Bilderberg Meetings: Deep State Gettogethers


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

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

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


IMPORTANT LINKS


CLICK HERE, for the main page.
CLICK HERE, for the FAQ section.
CLICK HERE, for the “Participants” section.
CLICK HERE, for then Immigration Minister Jason Kenney attending in 2014.

2018 Bilderberg Meetings

Turin, Italy 7-10 June 2018

CHAIRMAN STEERING COMMITTEE
Castries, Henri de (FRA), Chairman, Institut Montaigne

PARTICIPANTS
Achleitner, Paul M. (DEU), Chairman Supervisory Board, Deutsche Bank AG; Treasurer, Foundation Bilderberg Meetings
Agius, Marcus (GBR), Chairman, PA Consulting Group
Alesina, Alberto (ITA), Nathaniel Ropes Professor of Economics, Harvard University
Altman, Roger C. (USA), Founder and Senior Chairman, Evercore
Amorim, Paula (PRT), Chairman, Américo Amorim Group
Anglade, Dominique (CAN), Deputy Premier of Quebec; Minister of Economy, Science and Innovation
Applebaum, Anne (POL), Columnist, Washington Post; Professor of Practice, London School of Economics
Azoulay, Audrey (INT), Director-General, UNESCO
Baker, James H. (USA), Director, Office of Net Assessment, Office of the Secretary of Defense
Barbizet, Patricia (FRA), President, Temaris & Associés
Barroso, José M. Durão (PRT), Chairman, Goldman Sachs International; Former President, European Commission
Beerli, Christine (CHE), Former Vice-President, International Committee of the Red Cross
Berx, Cathy (BEL), Governor, Province of Antwerp
Beurden, Ben van (NLD), CEO, Royal Dutch Shell plc
Blanquer, Jean-Michel (FRA), Minister of National Education, Youth and Community Life
Botín, Ana P. (ESP), Group Executive Chairman, Banco Santander
Bouverot, Anne (FRA), Board Member; Former CEO, Morpho
Brandtzæg, Svein Richard (NOR), President and CEO, Norsk Hydro ASA
Brende, Børge (INT), President, World Economic Forum
Brennan, Eamonn (IRL), Director General, Eurocontrol
Brnabic, Ana (SRB), Prime Minister
Burns, William J. (USA), President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Burwell, Sylvia M. (USA), President, American University
Caracciolo, Lucio (ITA), Editor-in-Chief, Limes
Carney, Mark J. (GBR), Governor, Bank of England
Castries, Henri de (FRA), Chairman, Institut Montaigne; Chairman, Steering Committee Bilderberg Meetings
Cattaneo, Elena (ITA), Director, Laboratory of Stem Cell Biology, University of Milan
Cazeneuve, Bernard (FRA), Partner, August Debouzy; Former Prime Minister
Cebrián, Juan Luis (ESP), Executive Chairman, El País
Champagne, François-Philippe (CAN), Minister of International Trade
Cohen, Jared (USA), Founder and CEO, Jigsaw at Alphabet Inc.
Colao, Vittorio (ITA), CEO, Vodafone Group
Cook, Charles (USA), Political Analyst, The Cook Political Report
Dagdeviren, Canan (TUR), Assistant Professor, MIT Media Lab
Donohoe, Paschal (IRL), Minister for Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform
Döpfner, Mathias (DEU), Chairman and CEO, Axel Springer SE
Ecker, Andrea (AUT), Secretary General, Office Federal President of Austria
Elkann, John (ITA), Chairman, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
Émié, Bernard (FRA), Director General, Ministry of the Armed Forces
Enders, Thomas (DEU), CEO, Airbus SE
Fallows, James (USA), Writer and Journalist
Ferguson, Jr., Roger W. (USA), President and CEO, TIAA
Ferguson, Niall (USA), Milbank Family Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Fischer, Stanley (USA), Former Vice-Chairman, Federal Reserve; Former Governor, Bank of Israel
Gilvary, Brian (GBR), Group CFO, BP plc
Goldstein, Rebecca (USA), Visiting Professor, New York University
Gruber, Lilli (ITA), Editor-in-Chief and Anchor “Otto e mezzo”, La7 TV
Hajdarowicz, Greg (POL), Founder and President, Gremi International Sarl
Halberstadt, Victor (NLD), Professor of Economics, Leiden University; Chairman Foundation Bilderberg Meetings
Hassabis, Demis (GBR), Co-Founder and CEO, DeepMind
Hedegaard, Connie (DNK), Chair, KR Foundation; Former European Commissioner
Helgesen, Vidar (NOR), Ambassador for the Ocean
Herlin, Antti (FIN), Chairman, KONE Corporation
Hickenlooper, John (USA), Governor of Colorado
Hobson, Mellody (USA), President, Ariel Investments LLC
Hodgson, Christine (GBR), Chairman, Capgemini UK plc
Hoffman, Reid (USA), Co-Founder, LinkedIn; Partner, Greylock Partners
Horowitz, Michael C. (USA), Professor of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania
Hwang, Tim (USA), Director, Harvard-MIT Ethics and Governance of AI Initiative
Ischinger, Wolfgang (INT), Chairman, Munich Security Conference
Jacobs, Kenneth M. (USA), Chairman and CEO, Lazard
Kaag, Sigrid (NLD), Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation
Karp, Alex (USA), CEO, Palantir Technologies
Kissinger, Henry A. (USA), Chairman, Kissinger Associates Inc.
Knot, Klaas H.W. (NLD), President, De Nederlandsche Bank
Koç, Ömer M. (TUR), Chairman, Koç Holding A.S.
Köcher, Renate (DEU), Managing Director, Allensbach Institute for Public Opinion Research
Kotkin, Stephen (USA), Professor in History and International Affairs, Princeton University
Kragic, Danica (SWE), Professor, School of Computer Science and Communication, KTH
Kravis, Henry R. (USA), Co-Chairman and Co-CEO, KKR
Kravis, Marie-Josée (USA), Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute; President, American Friends of Bilderberg
Kudelski, André (CHE), Chairman and CEO, Kudelski Group
Lepomäki, Elina (FIN), MP, National Coalition Party
Leyen, Ursula von der (DEU), Federal Minster of Defence
Leysen, Thomas (BEL), Chairman, KBC Group
Makan, Divesh (USA), CEO, ICONIQ Capital
Massolo, Giampiero (ITA), Chairman, Fincantieri Spa.; President, ISPI
Mazzucato, Mariana (ITA), Professor in the Economics of Innovation and Public Value, University College London
Mead, Walter Russell (USA), Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute
Michel, Charles (BEL), Prime Minister
Micklethwait, John (USA), Editor-in-Chief, Bloomberg LP
Minton Beddoes, Zanny (GBR), Editor-in-Chief, The Economist
Mitsotakis, Kyriakos (GRC), President, New Democracy Party
Mota, Isabel (PRT), President, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation
Moyo, Dambisa F. (USA), Global Economist and Author
Mundie, Craig J. (USA), President, Mundie & Associates
Neven, Hartmut (USA), Director of Engineering, Google Inc.
Noonan, Peggy (USA), Author and Columnist, The Wall Street Journal
Oettinger, Günther H. (INT), Commissioner for Budget & Human Resources, European Commission
O’Leary, Michael (IRL), CEO, Ryanair D.A.C.
O’Neill, Onora (GBR), Emeritus Honorary Professor in Philosophy, University of Cambridge
Osborne, George (GBR), Editor, London Evening Standard
Özkan, Behlül (TUR), Associate Professor in International Relations, Marmara University
Papalexopoulos, Dimitri (GRC), CEO, Titan Cement Company S.A.
Parolin, H.E. Pietro (VAT), Cardinal and Secretary of State
Patino, Bruno (FRA), Chief Content Officer, Arte France TV
Petraeus, David H. (USA), Chairman, KKR Global Institute
Pichette, Patrick (CAN), General Partner, iNovia Capital
Pouyanné, Patrick (FRA), Chairman and CEO, Total S.A.
Pring, Benjamin (USA), Co-Founder and Managing Director, Center for the Future of Work
Rankka, Maria (SWE), CEO, Stockholm Chamber of Commerce
Ratas, Jüri (EST), Prime Minister
Rendi-Wagner, Pamela (AUT), MP (SPÖ); Former Minister of Health
Rivera Díaz, Albert (ESP), President, Ciudadanos Party
Rossi, Salvatore (ITA), Senior Deputy Governor, Bank of Italy
Rubesa, Baiba A. (LVA), CEO, RB Rail AS
Rubin, Robert E. (USA), Co-Chairman Emeritus, Council on Foreign Relations; Former Treasury Secretary
Rudd, Amber (GBR), MP; Former Secretary of State, Home Department
Rutte, Mark (NLD), Prime Minister
Sabia, Michael (CAN), President and CEO, Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec
Sadjadpour, Karim (USA), Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Sáenz de Santamaría, Soraya (ESP), Deputy Prime Minister
Sawers, John (GBR), Chairman and Partner, Macro Advisory Partners
Schadlow, Nadia (USA), Former Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategy
Schneider-Ammann, Johann N. (CHE), Federal Councillor
Scholten, Rudolf (AUT), President, Bruno Kreisky Forum for International Dialogue
Sikorski, Radoslaw (POL), Senior Fellow, Harvard University; Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Poland
Simsek, Mehmet (TUR), Deputy Prime Minister
Skartveit, Hanne (NOR), Political Editor, Verdens Gang
Stoltenberg, Jens (INT), Secretary General, NATO
Summers, Lawrence H. (USA), Charles W. Eliot University Professor, Harvard University
Thiel, Peter (USA), President, Thiel Capital
Topsøe, Jakob Haldor (DNK), Chairman, Haldor Topsøe Holding A/S
Turpin, Matthew (USA), Director for China, National Security Council
Wahlroos, Björn (FIN), Chairman, Sampo Group, Nordea Bank, UPM-Kymmene Corporation
Wallenberg, Marcus (SWE), Chairman, Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB
Woods, Ngaire (GBR), Dean, Blavatnik School of Government, Oxford University
Yetkin, Murat (TUR), Editor-in-chief, Hürriyet Daily News
Zeiler, Gerhard (AUT), President, Turner International

