 15 years. The plan is based on 17 specific sustainable development goals.

    The Births release is an example of how Statistics Canada supports the reporting on the Global Goals for Sustainable Development. This release will be used in helping to measure the following goal:

    Forgot to mention, population control is part of Agenda 2030.

    Few Canadian Kids + Mass Migration = Demographic Replacement

    Final thought: Consider this policy idea, previously published.

    Posted on

    UN Conferences On Replacement Migration (Since 1974)

    1. Important Links

    CLICK HERE, for Gov’t views & policies.
    CLICK HERE, for participant contact info.
    CLICK HERE, for Russian replacement migration.
    CLICK HERE, for European replacement migration.
    CLICK HERE, for Korean population decline.
    CLICK HERE, for various conferences.
    CLICK HERE, for the “About” page.
    CLICK HERE, for “resolutions” from the UN Population Division.

    2. List Of Documents

      CLICK HERE, for the 2000 UN Expert Group Meeting On Policy Responses

    1. REPLACEMENT MIGRATION: IS IT A SOLUTION TO DECLINING AND A GEING POPULATIONS? (United Nations Population Division)
    2. UN/POP/PRA/2000/2 POPULATION AGEING AND POPULATION DECLINE: GOVERNMENT VIEWS AND POLICIES (Anatoly Zoubanov – United Nations Population Division)
    3. UN/POP/PRA/2000/3 THE INVERSION OF THE AGE PYRAMID AND THE FUTURE POULATION D ECLINE IN FRANCE: IMPLICATIONS AND POLICY RESPONSES (Jean-Claude Chesnais)
    4. UN/POP/PRA/2000/4 POLICY RESPONSES TO POPULATION AGEING AND POPULATION DECLINE IN FRANCE (Georges Tapinos)
    5. UN/POP/PRA/2000/5 DEMOGRAPHIC AGEING AND POPULATION DECLINE IN 21ST CENTURY G ERMANY – CONSEQUENCES FOR THE SYSTEMS OF SOCIAL I NSURANCE (Herwig Birg)
    6. UN/POP/PRA/2000/6 POLICY RESPONSES TO POPULATION AGEING AND POPULATION DECLINE IN GERMANY (Charlotte Hoehn)
    7. UN/POP/PRA/2000/7 POSSIBLE POLICY RESPONSES TO POPULATION AGEING AND P OPULATION DECLINE: THE CASE OF ITALY (Antonio Golini)
    8. UN/POP/PRA/2000/8 FEWER AND OLDER ITALIANS, MORE PROBLEMS? LOOKING FOR S OLUTIONS TO THE DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTION (Maria Rita Testa)

      9. UN/POP/PRA/2000/9 THE COMING OF A HYPER-AGED AND DEPOPULATING SOCIETY AND P OPULATION POLICIES – THE CASE OF JAPAN (Makoto Atoh)

    3. How Far Back Does This Go?

    United Nations Conferences on Population
    .
    Since the United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945 three world conferences on population have been held. The first conference, Bucharest World Population Conference, dates back to 1974. Ten years later Mexico City hosted the second International Conference on Population. The last world conference, the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development, was held 1994. Two other conferences on population have been convened. The first one in 1954 in Rome. The second one in Belgrade in 1965. In 1999 a Special Session of the General Assembly on Population was held in New York.

      Let’s Think About This:

    • Meet in 1954 in Rome
    • Meet in Belgrade in 1965
    • 1st Conference in 1974
    • 2nd Conference in 1984
    • 3rd Conference in 1994

    4. Overview

    The Population Division was established in the earlier years of the United Nations to serve as the Secretariat of the then Population Commission, created in 1946. Over the years, the Division has played an active role in the intergovernmental dialogue on population and development, producing constantly updated demographic estimates and projections for all countries, including data essential for the monitoring of the progress in achieving the Millennium Development Goals, developing and disseminating new methodologies, leading the substantive preparations for the United Nations major conferences on population and development as well as the annual sessions of the Commission on Population and Development.

    The United Nations Population Division assists the Department of Economic and Social Affairs in discharging its functions as member of the Global Migration Group. It provides programmatic support to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for International Migration and Development. It co-chairs the Population cluster of the Executive Committee on Economic and Social Affairs (EC-ESA), together with the Population Division of ECLAC.

    Why would the UN want to know all this information? Why would it want to know the population and demographic trends of memberstates? Almost like it wants to control the world.

    5. Want A Job?

    CLICK HERE, and see if you’re qualified.
    Responsibilities

    Within delegated authority, the duties of the Associate Population Affairs Officer are the following:
    .
    •Assists in developing and maintaining databases on demographic indicators, population and development indicators, population policy information and indicators or information on other population-related issues.
    •Applies the techniques of demographic analysis to estimate demographic indicators and to evaluate population data for completeness and accuracy so as to adjust the data as needed. It also includes the application of techniques or methods of projection of family planning indicators, and the provision of input to the periodic revisions of assumptions underlying those projections.
    •Prepares first drafts and inputs to technical studies or research reports.
    •Applies methodologies for demographic analysis.
    •Attends international, regional and national meetings on population issues to present results of demographic analysis and research; keeps abreast of developments in the field, gathers information, network and holds discussions on population issues with colleagues in other institutions.
    •Provides, as necessary, substantive support to technical cooperation projects in the area of population and development.
    •Performs other related duties as required, including a variety of administrative tasks necessary for the final delivery of the work unit’s products.

    Does plotting and calculating the future demographic trends turn you on? Get a kick out of becoming a minority in your own homeland? You can document the destruction of your nation and get paid quite well.

    WHY ISN’T THE PUBLIC AWARE?

    The United Nations has been studying population and demographic trends since at least 1974 (though probably much longer). They have been gathering all this information, and it is more than a passing interest.

    Keep in mind, the UN also promotes agreements such as the Global Migration Compact. There is no way the UN “wouldn’t” know about the long term trends and consequences from facilitating mass migration. There is no way the UN “wouldn’t” know about the breakdown and weakening of social cohesion by engaging in this.

    There is only one explanation
    UN WANTS DEMOGRAPHIC REPLACEMENT

    Posted on

    UN Issues “Human Rights Compliant Guidance” For Treating Returning Terrorists

    (1) https://www.un.org/sc/ctc/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Human-Rights-Responses-to-Foreign-Fighters-web-final.pdf
    (2) UNCHR Human Rights Responses to Foreign Fighters or Terrorists
    (3) https://www.un.org/sc/ctc/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/FTF-Report-1-3_English.pdf
    (4) https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/4/7/393503_2.pdf
    (5) OSCE Guidelines for Addressing the Foreign Terrorists Fighters
    (6) https://stepstojustice.ca/steps/1-understand-grounds-detention

    “Guidance to States on human rights-compliant responses to the threat posed by foreign fighters”

    That title is a direct quote. The UN promotes “human rights-compliant responses” to terrorists who have left their country to take up arms against them, commit atrocities, then expect to be welcomed back.

    ” In June 2014, it was estimated that up to 12,000 people from more than 80 countries had travelled to Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic to join groups such as the Al-Nusrah Front and the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). In September 2015, that number was thought to have grown to almost 30,000 from more than 100 countries. By August 2017, the flow of people to Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic had diminished dramatically in light of the military efforts against ISIL. In October 2017 it was estimated that over 40,000 people from more than 110 countries had joined ISIL, and that at least 5,600 of them had returned home.”

    1/ In 2014, 12,000 people across 80 countries travelled to Iraq and Syria.
    2/ In 2015, that number thought to be 30,000.
    3/ In 2017, thought to be 40,000.
    4/ At least 5,600 thought to have returned home.
    How is this not a crisis?