As should be obvious from the list, a lot of banks and investment holding companies are represented. Why would that be? Are there some big profits to be made in all this?

Brief History
The Bilderberg meeting is an annual three-day forum for informal discussions designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America. The pioneering meeting grew out of the concern, expressed by leading citizens on both sides of the Atlantic, that Western Europe and North America were not working together as closely as they should on issues of common interest.

The first meeting took place in Hotel De Bilderberg in Oosterbeek, Netherlands, from 29 to 31 May 1954. Representatives from economic, social, political and cultural fields were invited to hold informal discussions to help create a better understanding of the complex forces and major trends affecting Western nations in the difficult post-war period.

Throughout the years, the annual meetings have become a forum for discussion on a wide range of topics – from trade to jobs, from monetary policy to investment and from ecological challenges to the task of promoting international security. In the context of a globalised world, it is hard to think of any issue in either Europe or North America that could be tackled unilaterally.

STEERING COMMITTEE


CHAIRMAN
Castries, Henri de (FRA), Chairman, Institut Montaigne

Achleitner, Paul M. (DEU), Chairman Supervisory Board, Deutsche Bank AG; Treasurer, Foundation Bilderberg Meetings
Altman, Roger C. (USA), Founder and Senior Chairman, Evercore
Barbizet, Patricia (FRA), President, Temaris & Associés
Barroso, José M. Durão (PRT), Chairman, Goldman Sachs International; Former President, European Commission
Botín, Ana P. (ESP), Group Executive Chairman, Banco Santander
Brandtzæg, Svein Richard (NOR), President and CEO, Norsk Hydro ASA
Döpfner, Mathias (DEU), Chairman and CEO, Axel Springer SE
Elkann, John (ITA), Chairman, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
Gruber, Lilli (ITA), Editor-in-Chief and Anchor “Otto e mezzo”, La7 TV
Halberstadt, Victor (NLD), Professor of Economics, Leiden University; Chairman Foundation Bilderberg Meetings
Hedegaard, Connie (DNK), Chair, KR Foundation; Former European Commissioner
Hobson, Mellody (USA), President, Ariel Investments LLC
Karp, Alex (USA), CEO, Palantir Technologies
Koç, Ömer M. (TUR), Chairman, Koç Holding A.S.
Kravis, Marie-Josée (USA), Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute; President, American Friends of Bilderberg Inc.
Kudelski, André (CHE), Chairman and CEO, Kudelski Group
Leysen, Thomas (BEL), Chairman, KBC Group
Micklethwait, John (USA), Editor-in-Chief, Bloomberg LP
Minton Beddoes, Zanny (GBR), Editor-in-Chief, The Economist
Mundie, Craig J. (USA), President, Mundie & Associates
O’Leary, Michael (IRL), CEO, Ryanair D.A.C.
Papalexopoulos, Dimitri (GRC), CEO, Titan Cement Company S.A.
Sabia, Michael (CAN), President and CEO, Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec
Sawers, John (GBR), Chairman and Partner, Macro Advisory Partners
Schadlow, Nadia (USA), Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Schmidt, Eric E. (USA), Technical Advisor, Alphabet Inc.
Scholten, Rudolf (AUT), President, Bruno Kreisky Forum for International Dialogue
Sikorski, Radoslaw (POL), Senior Fellow, Harvard University; Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Poland
Thiel, Peter (USA), President, Thiel Capital
Wallenberg, Marcus (SWE), Chairman, Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB

BILDERBERG GOALS

What are the Bilderberg Meetings and what are its goals?
The Bilderberg Meeting is an annual meeting designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America. Bilderberg was established in 1954 as a forum for informal discussions, bringing together individuals who share an active interest in affairs relevant to the relationship between Europe and Northern America. The meeting has one main goal: to foster discussion and dialogue. There is no desired outcome, there is no closing statement, there are no resolutions proposed or votes taken.

Sounds so harmless and innocuous.
But then, it always does.

The Dark Side Of Forced Diversity


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

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

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


IMPORTANT LINKS


CLICK HERE, for Harvard’s racial quotas lawsuit.
CLICK HERE, for SAT admission by race, class
CLICK HERE, for Bob Rae’s affirmative action policies.
CLICK HERE, for the Canadian Charter.
CLICK HERE, for Canadian Forces fitness standards (2011).
CLICK HERE, for Canadian Forces run times.

CLICK HERE, for Robert Potnam, E Pluribus Unum
In diverse neighbourhoods (US), everyone “hunkers down”.
Links to many different surveys.

CLICK HERE, for Leveraging Diversity To Improve Business.
No improvement in talent or production found.

CLICK HERE, for MIT article on workplace diversity.
“Idea” of diversity preferred to “actual” diversity
Diversity raises profits, but lowers social cohesion

THE MACLEAN’S ARTICLE

Most recently, and perhaps most significantly, Ontario has become the first province in Canada to propose a mandatory employment equity program that would have the effect of requiring privately owned companies to hire and promote women, nonwhites, aboriginals and disabled people.

Ugly: So far, the government’s opponents have taken aim most directly at the proposed labor laws. Business groups and many of the country’s largest employers have argued that the legislation will give trade unions too much power and frighten off investors from Canada’s industrial heartland. Critics also charge that the New Democrats’ approach to empowering vulnerable or disadvantaged members of society—including workers, visible minorities, women, natives, children, the elderly and the disabled—is fundamentally misguided. They claim that some of the programs will hand power to narrowly focused interest groups rather than to needy individuals. Acknowledged one veteran NDP organizer: “We are getting into some very dicey areas. If we are not careful we can create all kinds of tension

Indeed, some analysts say that the NDP’S employment equity proposal is a potentially divisive instrument. Declared University of Toronto historian Michael Bliss: “People are being defined by race and gender, and it is profoundly wrong. In a liberal society you think about people in terms of their character, not the color of their skin.” Bliss said that he is worried that the program could produce an ugly backlash. “The government says that it is trying to stop racism and sexism,” he added, “but I think they are raising the awareness of race and sex almost to a fever pitch.”