    “2. There is no clear profile for foreign terrorist fighters. Some are motivated by extremist ideology, while others appear more driven by alienation and boredom. Motivation may also change over time. Motivational factors may also include the desire to belong to a group or to gain peer acceptance; kinship, nationalism or patriotism; and humanitarian reasons, namely to protect the local population. Financial or material gain may also be a factor. The Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy points to prolonged unresolved conflicts, dehumanization of victims of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, lack of the rule of law and violations of human rights, ethnic, national and religious discrimination, political exclusion, socio-economic marginalization and lack of good governance conditions among the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism”

    This seems deliberately designed to avoid the obvious: above, 12,000-40,000 people were thought to have joined ISIS. You know what motivates them? ISLAM. This UN report dances around that point, and implies that any form of unhappiness or social exclusion leads to people joining.

    “3. The movement of people for the purposes of joining and supporting terrorist groups as well as their return to their countries of origin poses serious challenges to States in their efforts to prevent acts of terrorism. It is crucial that States adopt comprehensive long-term responses that deal with this threat and manage the return of fighters, and that in doing so they comply with their obligations under international human rights law. States have an obligation to protect the lives of individuals subject to their jurisdiction, and this includes the adoption of effective measures to counter the threat posed by foreign fighters. However, in its 2016 review of the Global Counter- Terrorism Strategy, the General Assembly expressed serious concern at the occurrence of violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms committed in the context of countering terrorism and stressed that, when counter-terrorism efforts neglected the rule of law and violated international law, they not only betrayed the values they sought to uphold, but they might also further fuel violent extremism that could be conducive to terrorism.”

    That’s right. The UN expects host nations to “manage” the return of foreign fighters, who — to be frank — are overwhelmingly muslim. Nations have an obligation to ensure that “their” human rights are not violated in any way.

    Curious to know: how does punishing them “further fuel violent extremism”? They are already violent, and anyone looking to join ISIS is a radical anyway.

    “5. In resolution 2178 (2014), the Security Council underscored that respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law are complementary and mutually reinforcing with effective counter-terrorism measures, and are an essential part of a successful counter-terrorism effort. It noted the importance of respect for the rule of law so as to effectively prevent and combat terrorism, and that failure to comply with these and other international obligations, including under the Charter of the United Nations, is one of the factors contributing to increased radicalization and fosters a sense of impunity. The Counter-Terrorism Committee has noted the importance, as States revise legislation and policy to stem the flow of foreign terrorist fighters, to recognize that the protection of human rights and the rule of law contribute to the countering of terrorism. Arbitrary arrests, incommunicado detentions, torture and unfair trials fuel a sense of injustice and may in turn encourage terrorist recruitment, including of foreign terrorist fighters”

    This is asinine. Somehow, if nations were nice and tolerant to returning terrorists, and ensured they have all the human rights they rejected…. then people won’t turn to terrorism. Perhaps there is a flow of terrorists because host countries are weak. Something to consider.

    “7. In December 2017, the Security Council adopted resolution 2396 (2017), building on resolution 2178 (2014) and providing greater focus on measures to address returning and relocating foreign terrorist fighters and their families, and requiring States to strengthen their efforts in border security, information-sharing, and criminal justice. In order to protect public order and safety in the countries to which foreign terrorist fighters return or relocate, resolution 2396 (2017) sets out additional measures beyond those in resolution 2178 (2014), which may raise concerns from a human rights perspective”

    Interesting. Not only do we have obligations to terrorists, but to their families as well.

    ” The document then analyses the gender aspects and the situation of children affected by or involved in foreign fighter activities and provides guidance on how to ensure information exchange, data collection and analysis in conformity with human rights. The document then addresses criminal justice measures, including the definition of terrorism; prosecution, fair trial and due process rights; rehabilitation and reintegration of returnees; and special laws, sunset clauses and review mechanisms. Finally, the document provides guidance on the right to an effective remedy for those whose rights have been violated and on preventing and countering violent extremism and incitement.”

    Wouldn’t be the UN without a few gender references.

    You read that right: rehabilitation and reintegration of returnees.

    “11. Any measures undertaken to implement resolutions 2178 (2014), 2396 (2017) or other Security Council resolutions must comply with general human rights principles grounded in treaty law and customary law. This means that any measures which may limit or restrict human rights must be prescribed by law, be necessary, proportionate to the pursuance of legitimate aims and non-discriminatory. They should also be procedurally fair and offer the opportunity of legal review.“

    What do you consider reasonable then? Is leaving to go join ISIS not a valid reason for the host country to fear for the safety of its citizens, should you return? As far as legal process goes: how does one investigate in a war zone across the world?

    “13. In a limited set of circumstances, States may also take measures to temporarily derogate from certain international human rights law provisions. As noted by the Human Rights Committee, measures derogating from the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights must be of an exceptional and temporary nature. Two fundamental conditions must be met: the situation must amount to a public emergency which threatens the life of the nation; and the State party must have officially proclaimed a state of emergency. The obligation to limit any derogations to those strictly required by the exigencies of the situation reflects the principle of proportionality which is common to derogation and limitation powers.”

    Okay, from your criteria: #1 is met. These fighters are a threat to the public.
    As for #2, “why” must a public declaration be made?

    14. The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, along with regional refugee instruments,22 are the core legal instruments of the international refugee regime, complemented by customary international law and international human rights law. These instruments define the term “refugee” and establish an international framework for the protection of refugees

    These people are not refugees. UN is deliberately obfuscating here. They are terrorists, who “chose” to leave their country.

    “16. International humanitarian law is also known as the law of war or the law of armed conflict and is applicable to both situations of international or non-international armed conflicts. These rules are enshrined in the four Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, as well as in customary rules of international humanitarian law. International humanitarian law is a set of rules which seek, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict. It protects persons, civilians, who are not or are no longer participating in the hostilities as well as fighters hors de combat and restricts the means and methods of warfare.“

    This is not an official war. People can’t just leave their country, join a foreign army, then expect to return afterwards. They have committed treason. It’s idiotic to claim that humanitarian law would apply to these people.

    “18. States have used different measures, whether legislative, administrative or operational, to prevent the departure of foreign fighters to conflict areas as well as to prevent their return. These could include travel bans, the seizure, retention, withdrawal and non-renewal of passports or identity cards, the stripping of citizenship, restrictions on travel or entry to territory and various types of house arrests or preventive detention. All of these measures have a serious impact on a number of fundamental human rights, including the rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement. They also raise a number of serious due process concerns if, for example, decisions are taken following secretive proceedings, in absentia or on the basis of vaguely defined criteria without adequate safeguards to prevent statelessness.“

    Here’s the thing: very few people would actually care if any terrorists were left stateless as a result. If you leave to take up arms against a nation or it’s allies, you are a TRAITOR. You have forfeited your rights to be a citizen.

    “21. The right to life, liberty and security of person is fundamental in international human rights law. It is the first substantive right protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Deprivation of liberty involves a more severe restriction on motion than merely interfering with freedom of movement. Examples of deprivation of liberty include arrest, imprisonment, house arrest, administrative detention and involuntary transportation, but may also include the cumulative effects of multiple restrictions on freedom of movement when, taken together, they would amount to a de facto deprivation of liberty. International human rights law protects against such deprivation of liberty, except on grounds of and in accordance with procedures established by law. But, even assuming that a deprivation of liberty is lawful, international human rights law also absolutely prohibits any deprivation of liberty that is arbitrary. The prohibition of arbitrary detention is non-derogable and must be understood to incorporate elements of “inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law as well as elements of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality”. The right to life is non-derogable, and the Human Rights Committee has stated that the fundamental guarantee against arbitrary detention is also non-derogable insofar as even situations that allow for derogations in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights cannot justify a deprivation of liberty that is unreasonable or unnecessary under the circumstances.”

    It would be nice if the UN at some point starts listing rights and protections that society should have.

    I’ll stop it here, but it goes on about ensuring that foreign fighters and terrorists have their human rights met. Ironic, since this group would never extend human rights or life to others.