WHAT DOES THE CHARTER SAY?

Equality Rights

Marginal note:
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Marginal note:
Affirmative action programs
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

In short, everyone is equal, unless you call it affirmative action. Then equality can be thrown to the wind.

GENDER MORE IMPORTANT THAN SPEED

This example is from the Canadian Forces 1.5km run times.

AGE MALE FEMALE
Under 30 Years 10:13 – 11:56 12:36 – 14:26
30 – 34 10:35 – 12:26 12:57 – 14:55
35 – 39 10:58 – 12:56 13:27 – 15:25
40 – 44 11:12 – 13:25 13:57 – 15:55
45 – 49 11:27 – 13:56 14:26 – 16:25
50 – 54 11:57 – 14:25 14:56 – 16:54
55 and over 12:27 – 14:56 15:27 – 17:24

Serious question, how does watering down the standards based on age and sex help strengthen the Canadian Forces?

RACE, CLASS OVER INTELLIGENCE

The next 2 charts have to do with how SAT scores and ACT scores are slanted depending on race or class in order to gain entry to American universities.

GROUP ACT (Scale of 36) SAT (Scale of 1600)
Race
Black +3.8 +310

Hispanic +0.3 +130

White +0.0 +0.0

Asian -3.4 -140

GROUP ACT (Scale of 36) SAT (Scale of 1600)
Class
Lower -0.1 +310

Working +0.0 +70

Middle +0.0 +0.0

Upper-Middle +0.3 -20

Upper +0.4 -30

So, just looking at race, Asian would have a -140, while blacks would have +310, concerning SAT scores. So there would be a 450 point gap, or more than a 25% discrepancy based on race.

Even scoring a perfect 1600, the Asian student would only get 1460, while the black student would only need to achieve an 1150 to beat that Asian. In this case 1150 = 1600. Absurd. Isn’t admission into colleges supposed to be reserved for the most academically accomplished?

Robert Potnam, E Pluribus Unum

Ethnic diversity is increasing in most advanced countries, driven mostly by sharp increases in immigration. In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits. In the short run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer. In the long run, however, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross-cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities. Illustrations of becoming comfortable with diversity are drawn from the US military, religious institutions, and earlier waves of American immigration.

The evidence that diversity and solidarity are negatively correlated (controlling for many potentially confounding variables) comes from many different settings:
• Across workgroups in the United States, as well as in Europe, internal heterogeneity (in terms of age, professional background, ethnicity, tenure and other factors) is generally associated with lower group cohesion, lower satisfaction and higher turnover (Jackson et al. 1991; Cohen & Bailey 1997; Keller 2001; Webber & Donahue 2001).
• Across countries, greater ethnic heterogeneity seems to be associated with lower social trust (Newton & Delhey 2005; Anderson & Paskeviciute 2006; but see also Hooghe et al. 2006).
• Across local areas in the United States, Australia, Sweden, Canada and Britain, greater ethnic diversity is associated with lower social trust and, at least in some cases, lower investment in public goods (Poterba 1997; Alesina et al. 1999; Alesina & La Ferrara 2000, 2002; Costa & Kahn 2003b; Vigdor 2004; Glaeser & Alesina 2004; Leigh 2006; Jordahl & Gustavsson 2006; Soroka et al. 2007; Pennant 2005; but see also Letki forthcoming).
• Among Peruvian micro-credit cooperatives, ethnic heterogeneity is associated with higher default rates; across Kenyan school districts ethnolinguistic diversity is associated with less voluntary fundraising; and in Himalayan Pakistan, clan, religious, and political diversity are linked with failure of collective infrastructure maintenance (Karlan 2002; Miguel & Gugerty 2005; Khwaja 2006).
• Across American census tracts, greater ethnic heterogeneity is associated with lower rates of car-pooling, a social practice that embodies trust and reciprocity (Charles & Kline 2002).
• Within experimental game settings such as prisoners-dilemma or ultimatum games, players who are more different from one another (regardless of whether or not they actually know one another) are more likely to defect (or ‘cheat’). Such results have been reported in many countries, from Uganda to the United States (Glaeser et al. 2000; Fershtman & Gneezy 2001; Eckel & Grossman 2001; Willinger et al. 2003; Bouckaert & Dhaene 2004; Johansson-Stenman et al. 2005; Gil-White 2004; Habyarimana et al. 2006).
• Within the Union (northern) Army in the American Civil War, the casualty rate was very high and the risks of punishment for desertion were very low, so the only powerful force inhibiting the rational response of desertion was loyalty to one’s fellow soldiers, virtually all of whom were other white males. Across companies in the Union Army, the greater the internal heterogeneity (in terms of age, hometown, occupation, etc.), the higher the desertion rate (Costa & Kahn 2003a).

Michele E. A. Jayne and Robert L. Dipboye

Research findings from industrial and organizational psychology and other disciplines cast doubt on the simple assertion that a diverse workforce inevitably improves business performance. Instead, research and theory suggest several conditions necessary to manage diversity initiatives successfully and reap organizational benefits. This article reviews empirical research and theory on the relationship between workforce diversity and organizational performance and outlines practical steps HR practitioners can take to manage diversity initiatives successfully and enhance the positive outcomes. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

  1. Increased diversity does not necessarily improve the talent pool. An increase in the diversity of a group at the demographic level (age, gender, race, disability) does not guarantee an increase in diversity of task-related knowledge, skills, abilities, experiences, and other characteristics

  2. Increased diversity does not necessarily build commitment, improve motivation, and reduce conflict. Another expectation is that a happier, more harmonious workplace will result from diversity. Unfortunately, the diversification of the workforce often has the opposite effect.

  3. Increased group-level diversity does not necessarily lead to higher group performance. One cannot, on the basis of the current research in psychology, conclude with confidence that a diverse group is a better-performing group

Peter Dizikes | MIT News Office

“The more homogeneous offices have higher levels of social capital,” Ellison observes. “But the interesting twist is that … higher levels of social capital are not important enough to cause those offices to perform better. The employees might be happier, they might be more comfortable, and these might be cooperative places, but they seem to perform less well.”

Another wrinkle Ellison and Mullin found is that just the perception that firms are diverse was sufficient to produce satisfaction among employees — but this perception did not necessarily occur in the places where more extensive gender diversity accompanied better bottom-line results.

“In offices where people thought the firm was accepting of diversity, they were happier and more cooperative,” Ellison says. “But that didn’t translate into any effect on office performance. People may like the idea of a diverse workplace more than they like actual diversity in the workplace.”

Final Thoughts:
The idea of being tolerant and inclusive is a great theory. However, if forced, it doesn’t stand up to any testing or scrutiny. Despite this being rammed down our throats, people are not receptive to diversity being pushed.

Unity is strength.
Diversity is weakness.

Canada’s Bill C-97 (Omnibus) & Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

(Garnett Genuis defends the Paris Accord)

(A nice critique of Paris Accord)


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

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

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


IMPORTANT LINKS


CLICK HERE, for Bill C-97.
CLICK HERE, for the “Price on Pollution” Act
CLICK HERE, for the Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for a prior review on Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for the climate change scam.
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-75, watering down penalties for terrorism.

PART OF BILL C-97

DIVISION 4 

Payments

Climate Action Support

Payment in Relation to Infrastructure

Maximum payment of $2,200,000,000

130 Despite section 161 of the Keeping Canada’s Economy and Jobs Growing Act, as amended by section 233 of the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, there may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, on the requisition of the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities or the Minister of State (Indigenous Services), in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board, in addition to the sum referred to in that section 161, a sum not exceeding $2,200,000,000 to provinces, territories, municipalities, municipal associations, provincial, territorial and municipal entities and First Nations for the purpose of municipal, regional and First Nations infrastructure.