    Noticeably absent is any concern for the populations of these countries. Returning terrorists will pose a risk to the public, most likely for life. However, the UN talks about “managing” those risks.

    Canadian Criminal Code:

    Purpose and Principles of Sentencing
    Marginal note:
    Purpose
    718 The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:
    (a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;
    (b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
    (c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
    (d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
    (e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
    (f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

    I think that terrorism would certainly qualify under the first 3 criteria. We must (a) denounce the conduct; (b) deter the offender, and others, and (c) separate the offender from society. The other 3 are of much less concern.

    Grounds to Deny Bail

    The Crown considers 3 grounds of detention:
    Primary – You may not go to court when required.
    Secondary – You may commit another crime, or the public may not be safe while you’re out on bail.
    Tertiary – Because of the circumstances of your offence, the public might feel that the justice system is not working if you’re let out of custody.

    Terrorists would qualify on all 3 grounds.

    Regardless, the overwhelming majority of the public does not want these people coming back. Not now, not ever.

    Posted on

    Canada’s Bill C-74, Deferred Prosecution Agreement, and OECD Anti-Bribery Agreement

    1. Important Links

    (1) http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-74/royal-assent
    (2) http://archive.is/wip/14Scd
    (3) https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/alerts/2018/april/11
    (4) http://archive.is/wip/q6KsR
    (5) https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/jody-wilson-raybould-resigns-from-cabinet/
    (6) http://archive.is/wip/BxmzN
    (7) https://globalnews.ca/news/5012770/jody-wilson-raybould-snc-lavalin-david-lametti/
    (8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkDweZcSO-E
    (9) https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/oecd-announces-it-is-monitoring-snc-lavalin-scandal-raising-prospect-canada-has-violated-international-anti-bribery-agreement
    (10) http://www.oecd.org/corruption/oecdantibriberyconvention.htm
    (11) http://www.oecd.org/daf/anti-bribery/ConvCombatBribery_ENG.pdf

    (12) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/clntSmmry?clientOrgCorpNumber=359826&sMdKy=1562758127214
    (13) https://www.elections.ca/WPAPPS/WPF/EN/CCS/ContributionReport?returnS

    2. Some Context

    This is supposedly a budget bill, but is in fact an omnibus bill (a bloated bill with many unrelated provisions), At the very end is Part 6, Division 20. Presumably it was tacked on as an afterthought.

    The “Deferred Prosecution Agreement” (or DPA), is a mechanism which corporations can avoid criminal penalties in Canada. Under Canadian law, a company found guilty in criminal court would be prohibited from bidding on government contracts for a period of 10 years. Obviously, this would hurt the company.

    Of course, if it looks like Government influence helped a company avoid criminal penalties, it would stink of corruption, as seems to be the case with Quebec engineering firm SNC Lavalin.

    Former Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould resigned from her post after being pressured by the Trudeau Government to cut such a deal for SNC Lavalin, and help the company avoid criminal penalties.

    If that didn’t stink enough, her successor, David Lametti, claimed he knew nothing, about the deal when he took over. He also took Trudeau’s word that nothing inappropriate happened. It doesn’t help that Lametti is from Montreal (as is SNC Lavalin).

    Worse still, is that Lametti seems content with letting SNC Lavalin get its DPA anyway, which is what Wilson-Raybould had been pressured to do.

    The Organization for Economic Development & Cooperation (OEDC), would also consider such actions to violate the multi-nation Anti-Bribery Agreement. So the fallout seems to be spreading, not being contained.

    3. Content Of Deferred Prosecution Agreement

    Summary, Part 6, Division 20
    Division 20 of Part 6 amends the Criminal Code to establish a remediation agreement regime. Under this regime, the prosecutor may negotiate a remediation agreement with an organization that is alleged to have committed an offence of an economic character referred to in the schedule to Part XXII.‍1 of that Act and the proceedings related to that offence are stayed if the organization complies with the terms of the agreement.
    .
    Text Of Bill
    PART XXII.‍1 
    .
    Remediation Agreements
    .
    Definitions
    .
    715.‍3 (1) The following definitions apply in this Part.
    court means a superior court of criminal jurisdiction but does not include a court of appeal.‍ (tribunal)
    offence means any offence listed in the schedule to this Part.‍ (infraction)
    organization has the same meaning as in section 2 but does not include a public body, trade union or municipality.‍ (organisation)
    remediation agreement means an agreement, between an organization accused of having committed an offence and a prosecutor, to stay any proceedings related to that offence if the organization complies with the terms of the agreement. (accord de réparation)
    victim has the same meaning as in section 2 but, with respect to an offence under section 3 or 4 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, it includes any person outside Canada.‍ (victime)
    .
    Acting on victim’s behalf
    .
    (2) For the purposes of this Part, a third party not referred to in section 2.‍2 may also act on a victim’s behalf when authorized to do so by the court, if the victim requests it or the prosecutor deems it appropriate.
    .
    Purpose
    .
    715.‍31 The purpose of this Part is to establish a remediation agreement regime that is applicable to organizations alleged to have committed an offence and that has the following objectives:
    (a) to denounce an organization’s wrongdoing and the harm that the wrongdoing has caused to victims or to the community;
    (b) to hold the organization accountable for its wrongdoing through effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties;
    (c) to contribute to respect for the law by imposing an obligation on the organization to put in place corrective measures and promote a compliance culture;
    (d) to encourage voluntary disclosure of the wrongdoing;
    (e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
    (f) to reduce the negative consequences of the wrongdoing for persons — employees, customers, pensioners and others — who did not engage in the wrongdoing, while holding responsible those individuals who did engage in that wrongdoing.
    .
    Conditions for remediation agreement
    .
    715.‍32 (1) The prosecutor may enter into negotiations for a remediation agreement with an organization alleged to have committed an offence if the following conditions are met:
    (a) the prosecutor is of the opinion that there is a reasonable prospect of conviction with respect to the offence;
    (b) the prosecutor is of the opinion that the act or omission that forms the basis of the offence did not cause and was not likely to have caused serious bodily harm or death, or injury to national defence or national security, and was not committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization or terrorist group;
    (c) the prosecutor is of the opinion that negotiating the agreement is in the public interest and appropriate in the circumstances; and
    (d) the Attorney General has consented to the negotiation of the agreement.
    .
    Factors to consider
    .
    (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)‍(c), the prosecutor must consider the following factors:
    (a) the circumstances in which the act or omission that forms the basis of the offence was brought to the attention of investigative authorities;
    (b) the nature and gravity of the act or omission and its impact on any victim;
    (c) the degree of involvement of senior officers of the organization in the act or omission;
    (d) whether the organization has taken disciplinary action, including termination of employment, against any person who was involved in the act or omission;
    (e) whether the organization has made reparations or taken other measures to remedy the harm caused by the act or omission and to prevent the commission of similar acts or omissions;
    (f) whether the organization has identified or expressed a willingness to identify any person involved in wrongdoing related to the act or omission;
    (g) whether the organization — or any of its representatives — was convicted of an offence or sanctioned by a regulatory body, or whether it entered into a previous remediation agreement or other settlement, in Canada or elsewhere, for similar acts or omissions;
    (h) whether the organization — or any of its representatives — is alleged to have committed any other offences, including those not listed in the schedule to this Part; and
    (i) any other factor that the prosecutor considers relevant.
    .
    Factors not to consider
    .
    (3) Despite paragraph (2)‍(i), if the organization is alleged to have committed an offence under section 3 or 4 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, the prosecutor must not consider the national economic interest, the potential effect on relations with a state other than Canada or the identity of the organization or individual involved.
    .
    Notice to organization — invitation to negotiate
    .
    715.‍33 (1) If the prosecutor wishes to negotiate a remediation agreement, they must give the organization written notice of the offer to enter into negotiations and the notice must include
    (a) a summary description of the offence to which the agreement would apply;
    (b) an indication of the voluntary nature of the negotiation process;