Federation of Canadian Municipalities

Maximum payment of $950,000,000

131 (1) There may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, on the requisition of the Minister of Natural Resources, in accordance with the terms and conditions provided for in the agreement referred to in subsection (2), a sum not exceeding $950,000,000 to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for the purpose of providing funding to the Green Municipal Fund.

Maximum payment of $60,000,000

(3) There may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, on the requisition of the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, in accordance with the terms and conditions provided for in the agreement referred to in subsection (4), a sum not exceeding $60,000,000 to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for the purpose of providing funding to the Asset Management Fund.

Shock Trauma Air Rescue Service

Maximum payment of $65,000,000

132 (1) There may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, on the requisition of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, in accordance with the terms and conditions provided for in the agreement referred to in subsection (2), a sum not exceeding $65,000,000 to the Shock Trauma Air Rescue Service for the acquisition of new emergency ambulance helicopters.

Okay, let’s tally this up

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

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

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

Chilling, considering this is bogus pseudo-science.

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

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

WHAT IS THIS?

DIVISION 8, SUBDIVISION B 

R.‍S.‍, c. E-4
Electricity and Gas Inspection Act
162 The Electricity and Gas Inspection Act is amended by adding the following after section 28:
Ministerial Regulations

28.‍1 (1) Despite anything in the Weights and Measures Act, the Minister may make regulations prescribing units of measurement for electricity and gas sales in addition to the units specified in section 3.

Expiry
(2) A regulation made under subsection (1) ceases to have effect on the earliest of
(a) the day on which a regulation made under paragraph 28(1)‍(b) that has the same effect as the regulation comes into force,
(b) the third anniversary of the day on which the regulation made under subsection (1) comes into force, or
(c) the day on which it is repealed.

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

GREENHOUSE GAS “POLLUTION” PRICING ACT

DIVISION 6

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

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

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

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

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

Punishment
(2) Every person that commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and, in addition to any penalty otherwise provided, is liable to
(a) a fine of not less than 50%, and not more than 200%, of the amount payable that was sought to be evaded, or of the rebate or other payment sought, or, if the amount that was sought to be evaded cannot be ascertained, a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $40,000;
(b) imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(c) both a fine referred to in paragraph (a) and imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Marginal note:
Prosecution on indictment
(3) Every person that is charged with an offence described in subsection (1) may, at the election of the Attorney General of Canada, be prosecuted on indictment and, if convicted, is, in addition to any penalty otherwise provided, liable to
(a) a fine of not less than 100%, and not more than 200%, of the amount payable that was sought to be evaded, or of the rebate or other payment sought, or, if the amount that was sought to be evaded cannot be ascertained, a fine of not less than $5,000 and not more than $100,000;
(b) imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(c) both a fine referred to in paragraph (a) and imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
Marginal note:
Penalty on conviction
(4) A person that is convicted of an offence under this section is not liable to pay a penalty imposed under this Part for the same evasion or attempt unless a notice of assessment for that penalty was issued before the information or complaint giving rise to the conviction was laid or made.

Marginal note:
Stay of appeal
(5) If, in any appeal under this Part, substantially the same facts are at issue as those that are at issue in a prosecution under this section, the Minister may file a stay of proceedings with the Tax Court of Canada and, upon that filing, the proceedings before the Tax Court of Canada are stayed pending a final determination of the outcome of the prosecution.

Marginal note:
Offence — confidential information
134 (1) A person is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to both, if that person
(a) contravenes subsection 107(2); or
(b) knowingly contravenes an order made under subsection 107(12).

Marginal note:
Offence — confidential information
(2) Every person to whom confidential information has been provided for a particular purpose under subsection 107(6) and that for any other purpose knowingly uses, provides to any person, allows the provision to any person of, or allows any person access to, that information is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to both.

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

Ilhan Omar Calls Out AIPAC Influence In US Politics, But Omits Something


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

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

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


IMPORTANT LINKS


CLICK HERE, for AIPAC main page.
CLICK HERE, for J-Street.
CLICK HERE, for Israeli-American Coalition For Action.
CLICK HERE, for Zionist Organization of America.
CLICK HERE, for Republican Jewish Coalition.
CLICK HERE, for Christians United For Israel.
CLICK HERE, for Jewish Institute for National Security of America.
CLICK HERE, for American Jewish Committee.
CLICK HERE, for Alliance for Israeli Advocacy.
CLICK HERE, for military support for Israel.
CLICK HERE, for House Resolution 1837.
CLICK HERE, for anti-BDS (ban, divest, sanction) laws which prohibit companies from “not” doing business with Israel.
CLICK HERE, for Kentucky being 26th State with anti-BDS laws.
CLICK HERE, for 2019 Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act.
CLICK HERE, for top campaign contributions by Congressperson.
CLICK HERE, for various lobbying groups.

A while back, Muslim (and Democrat) representative Ilhan Omar made comments about the impact about the Israeli lobby in American politics. She also suggested that members of Congress were in essence being bought off. This brought about rounds of criticism, and claims that the Muslim woman is an anti-Semite.

Omar faced a public backlash for suggesting that the US Congress was in the pocket of AIPAC, and that it was “all about the Benjamins” (which of course is a reference to money).

Here’s the thing, though: while Omar’s comments were intentionally inflammatory (and likely aided by her Islamic beliefs), they are not unfounded. It is truthful that AIPAC and other such lobbying firms do play a huge role in paying off contributing to political campaigns.

It is also true that the United States spends heavily on the military defense of Israel, and has anti-BDS (ban, divest, sanction) laws. These aid Israel both militarily and economically. Money well spent.

CONTRIBUTION BY ORGANIZATION

GROUP AMOUNT GIVEN
American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) $3,518, 028
Israeli-American Coalition For Action $550,000
J-Street $400,000
Zionist Organization of America $200,000
Republican Jewish Coalition $130,000
Christians United For Israeli Action Fund $120,000
Jewish Institute For National American Security $90,000
Jewish American Committee $74,000
Alliance for Israeli Advocacy $60,000

This is the source (for 2018)

HIGHEST PAID PUPPETS

Name Party State Amount for 2018
Robert Menendez Dem NJ $548,507
Ted Cruz Repub TX $352,894
Sherrod Brown Dem OH $230,342
Tammy Baldwin Dem WI $229,896
Beto O’Rourke Dem TX $226,690

These are just 5 of the Senators and Congresspeople who are being bribed receiving campaign contributions from the Israeli lobby. Going through the list of donations, it appears that almost all members of Congress are on the take.

Kentucky joins 25 other US states that have enacted similar anti-BDS laws or executive orders.

Montana, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Michigan, Texas, Nevada, Kansas, Louisiana and Wisconsin have all passed bills fighting BDS.
The BDS movement promotes financial, academic and cultural boycotts of Israel, ostensibly as a nonviolent protest against the so-called “Israeli occupation.” Critics say its activities are a modern form of anti-Semitism and that its true objective is to destroy the State of Israel.

26 states have anti-BDS laws against Israel. There are no other laws in the US that protect anyone.

STRENGTHENING AMERICA’S SECURITY IN ME ACT

SEC. 111. Findings.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) In February 1987, the United States granted Israel major non-NATO ally status.

(2) On August 16, 2007, the United States and Israel signed a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding on United States military assistance to Israel. The total assistance over the course of this understanding would equal $30 billion

(3) On July 27, 2012, the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012 (Public Law 112–150; 22 U.S.C. 8601 et seq.) declared it to be the policy of the United States “to help the Government of Israel preserve its qualitative military edge amid rapid and uncertain regional political transformation” and stated the sense of Congress that the United States Government should “provide the Government of Israel defense articles and defense services through such mechanisms as appropriate, to include air refueling tankers, missile defense capabilities, and specialized munitions”.

(4) On December 19, 2014, President Barack Obama signed into law the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–296) which stated the sense of Congress that Israel is a major strategic partner of the United States and declared it to be the policy of the United States “to continue to provide Israel with robust security assistance, including for the procurement of the Iron Dome Missile Defense System”.

(5) Section 1679 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92; 129 Stat. 1135) authorized funds to be appropriated for Israeli cooperative missile defense program codevelopment and coproduction, including funds to be provided to the Government of Israel to procure the David’s Sling weapon system as well as the Arrow 3 Upper Tier Interceptor Program.

(6) On September 14, 2016, the United States and Israel signed a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding reaffirming the importance of continuing annual United States military assistance to Israel and cooperative missile defense programs in a way that enhances Israel’s security and strengthens the bilateral relationship between the two countries.

(7) The 2016 Memorandum of Understanding reflected United States support of Foreign Military Financing (FMF) grant assistance to Israel over the 10-year period beginning in fiscal year 2019 and ending in fiscal year 2028. FMF grant assistance would be at a level of $3,300,000,000 annually, totaling $33 billion, the largest single pledge of military assistance ever and a reiteration of the seven-decade, unshakeable, bipartisan commitment of the United States to Israel’s security.

(8) The Memorandum of Understanding also reflected United States support for funding for cooperative programs to develop, produce, and procure missile, rocket, and projectile defense capabilities over a 10-year period beginning in fiscal year 2019 and ending in fiscal year 2028 at a level of $500 million per year, totaling $5 billion.

Here is the source.

THOUGHTS ON OMAR’S COMMENTS

  1. Are there many Jewish organizations who lobby the US Congress? YES
  2. Does AIPAC spend a lot of money lobbying? YES
  3. Does AIPAC “own” the US Congress? YES
  4. Does Israel benefit militarily from this? YES
  5. Does Israel benefit economically from the anti-BDS laws? YES
  6. Does Ilhan Omar get a free pass? NOT QUITE

Ilhan Omar doesn’t get a free pass on her comments about AIPAC and Israel for one simple reason: hypocrisy.

While she accurately and truthfully calls out Jewish influence, she intentionally omits ISLAMIC influence and lobbying efforts.

Yes, it was a bit misleading to leave this bit out of the title, but it’s the form of “lying by omission” that Ilhan Omar would probably approve of.

ISLAMIC INFLUENCE


CLICK HERE, for the Council on American Islamic Relations.
CLICK HERE, for the Islamic Society of North America.
CLICK HERE, for Islamic Relief USA (terrorism supporter)
CLICK HERE, for the Middle East Policy Council.
CLICK HERE, for Muslim Public Affairs Council.
CLICK HERE, for Muslims for Progressive values.
CLICK HERE, for American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
CLICK HERE, for Islamic Networks Group.
CLICK HERE, for Muslim Legal Fund of America.

SAUDI PAID LOBBYISTS

Lobbying Firm Amount Donated
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP $220,770
Boland & Madigan, Inc. $420,000
Burson-Marsteller $3,619,286.85
Cambridge Associates $8,505
Cassidy & Associates $720,000
DNX Partners, LLC $225,000
Dutton & Dutton, PC $3,694,350
Fleishman-Hillard $6,400,000
Gallagher Group, LLC $612,337.37
Iler Interests, LP $388,231.14
Loeffler Tuggey Pauerstein Rosental, LLP $2,350,457.12
Loeffler, Jonas & Tuggey, LLP $1,260,000
MPD Consultants, LLP $1,447,267.13
Powell Tate, Inc. $990,732.77

Source is here.

This is just a list of lobbyists that are on Saudi Arabia’s payroll. Note: that for both Jewish and Islamic lobbyists, there are likely many, MANY more than what are covered here.

But the point in adding this, is that Ilhan Omar is being completely hypocritical to call out Jewish influence in American politics, without at all mentioning the Islamic influence. Some moral consistency would be nice here.

There are also endless demands for accommodation made by Muslims:

  1. Demanding accommodation for Islamic symbols
  2. Demanding removal of OTHER religious symbols
  3. Halal meat only
  4. Prayer rooms built in schools
  5. Build foot wash stations
  6. Paid time off to pray
  7. Sharia compliant swim times
  8. Religious accommodation with uniforms
  9. Refusing to say Merry Christmas
  10. Repeated attempts to ban criticism of Islam

And this is to say nothing of Islamic terrorism, which exists everywhere.

It would be nice if Ilhan Omar would call out bothJewish and Islamic lobbying efforts. But that will never happen.

If nothing else, that this point away from it. Don’t give Ilhan Omar flak for the TRUTH she spoke about AIPAC and such lobbyist groups. Instead, give her flak for the OMISSIONS she made in leaving out the Islamic lobby.

The UN Business Action Hub


(A brief, promotional video)


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

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

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


IMPORTANT LINKS

CLICK HERE, for the main page.
CLICK HERE, for “Global Hand”, a Hong Kong firm which connected UN to various businesses.
CLICK HERE, for a list of partners.
CLICK HERE, for the “Partnership Handbook”.

WHAT DO THEY DO?

The UN-Business Action Hub was developed as a joint effort of the United Nations Global Compact, Global Hand, a Hong-Kong based non-profit specializing in facilitating private sector and NGO connections, and 20 UN entities and aims to foster greater collaboration between the business and UN to advance solutions to global challenges and to support various humanitarian and disaster preparedness and response efforts.

On this platform business can learn more about UN entities, their mandates, specific needs, and offer programmatic support, in-kind and financial donations, while UN entities can learn more about the specific interests of companies, available resources and engagement opportunities desired by business.

Additionally, both UN and Business can post projects and use the platform to search for and interact with potential partners to scale the impact of their projects.
Join the hub and start interacting!

In a nutshell, this is the relationship:
(1) UN gets backers to support its globalist agenda, and
(2) Companies become more known and get free advertising

THE PARTNERSHIP HANDBOOK

Foreword

Executive Summary
1. Purpose of the handbook
2. Things to consider before creating a new partnership

  • Creating an enabling environment
  • Defining desired outcomes

3. Building the appropriate partnership

  • Building Block 1: Choose the partnership’s composition
  • Block 2: Define the roles of each partner
  • Building Block 3: Draft a roadmap for the partnership
  • Building Block 4: Define the partnership’s scope
  • Building Block 5: Design a governance structure for the partnership
  • Building Block 6: Decide how to finance the partnership
  • Building Block 7: Decide how to monitor and evaluate the partnership

4. Identifying established UN-business partnership models

  • Partnership model 1: Global implementation partnerships
  • Partnership model 2: Local implementation partnerships
  • Partnership model 3: Corporate responsibility initiatives
  • Partnership model 4: Advocacy campaigns
  • Partnership model 5: Resource mobilization partnerships
  • Partnership model 6: Innovation partnerships

Glossary of terms

This 64 page handbook reads like a typical partnership agreement or memorandum of understanding would, at least in some sense it does.

Of course, if you are going to partner with someone, you want information about the other party. You also want to discuss things like financing, goals, and division of labour. This is common sense, and anyone with any business sense would know this already.

The weird parts (at least for me), are several:

  1. Among “partners”, UN lists 42 of its own departments
  2. Everything is couched in social justice terms
  3. EXTREMELY wordy, but a lot of common sense
  4. Seems like a way to simply cash in on UN agendas
  5. A lot of “implied” consent of host populations

FINANCING A PARTNERSHIP

UN entities often partially absorb costs of partnerships, for example, if salaries for practitioners, travel expenses or administrative costs are covered by their own funds, in the following described as UN institutional funds. Further required funds come from business partners or involved governmental institutions. Besides that, partnerships can conduct external fundraising activities, for example, by establishing social media platforms for donating cash, such as WFP’s WeFeedback Website, or in rarer cases, international finance facilities, which issue bonds against the security of government guarantees, such as achieved by the GAVI Alliance. Finally, foundations have increasingly become an external source for funds, above all the UN foundation.

If partnerships address local problems or strive for policy impact, related governments can be approached for additional funds. Governments might also provide funds if partnerships’ approaches correspond with their priorities, for example, fighting climate change. Drawing on funds from governmental institutions does, however, also include them as partners, which is in principle desirable, but can run the risk of politicizing partnerships or slowing them down due to government bureaucracies. External fundraising activities can provide access to potentially huge financial resources not successfully leveraged by the UN so far such as donations from private households. They also have a positive side effect by raising awareness for development problems. However, as the amount of funds raised externally cannot always be predicted, such campaigns are better suited for scaling-up existing programs rather than launching new ones.

UN entities and business partners provide the bulk of funds for UN-business partnerships and the ratio of provided UN to business funds has a strong effect on partnership governance. If partnerships draw most financial resources from UN institutional funds, UN entities can maximize negotiating power vis-àvis business partners and most likely control decision-making. However, without a stake in decision-making and invested resources, companies may have less incentive to contribute to partnership activities. Such partnerships also tend to be limited in scope as UN entities have restricted financial resources, often far below those of companies.

FINAL THOUGHTS

An interesting takeaway from this is the plain acknowledgement that whoever contributes more, has more leverage in the bargaining.

Also implied is the idea that local governments can be persuaded to shell out public tax money if they can be persuaded that it aligns with their priorities.

This business action hub seems to be a global “Chamber of Commerce”, where businesses can connect with UN agencies. Social justice meets capitalism. What could go wrong?

CBC Propaganda #13: Political Charities Not Worth Auditing


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

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG

Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


CLICK HERE, for a link to the CBC article.
CLICK HERE, for the propaganda masterlist.

Political activity audits of charities suspended by Liberals

Panel report says charities should be free to engage in politics, minister suspends infamous audit program

While this “looks” like a victory for free speech and political engagement, one has to ask how tainted charities will become when their income is influenced by who gets into power.

The Liberal government is suspending the few remaining political activity audits of charities after an expert panel report recommended removing a political gag order imposed on them by the Conservatives five years ago.

As an immediate first step to respond to the panel’s recommendations, National Revenue Minister Diane Lebouthillier “has asked the CRA to suspend all action in relation to the remaining audits and objections that were part of the Political Activities Audit Program, initiated in 2012,” a release Thursday said.

The panel report, also released Thursday, and the suspension together appear to end a long chill for charities that began in 2012, when the Conservative government launched 60 political activity audits, starting with environmental groups that had criticized federal energy and pipeline policies.

This actually makes sense. When political advocacy groups cloak themselves as charities, the lines get blurred and its dangerous.

The program cost environmental, anti-poverty, human-rights and religious charities significant staff resources and legal fees, and brought an “advocacy chill” to the sector, with many groups self-censoring lest they be caught in the Canada Revenue Agency’s net or annoy their auditors.

The Liberal Party campaigned in the 2015 election to end the “political harassment” of charities, but once elected did not quite end the program. Instead, the new government cancelled six of the political activity audits that were yet to be launched, but allowed audits already underway to continue.

That left groups such as Environmental Defence and Canada Without Poverty, which were deemed too political by CRA, still under immediate threat of losing their charitable status. Thursday’s announcement lifts that threat, at least until the government responds to the panel recommendations.

The five-member panel, chaired by Marlene Deboisbriand on the board of Imagine Canada, says Canada’s charity law and regulations are too restrictive and vague. It calls for changes to the Income Tax Act to delete any reference to “political activities” with regard to charities.

For what it’s worth, it is still worthwhile to know if the charity in question is a charity, and to what degree it engages in political activities. Of course, the same could be said for religious groups.

The panel report, based on wide consultations last fall, also said there was broad consensus in the charity sector that partisan activities — endorsing particular candidates or parties — should remain forbidden.

The proposed changes would eliminate current rules that restrict a charity’s political activities to 10 per cent of their resources. Critics have argued the rules are unclear on definitions of what constitutes a political act.

No kidding, charities shouldn’t be endorsing political candidates or parties. And 10% is actually a lot. If a “charity” spends a good chunk of their money lobbying for government, shouldn’t they register as such?

The revenue minister’s decision to suspend political activity audits, as recommended by the panel report Thursday, amounts to an abrupt about-face. Last year, Lebouthillier refused to intervene, saying the “independence of the charity directorate’s oversight role is a fundamental principle that must be protected.”

To be clear, I have no issue with people getting involved in politics. However, there are considerable financial and tax advantages to being classified as a “charity”. If the groups in questions really are lobbying politically, then it puts them on an unlevel playing field.

UN Principles For Responsible Investment (& ESG Agenda)


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

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG

Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


CLICK HERE, for UN PRI main page.
CLICK HERE, for the “about” section.
CLICK HERE, for their brochure (English).
CLICK HERE, for annual funding report.
CLICK HERE, for signatory directory.
CLICK HERE, for PRI Twitter account.
CLICK HERE, for Statement on ESG in Credit ratings.

What is UN Principles for Responsible Investment?

What is the PRI?

The PRI is the world’s leading proponent of responsible investment.

It works to understand the investment implications of environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors and to support its international network of investor signatories in incorporating these factors into their investment and ownership decisions. The PRI acts in the long-term interests of its signatories, of the financial markets and economies in which they operate and ultimately of the environment and society as a whole.

The PRI is truly independent. It encourages investors to use responsible investment to enhance returns and better manage risks, but does not operate for its own profit; it engages with global policymakers but is not associated with any government; it is supported by, but not part of, the United Nations.

Environmental, Social Governance
6 Principles of Investing

Principle 1: We will incorporate ESG issues into investment analysis and decision-making processes.
Principle 2: We will be active owners and incorporate ESG issues into our ownership policies and practices.
Principle 3: We will seek appropriate disclosure on ESG issues by the entities in which we invest.
Principle 4: We will promote acceptance and implementation of the Principles within the investment industry.
Principle 5: We will work together to enhance our effectiveness in implementing the Principles.
Principle 6: We will each report on our activities and progress towards implementing the Principles.

1/ Social justice to be incorporated into decision making
2/ Social justice to be incorporated into ownership
3/ Social justice to be considered when making investment decisions
4/ Social justice to be actively promoted
5/ Social justice to be group effort
6/ Effects of social justice to be reported

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
-Climate change
-Water
-Sustainable land use
-Fracking
-Methane
-Plastics

SOCIAL ISSUES
-Human rights and labour standards
-Employee relations
-Conflict zones

GOVERNANCE ISSUES
-Tax avoidance
-Executive pay
-Corruption
-Director nominations
-Cyber security

United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment (UN PRI) is a marriage of sorts between the financial sector and the SJW/NPC groups in the world.

Here’s possibly the worst part:

Credit Ratings Initiative

The ESG in credit ratings initiative aims to enhance the transparent and systematic integration of ESG factors in credit risk analysis. The PRI is facilitating a dialogue between credit rating agencies (CRAs) and investors to cultivate a common language, discuss ESG risks to creditworthiness and bridge investor-CRA disconnects.

The initiative kicked off with the launch of the Statement on ESG in credit ratings, still open to sign and so far supported by 149 investors with $29.6 trillion of AUM, and 18 CRAs. There are three reports planned as part of the initiative and roundtables that the PRI is organising around the world for credit practitioners.

See below the work we have done so far, and contact us if you have any questions.

That is what it appears to be. Credit ratings and creditworthiness are to be based at least in part on a person or party’s commitment to the ESG agenda. Here are the signatories:

CREDIT RATING AGENCY SIGNATORIES
Axesor Rating
Liberum Ratings
Beyond Ratings
Microfinanza Rating
China Chengxin International Credit Rating Co., Ltd
Moody’s Corporation
Dagong Global Credit Ratings Group
RAM Ratings.
Fedafin AG
Rating-Agentur Expert RA GmbH
Fitch Group, Inc
Rating and Investment Information, Inc
Golden Credit Rating International Co., Ltd..
Scope Ratings
Japan Credit Rating Agency
Spread Ratings
JCR Eurasia Rating
S&P Global Ratings

Not only are credit rating agencies on board with this, but so are dozens of major investors. Here is the list provided by UN PRI.

INVESTOR SIGNATORIES
Aberdeen Standard Investments
ACTIAM
Addenda Capital Inc.
AEGON Asset Management
Alberta Investment Management Corporation
Alliance Bernstein
Allianz Global Investors
Challenger Limited
IVM Caring Capital
PGGM Investments
Christian Brothers Investment Services, Inc.
Janus Henderson Investors
PIMCO
Church of Sweden
Jarislowsky, Fraser Limited
PineBridge Investments
CIBC Asset Management Inc.
Kempen Capital Management NV
Principal Global Investors
Colchester Global Investors Limited
KfW Bankengruppe
Prudential Portfolio Managers (South Africa)
Colonial First State Global Asset Management (including First State Investments)
KLP
Public Investment Corporation (PIC)
Commonfund
La Française Group
Public Sector Pension Investment Board
Allianz SE
Compass Group
Länsförsäkringar AB
QBE Insurance Group Limited
AlphaFixe Capital Inc.
Connor, Clark & Lunn Investment Management Ltd.
Legal & General Investment Management (Holdings)
QIC
AMP Capital Investors
DDJ Capital Management, LLC
Leith Wheeler Investment Counsel Ltd.
RBC Global Asset Management
APG Asset Management
Delta Alternative Management
Local Government Superannuation Scheme
Régime de Retraite de l’Université de Montréal
Ardea Investment Management
Domini Impact Investments
LocalTapiola Asset Management Ltd
RobecoSAM AG
ASR Nederland N.V.
EGAMO
Lombard Odier
Royal London Asset Management
Australian Ethical Investment Ltd.
Element Investment Managers
Longfellow Investment Management Co., LLC
Sanlam Investment Management (SIM)
AustralianSuper
ERAFP – Etablissement de Retraite Additionnelle de la Fonction Publique Pension Scheme
M&G Investments
Sarasin & Partners LLP
Aviva Investors
Erste Asset Management GmbH
Maple-Brown Abbott Limited
Saturna Capital
AXA Group
ESG Portfolio Management
Mariner Investment Group, LLC.
Schroders
AXA Investment Managers
Federal Finance
MFS Investment Management
Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken (SEB) AB
Bank J. Safra Sarasin Ltd
Fidelity International
Mirova
SKY Harbor Capital Management
Barings LLC
Fiera Capital Corporation
MN
Sparinvest S.A.
Bâtirente
First State Superannuation Scheme
Mondrian Investment Partners Limited
Stone Harbor Investment Partners LP
BlueBay Asset Management LLP
Fonds de réserve pour les retraites – FRR
Moneda Asset Management
Svenska Handelsbanken AB (Publ)
BMO Global Asset Management
Franklin Templeton Investments
Montrusco Bolton Investments Inc. (MBII)
T&D Asset Management Co., Ltd.
BNP Paribas Asset Management
Futuregrowth Asset Management
Neuberger Berman Group LLC
Tareno AG
Brandywine Global Investment Management, LLC
Galliard Capital Management, Inc.
Nikko Asset Management Co. Ltd.
TD Asset Management (TD Asset Management Inc.)
Breckinridge Capital Advisors
Generation Investment Management LLP
NN Investment Partners
Tokio Marine Asset Management Co., Ltd. Japan
British Columbia Investment Management Corporation
Geroa Pentsioak EPSV
Nomura Asset Management Co., Ltd.
TPT Retirement Solutions
British Columbia Municipal Pension Plan
Global Evolution
Norwegian Government Pension Fund Norway (Norwegian Ministry of Finance and Folketrygdfondet)
Treehouse Investments, LLC
Brown Advisory
Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM)
OFI Asset Management
Triodos Investment Management B.V.
BT Pension Scheme
Gramercy Funds Management
Ohman
UBS Asset Management
Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec
Hermes Investment Management
Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan
Union Asset Management Holding AG
Caja Ingenieros Gestión SGIIC, SAU
HESTA Super Fund
OP Wealth Management (OP Asset Management Ltd, OP Fund Management Ltd and OP Property Management Ltd)
Union Bancaire Privée, UBP SA
California Public Employees’ Retirement System CalPERS
HSBC Global Asset Management
Ostrum Asset Management
University of Toronto Asset Management Corporation (re University of Toronto Endowment)
Calvert Research and Management
IFM Investors
Partners Group AG
Vancity Investment Management
Candriam Investors Group
Income Research & Management
Payden & Rygel
Victorian Funds Management Corporation
CCOO, FP
Insight Investment
Pegaso – Fondo pensione complementare
Wellington Management Company LLP
CDC – Caisse des dépôts et consignations
Investec Asset Management
Pension Protection Fund
Wespath Investment Management (General Board of Pension and Health Benefits of the United Methodist Church)

This is pretty messed up. Major credit ratings agencies and major investors committed to the same globalist and social justice agendas that comprise the UN. Sound financial decisions will take a backseat to these SJW causes.

Also, this seems eerily like China’s “Social Credit” system, where a person’s livelihood is impacted by irrelevant details. Will finance, business and trade be limited by one’s “social credit”?

Guess we will see.

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


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

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG

Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


CLICK HERE, for the version of the Bill which received Royal Assent, June 21, 2018.
CLICK HERE, for an interesting article about Bill C-74.
CLICK HERE, for AG Jody Wilson-Raybould resigning over pressure for her to enact DPA with SNC Lavalin.
CLICK HERE, for David Lametti becoming new AG.
CLICK HERE, for former Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould appearing to testify.
CLICK HERE, for OECD getting involved.
CLICK HERE, for the OEDC Convention on Combatting Bribery of Public Officials.
CLICK HERE, for the Convention text.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Canada, the World Statistics Hub & StatsCan


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

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG

Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


Some Interesting Canadian laws
CLICK HERE, for the Privacy Act.
CLICK HERE, for the Financial Administration Act.
CLICK HERE, for the Federal Accountability Act.
CLICK HERE, for the Access to Information Act.

StatsCan and UN SDG Data Hub
CLICK HERE, for the Information Hub.
CLICK HERE, for world data hub. This shows instant access to information on foreign investment.
CLICK HERE, for transparency & reporting.
CLICK HERE, for the UN Stats Open SDG Data Hub.
CLICK HERE, for a surprisingly informative handbook on Agenda 21.
CLICK HERE, for SDG Data Hub (Gender).
CLICK HERE, for SDG Data Hub (Income inequality).
CLICK HERE, for the SDG catalogue.
CLICK HERE, for the SDG “indicators” list.

Recent Scandal In Canada
Remember this one?
CLICK HERE, for StatsCan wanting to seize bank records of Canadians as “research tools”.
CLICK HERE, for the Privacy Commissioner throwing StatsCan under the bus.

Not only did the Liberal Government oppose a 2010 initiative to make the long-form census “VOLUNTARY”, but they were actually okay with StatsCan raiding bank accounts for information on customers. 500,000 per year.

This data was supposed to be “anonymised”, meaning that once the entire personal profile is complete, the identifiers will be stripped away and it will only used for research purposes.

Under very public backlash, the Federal Government halted. And due to complaints filed with the Privacy Commissioner, the matter had to be suspended. According to the Canadian Banker’s Association (as of March 4, 2019), the plan is still halted. Here is that message from a follow-up with CBA rep, Aaron Boles:

“At this point, the project is on hold, per the letter StatsCan sent to affected banks on November 16, 2018, where StatsCan said, “Statistics Canada is not expecting any personal data from your institution in January 2019.” The CBA and its members are also encouraged that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has launched an investigation into Statistics Canada’s data request, which we understand will be underway until this spring. The banking sector continues to emphasize the central importance of protecting the privacy and security of customer financial data and personal information.

Best regards,

AEB”

Not only does the Canadian Government not value Canadian privacy with regards to banking and financial information, but there is a legitimate question of whether this information is shared globally.

A more cynical person (or black pilled person), would think this bank data seizure is being done in order to find innovative ways to tax citizens, to finance the One-World Agenda. Nope, couldn’t be that.

Countries Listed in World Statistics Hub
1/ Australia
2/ Belgium
3/ China
4/ France
5/ Germany
6/ Hong Kong
7/ India
8/ Italy
9/ Japan
10/ Mexico
11/ Netherlands
12/ Norway
13/ Singapore
14/ South Korea
15/ Spain
16/ Switzerland
17/ United Kingdom
18/ United States

** Note: This list comes from the StatsCan website.

CLICK HERE, for a page on reporting and disclosure by the Canadian Government. This page may actually prove very useful.

WILL UN USE THIS DATA?
Certainly appears to be that way.

The SDG API
An API to retrieve information and metadata on the Sustainable Development Goals
The Sustainable Development Goals indicators database provides transparency on the data used for global reporting. The database contains data on the global Sustainable Development Goal indicators used in the Sustainable Development Goals Report 2018, and includes country-level data as well as regional and global aggregates.

The global Sustainable Development Goal indicators API gives programmatic access to the global indicators database using the OpenAPI specification.

The database, maintained by the Statistics Division, released on 20 June 2018 contains over 1 million observations. However, this is not the number of unique observations, as several indicators and their data are repeated. For the complete list of the indicators that are repeated in the indicator framework please see https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/indicators-list/ .

The following global indicator framework was developed by the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators (IAEG-SDGs) and agreed upon, including refinements on several indicators, at the 48th session of the United Nations Statistical Commission held in March 2017.

The global indicator framework was later adopted by the General Assembly on 6 July 2017 and is contained in the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/71/313), Annex. Annual refinements of indicators will be included in the indicator list as they occur. The official indicator list below includes the global indicator framework as contained in A/RES/71/313 and refinements agreed by the Statistical Commission at its 49th session in March 2018 (E/CN.3/2018/2, Annex II).

The list includes 232 indicators on which general agreement has been reached. Please note that the total number of indicators listed in the global indicator framework of SDG indicators is 244. However, since nine indicators repeat under two or three different targets (see below), the actual total number of individual indicators in the list is 232.
Indicators in the global indicator framework that repeat are the following:

So when Statistics Canada demands our personal information in census forms, where does the information go?

When employers, schools, and medical centers are forced to turn over information to StatsCan for “research purposes”, what exactly happens to our personal information? How much of it is shared? How much is shared outside of Canada?

That October 2018 scandal of StatsCan (under Liberal direction) trying to seize Canadians’ financial information is merely the tip of the iceberg. But then again, we are not Canadians, but rather “global citizens”, living in a post-national world.

UN Panel On Digital Cooperation


(The UN High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation)


(Another shot of the panel)


(Digital Cooperation)


(Internet Governance Forum, 2012, in Columbia)


(Arab Internet Governance)


(Internet Governance, Challenges & Opportunities)


(Burnaby South debate. Watch at 7:25 in video)


(Burnaby South Liberal Candidate Richard Lee supports UN regulation of internet)


Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter).

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG


CLICK HERE, for the UN Panel for Digital Cooperation
CLICK HERE, for their press release.
CLICK HERE, for Digital Cooperation.
CLICK HERE, for a 2012 Internet Governance Forum held in Bogota, Colombia.
CLICK HERE, for the 2014 Arab Internet Governance Forum.
CLICK HERE, for Arab Dialogue on Internet Governance
CLICK HERE, for internet governance in Western Asia

Purpose
The scale, spread and speed of change brought about by digital technology is unprecedented, and the current means and levels of international cooperation are unequal to the challenge. Digital technologies make a significant contribution to the realisation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and cut uniquely across international boundaries, policy silos and professional domains. Cooperation across domains and across borders is therefore critical to realizing the full social and economic potential of digital technologies, mitigating the risks they pose, and curtailing any unintended consequences.

The High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation was convened by the UN Secretary-General to advance proposals to strengthen cooperation in the digital space among Governments, the private sector, civil society, international organizations, academia, the technical community and other relevant stakeholders.

The Panel is expected to raise awareness about the transformative impact of digital technologies across society and the economy, and contribute to the broader public debate on how to ensure a safe and inclusive digital future for all, taking into account relevant human rights norms.

A number of questions here:
1/ Is this “global cooperation” being used to advance Agenda 2030?
2/ Social potential as in what?
3/ Why strengthen cooperation? Is this a form of policing?
4/ Safe and inclusive digital future? Does this mean that opinions or ideas that don’t make people feel “safe and inclusive” will be banned?
5/ Human rights norms as in what? Censoring of ideas? Something like a global M103 (to ban criticism of Islam)?
6/ Seeing how Statistics Canada has no issue with privacy breaches, what kinds of safeguards can we expect here?

Process
The Panel will hold two in-person meetings in September 2018 and January 2019, and will meet virtually as required.
The Panel will also seek to gather the views and proposals of Member States, relevant industries, civil society and academia worldwide through a careful consultation process. It will draw expertise from expert communities across the globe through engagement at existing events, conferences and forums as well as call for contributions from the general public through virtual hubs and online participation platforms. Two regional consultations will be organized in Asia and in Africa.
The Panel will complete its deliberations and submit its final report, including actionable recommendations, within a nine-month period. The report will map trends in digital technologies, identify gaps and opportunities, and outline proposals for strengthening international cooperation in the digital space.

FAQs
Why was the Panel established?
Current means and levels of international cooperation are not commensurate with the scale and rapidity of changes brought about by digital technologies. Digital technologies cut uniquely across international boundaries. Cooperation across sectors and across borders is critical to realizing the full social and economic potential of digital technologies as well as mitigating the risks they could pose.

Why is it called High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation?
The term Digital Cooperation aims to frame discussions on digital issues in a cooperative framework; it also aims to break silos by encouraging thinking and action across domains, and build trust among various stakeholders.

What are the expected outcomes?
The Panel will submit a report that will provide a high-level independent contribution to the broader public debate on digital cooperation frameworks and support Member States in their consultations on these issues.
The report is expected to: 1) raise awareness about the transformative impact of digital technologies across society and the economy, 2) identify policy, research and information gaps as well as ways to improve interdisciplinary action on digital technologies, and 3) present concrete proposals to strengthen cooperation in the digital space in an effective and inclusive manner.
It is expected that the consultation process leading to the report will contribute to stimulating discussion among and between various stakeholder groups on how they can work together to maximize the potential of the digital transformation.

How is this different from other panels, commissions and international forums on similar topics?
The Secretary-General welcomes the increased focus on the implications of digital technologies for our society and our economy through commissions, conferences and other forums. This signifies that the timing is ripe for the digital policy ecosystem to evolve to the next level of maturity.

The work of all these initiatives can and should be mutually reinforcing. Wherever possible, this Panel will work with other initiatives and seek to identify synergies and complementarities.

How is the Panel supported?
The Panel is supported by a small Secretariat funded by donor resources, and based in New York and Geneva.
How were the Panel members selected?
The Secretary-General invited 20 independent experts with a range of professional and academic backgrounds in fields related to technology and policy. All members serve in their personal capacity, not as representatives of their affiliated institutions.
The Panel’s composition represents a broad mix of disciplines and sectors, geographic, gender and age diversity in an effort to reflect the cross-boundary nature of the digital sphere. Given that young people will be disproportionately affected by the future impact of a digital society, the Panel includes several individuals under the age of 35.

Contact and More Information
Visit the dedicated website for further information, engagement opportunities and news: www.digitalcooperation.org
For updates about the Panel, follow on Twitter at @UNSGdigicoop or sign up for the mailing list.

To provide suggestions or comments, contact the High Level Panel Secretariat at: digitalcooperation [at] unops.org
Bios

To be frank, the idea that the UN is actually getting together for “digital cooperation” is downright scary.
We already have the UN Global Migration Compact
We already have the Paris Accord
We already have a proposed UN Global Government
We already have Agenda 21
We already have Agenda 2030
We already have the Global Citizen Education Agenda

Liberal Candidate for the Burnaby by-election, Richard Lee says that he supports having the UN regulate internet activity. And the UN openly supports “digital cooperation”.

Is this the next frontier?