    (c) an indication of the legal effects of the agreement;
    (d) an indication that, by agreeing to the terms of this notice, the organization explicitly waives the inclusion of the negotiation period and the period during which the agreement is in force in any assessment of the reasonableness of the delay between the day on which the charge is laid and the end of trial;
    (e) an indication that negotiations must be carried out in good faith and that the organization must provide all information requested by the prosecutor that the organization is aware of or can obtain through reasonable efforts, including information enabling the identification of any person involved in the act or omission that forms the basis of the offence or any wrongdoing related to that act or omission;
    (f) an indication of how the information disclosed by the organization during the negotiations may be used, subject to subsection (2);
    (g) a warning that knowingly making false or misleading statements or knowingly providing false or misleading information during the negotiations may lead to the recommencement of proceedings or prosecution for obstruction of justice;
    (h) an indication that either party may withdraw from the negotiations by providing written notice to the other party;
    (i) an indication that reasonable efforts must be made by both parties to identify any victim as soon as practicable; and
    (j) a deadline to accept the offer to negotiate according to the terms of the notice.
    .
    Admissions not admissible in evidence
    .
    (2) No admission, confession or statement accepting responsibility for a given act or omission made by the organization during the negotiations is admissible in evidence against that organization in any civil or criminal proceedings related to that act or omission, except those contained in the statement of facts or admission of responsibility referred to in paragraphs 715.‍34(1)‍(a) and (b), if the parties reach an agreement and it is approved by the court.
    .
    Mandatory contents of agreement
    .
    715.‍34 (1) A remediation agreement must include
    (a) a statement of facts related to the offence that the organization is alleged to have committed and an undertaking by the organization not to make or condone any public statement that contradicts those facts;
    (b) the organization’s admission of responsibility for the act or omission that forms the basis of the offence;
    (c) an indication of the obligation for the organization to provide any other information that will assist in identifying any person involved in the act or omission, or any wrongdoing related to that act or omission, that the organization becomes aware of, or can obtain through reasonable efforts, after the agreement has been entered into;
    (d) an indication of the obligation for the organization to cooperate in any investigation, prosecution or other proceeding in Canada — or elsewhere if the prosecutor considers it appropriate — resulting from the act or omission, including by providing information or testimony;
    (e) with respect to any property, benefit or advantage identified in the agreement that was obtained or derived directly or indirectly from the act or omission, an obligation for the organization to
    (i) forfeit it to Her Majesty in right of Canada, to be disposed of in accordance with paragraph 4(1)‍(b.‍2) of the Seized Property Management Act,
    (ii) forfeit it to Her Majesty in right of a province, to be disposed of as the Attorney General directs, or
    (iii) otherwise deal with it, as the prosecutor directs;
    (f) an indication of the obligation for the organization to pay a penalty to the Receiver General or to the treasurer of a province, as the case may be, for each offence to which the agreement applies, the amount to be paid and any other terms respecting payment;
    (g) an indication of any reparations, including restitution consistent with paragraph 738(1)‍(a) or (b), that the organization is required to make to a victim or a statement by the prosecutor of the reasons why reparations to a victim are not appropriate in the circumstances and an indication of any measure required in lieu of reparations to a victim;
    (h) an indication of the obligation for the organization to pay a victim surcharge for each offence to which the agreement applies, other than an offence under section 3 or 4 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, the amount to be paid and any other terms respecting payment;
    (i) an indication of the obligation for the organization to report to the prosecutor on the implementation of the agreement and an indication of the manner in which the report is to be made and any other terms respecting reporting;
    (j) an indication of the legal effects of the agreement;
    (k) an acknowledgement by the organization that the agreement has been made in good faith and that the information it has provided during the negotiation is accurate and complete and a commitment that it will continue to provide accurate and complete information while the agreement is in force;
    (l) an indication of the use that can be made of information obtained as a result of the agreement, subject to subsection (2);
    (m) a warning that the breach of any term of the agreement may lead to an application by the prosecutor for termination of the agreement and a recommencement of proceedings;
    (n) an indication of the obligation for the organization not to deduct, for income tax purposes, the costs of any reparations or other measures referred to in paragraph (g) or any other costs incurred to fulfil the terms of the agreement;
    (o) a notice of the prosecutor’s right to vary or terminate the agreement with the approval of the court; and
    (p) an indication of the deadline by which the organization must meet the terms of the agreement.

    Admissions not admissible in evidence
    .
    (2) No admission, confession or statement accepting responsibility for a given act or omission made by the organization as a result of the agreement is admissible in evidence against that organization in any civil or criminal proceedings related to that act or omission, except those contained in the statement of facts and admission of responsibility referred to in paragraphs (1)‍(a) and (b), if the agreement is approved by the court.

    Optional content of agreement
    .
    (3) A remediation agreement may include, among other things,
    (a) an indication of the obligation for the organization to establish, implement or enhance compliance measures to address any deficiencies in the organization’s policies, standards or procedures — including those related to internal control procedures and employee training — that may have allowed the act or omission;
    (b) an indication of the obligation for the organization to reimburse the prosecutor for any costs identified in the agreement that are related to its administration and that have or will be incurred by the prosecutor; and
    (c) an indication of the fact that an independent monitor has been appointed, as selected with the prosecutor’s approval, to verify and report to the prosecutor on the organization’s compliance with the obligation referred to in paragraph (a), or any other obligation in the agreement identified by the prosecutor, as well as an indication of the organization’s obligations with respect to that monitor, including the obligations to cooperate with the monitor and pay the monitor’s costs.

    Oh, it gets much worse.

    4. Anti-Corruption Agreements

    Here is the CONVENTION itself:

    “HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
    .
    Article 1
    The Offence of Bribery of Foreign Public Officials
    .
    1. Each Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish that it is a criminal offence under its law for any person intentionally to offer, promise or give any undue pecuniary or other advantage, whether directly or through intermediaries, to a foreign public official, for that official or for a third party, in order that the official act or refrain from acting in relation to the performance of official duties, in order to obtain or retain business or other improper advantage in the conduct of international business.
    .
    2. Each Party shall take any measures necessary to establish that complicity in, including incitement, aiding and abetting, or authorisation of an act of bribery of a foreign public official shall be a criminal offence. Attempt and conspiracy to bribe a foreign public official shall be criminal offences to the same extent as attempt and conspiracy to bribe a public official of that Party.
    .
    3. The offences set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 above are hereinafter referred to as “bribery of a foreign public official”.

    The document is quite long, and a read it recommended.

    5. Liberal Donor Bruce Hartley Is Lavalin Lobbyist

    How did this DPA come to be. Perhaps one name can explain it: Bruce Hartley.

    Hartley has been a long time Liberal donor. He now is a registered lobbyist with SNC-Lavalin. One of his specific lobbying targets was the creation of the DPA.

    (Hartley has made 124+ donations to the Liberal Party and its members since 2005).

    (Hartley is registered as a Lavalin lobbyist.)

    (Hartley’s job includes lobbying for DPA)

    6. Bottom Line

    1/ The Federal Government added this “Deferred Prosecution Agreement” into the Criminal Code to allow companies to avoid criminal penalties (and the bulk of financial penalties), under this arrangement. This is stuffed into the end of a completely unrelated budget bill.
    2/ Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould resigned after she alleges being pressured to cut a deal with Quebec engineering firm, SNC Lavalin
    3/ Federal Government denies this, claims it was a “misunderstanding”
    4/ New AG says he sees nothing wrong, and may still give DPA to SNC Lavalin.
    5/ Public interest and outrage in story is growing.
    6/ This DPA appears to violate international anti-bribery agreement.
    7/ Liberal donor Bruce Hartley is now an SNC-Lavalin lobbyist, and is tasked with pushing for the creation of the DPA.

    *Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress