Previous Coverage: CLICK HERE, for deferred prosecution agreement, Bill C-74. CLICK HERE, for SNC Lavalin’s political connections. CLICK HERE, for David Lametti, the AG who freed SNC-Lavalin, in return for a $200M kickback to McGill University.
CLICK HERE, for the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying in Canada.
2. SNC-Lavalin Lobbied David Lametti Personally
CLICK HERE, for the report associated with the meeting between David Lametti and SNC Lavalin.That’s right. On May 30, 2017, almost 2 years before becoming Attorney General of Canada, David Lametti met with SNC-Lavalin over exactly this issue. The company was looking to have the laws changed regarding so-called “white collar crime”.
3. SNC-Lavalin Lobbied Gerald Butts
CLICK HERE, for the report. On February 23, 2017, Trudeau’s Chief of Staff, Gerald Butts, met with SNC-Lavalin to discuss the possibility of a deferred prosecution agreement, which would have allowed SNC to keep getting Canadian Government contracts.
4. SNC-Lavalin Lobbied Finance Minister Bill Morneau
CLICK HERE, for the report. On October 16, 2018, SNC-Lavalin lobbied the sitting Finance Minister, Bill Morneau. One of the topics discussed was the creation of alternatives for white collar crime, or the DPA.
5. Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick Lobbied
CLICK HERE, for the report. Lavalin actually lobbied the Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick, in the hopes of getting the DPA.
Also worth noting is that there is a HUGE conflict of interest here. Kevin Lynch, Chairman of SNC-Lavalin, among other roles, was Clerk of the Privy Council. He clearly still has access to the Council. (Taken from his BMO profile.)
6. SNC-Lavalin Lobbied Group Of MPs
CLICK HERE, for the report of the meeting. As before, one common item keeps coming up: changes to policies regarding white collar crime (a.k.a. the deferred prosecution agreement).
One thing that needs to be mentioned: Peter Van Loan is a CONSERVATIVE Member of Parliament. So much for this being a Liberal-only problem.
7. CONSERVATIVE Senator Larry Smith Lobbied
CLICK HERE, for the report. Lavalin has actually taken to lobbying at least one Conservative Senator.
8. List Of Public Figures Lobbied (DPA)
(Source is here.)
Dean Allison, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Omar Alghabra, Parliamentary Secretary | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Navdeep Bains, Minister | Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED)
Simon Beauchemin, Advisor | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
Stefanie Beck, Assistant Deputy Minister | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Karl Belanger, Chief of Staff | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Mathieu Belanger, Director of Policy | Infrastructure Canada (INFC)
Susan Bincoletto, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Trade Commissioner | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Michael Binder, President and Chief Executive Officer | Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)
Richard Botham, Assistant Deputy Minister | Finance Canada (FIN)
Mathieu Bouchard, Senior Advisor | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
Scott Brison, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Gianluca Cairo, Chief of Staff | Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED)
Rebecca Caldwell, Chief of Staff | Status of Women Canada (SWC)
Zoe Caron, Chief of Staff | Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)
Celina Cesar-Chavannes, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Francois-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities | Infrastructure Canada (INFC)
Jim Carr, Minister | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Ben Chin, Chief of Staff | Finance Canada (FIN)
Brian Clow, Director | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
Martin Crevier, Legislative Assistant to Peter Schiefke | House of Commons
Roger Cuzner, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Kathleen Davis, Special Assistant | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
Bernie Derible, Senior Policy Advisor | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Rebecca Dixon, Advisor | Senate of Canada
Percy Downe, Senator | Senate of Canada
Scott Driscoll, Vice President and Chief Compliance and Ethics | Export Development Canada (EDC)
Pierre-Luc Dusseault, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Mark Eyking, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Greg Fergus, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Marc Fortin, Assistant Deputy Minister | Infrastructure Canada (INFC)
Kelly Gillis, Deputy Minister | Infrastructure Canada (INFC)
Mark Glauser, Director General | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Paul Halucha, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet | Privy Council Office (PCO)
Tasha Hanes, Chief of Staff | Finance Canada (FIN)
Jamie Innes, Director of Parliamentary Affairs | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Diamond Isinger, Special Assistant | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
Phil Jennings, Associate Deputy Minister | Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)
Stephen Kelly, Chief of Staff | Senate of Canada
Jay Khosla, Assistant Deputy Minister | Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)
Jean-Frederique Lafaille, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet | Privy Council Office (PCO)
Paul Lefebvre, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources | Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)
Andrew Leslie, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Gavin Liddy, Associate Deputy Minister | Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC)
Stephen Lucas, Deputy Minister | Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC)
Steve MacKinnon, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
David Maloney, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Elder Marques, Senior Advisor | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
Brian Masse, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Remi Masse, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
John McCallum, Ambassador of Canada to the People’s Republic of China | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
David McGovern, Associate Deputy Minister | Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED)
Duane McMullen, Director General | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Michael McNair, Executive Director | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
David McNaughton, Ambassador of Canada to the United States | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Marc Miller, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Grant Mitchell, Senator | Senate of Canada
Martin Moen, Director General | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Renze Nauta, Director of Policy and Planning | House of Commons
Kyle Nicholson, Special Assistant, Policy | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Julian Ovens, Chief of Staff | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Tracey Ramsey, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Phil Rheault, Senior Policy Advisor | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Paul Rochon, Deputy Minister | Finance Canada (FIN)
Kim Rudd, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Tim Sargent, Deputy Minister | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Dev Saxena, Policy Advisor | Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED)
Sandra Schwartz, Senior Policy Advisor | House of Commons
Andrew Scheer, Leader of the Official Opposition | House of Commons
Richard Sexton, President and CEO | Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL)
Judy Sgro, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Miguel Simard, General Counsel | Export Development Canada (EDC)
Jagmeet Singh, Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada | House of Commons
Rick Stewart, Assistant Deputy Minister | Finance Canada (FIN)
Catrina Tapley, Secretary to the Cabinet (Operations) | Privy Council Office (PCO)
Owen Teo, Director of Policy | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Justin To, Director of Policy and Policy Advisor | Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
Chrystine Tremblay, Deputy Minister | Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)
Shawn Tupper, Associate Deputy Minister | Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)
David Usher, Ambassador of Canada to Argentina | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Michael Wernick, Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet | Privy Council Office (PCO)
Steve Verheul, Assistant Deputy Minister | Global Affairs Canada (GAC)
Howard Wetston, Senator | Senate of Canada
Yuen Pau Woo, Senator | Senate of Canada
Ava Yaskiel, Associate Deputy Minister | Finance Canada (FIN)
Martin Zablocki, President and CEO | Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC)
I might have missed a few, but this is still pretty extensive.
To reiterate, all of these meetings took place during the period when SNC-Lavalin was lobbying for a DPA.
8. Opposition Leader Andrew Scheer Lobbied
CLICK HERE, for report. On May 29, 2018, Andrew Scheer, Opposition Leader, and supposedly a “Conservative” was also lobbied by SNC-Lavalin. This could explain why he is so open to giving Lavalin the deferred prosecution, in spite of the corruption. He’s controlled as well.
9. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh Lobbied By SNC
CLICK HERE, for the report. Jagmeet Singh, yes the NDP leader, was “also” lobbied by SNC-Lavalin. One of the topics was “changes related to white collar crime”. Of course, this is a euphemism for the DPA (deferred prosecution agreement). Is the entire legislature in on this? Might be, from the number of Senators and MPs involved.
10. Lobbyists Bruce Hartley & William Pristanski
Also worth noting, SNC-Lavalin has two professional shills (I mean lobbyists), Bruce Hartley and William Pristanski. Both are lobbying specifically in relation to obtaining a DPA for SNC-Lavalin.
11. Is This Why Opposition So Tepid?
It seems that all parties are in on it.
Is all the bickering in the House of Commons just for show? Does SNC-Lavalin have the entire legislature in their pockets?
(then Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for ISED, David Lametti, met with SNC Lavalin President Neil Bruce)
(McGill University Law Professor, David Lametti, Who is on leave while he sits as the Attorney General of Canada)
(February 13, 2019, McGill University is “gifted” $200M)
(The $200M gift to McGill came from John McCall MacBain, European Climate Foundation founder, and Chairman of the Board of the Trudeau Foundation).
1. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for previous article on Bill C-74, deferred prosecution agreements, and anti-corruption laws. CLICK HERE, for previous article on who SNC Lavalin is connected to.
CLICK HERE, for David Lametti’s McGill Law Faculty page. CLICK HERE, for the Canadian bar Association’s announcement of David Lametti becoming Attorney General on January 14, 2019. CLICK HERE, for McGill’s $200 million “gift”. CLICK HERE, for David Lametti saying no decision is ever final, and justifying decision to allow SNC-Lavalin access to the DPA. CLICK HERE, for JWR shuffled out as Attorney General. CLICK HERE, for Jody Wilson Raybould resigns from Cabinet.
CLICK HERE, for John McCall MacBain is Chairman of Trudeau Foundation. CLICK HERE, for the McCall MacBain Foundation. CLICK HERE, for the European Climate Foundation. CLICK HERE, for the McCall MacBain $928,000 bribe to Trudeau.
2. Timeline of SNC-Lavalin Events
May 30, 2017, SNC-Lavalin lobbies David Lametti
January 14, 2019, Jody Wilson Raybould removed as Attorney General
January 14, 2019, David Lametti becomes Attorney General
February 9, 2019, Lametti sees nothing wrong with SNC-Lavalin getting the deferred prosecution, to allow it to keep accepting Canadian Government contracts
February 12, 2019, JWR resigns from Cabinet altogether
February 13, 2019, McGill is gifted $200 million
March 3, 2019, Lametti says no decision (SNC implied) is ever final and can always be reviewed
The implication is obvious here. Jody Wilson Raybould wasn’t willing to grant a deferred prosecution agreement to SNC-Lavalin. This would have allowed the company to still be granted Canadian contracts. So she was replaced by someone more “willing”.
Note: See the first link for more information on the DPA, or deferred prosecution agreement. This was created by an amendment to bill C-74.
3. Lametti Whitewashed Interference Scandal
“Interference is perhaps the wrong word in that it implies something illegal is going on,” he said.
Lametti, who became attorney general after Wilson-Raybould was removed from the post six weeks ago, acknowledged in the same interview he had not known when he took over the role and got briefed on the matters facing him that she had already made the decision not to offer a remediation agreement.
Such a deal would have allowed SNC-Lavalin to admit wrongdoing and pay a fine, but avoid the ban on bidding for government contracts that comes with a conviction for the corruption and fraud charges it currently faces.
“You do have an ongoing obligation as attorney general in terms of your relationship to prosecutions and the prosecution service to be open to new facts,” he said. “I can’t speak to the actual facts [of the SNC-Lavalin affair] but I know that in principle, an attorney general has to remain open so, in that sense, no decision is ever final.”
Last Monday, interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose wrote to the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner and to the lobbying commissioner, asking them to investigate Liberal fundraising practices — and in particular, whether people might be using donations to the charitable Trudeau Foundation to gain influence with the government.
“Given that Prime Minister Trudeau is a former member of the Trudeau Foundation,” she wrote, “that his brother Alexandre Trudeau is a current member of the board of directors of the foundation, that the Minister of Industry appoints two directors of the Trudeau Foundation, and that the Foundation has two representatives of the Trudeau family, any efforts by Mr. Trudeau to use his position as Prime Minister to encourage donations may be a violation of the definition of a conflict of interest.”
A National Post analysis of the Trudeau Foundation’s public disclosures has found that gifts to the foundation have increased significantly since Justin Trudeau’s April 2013 election as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. The amount of money contributed to the foundation by foreign donors has grown each year since Trudeau claimed the party’s leadership. Moreover, a significant proportion of the charity’s donors, directors and members have ties to companies and organizations that are actively lobbying the federal government.
Whether or not the foundation violates conflict-of-interest laws, its operations represent another challenge to the high ethical standard Trudeau has established for his government. The Open and Accountable Government guide, codified after Trudeau became prime minister in October 2015, specifies that when fundraising or dealing with lobbyists, “Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries must avoid conflict of interest, the appearance of conflict of interest and situations that have the potential to involve conflicts of interest.”
Would the Trudeau Government try to do an end run around Jody Wilson-Raybould’s refusal to grant SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement? Would replacing her with the more “easily swayed” David Lametti work? Was the “gift” to McGill University 4 days after the announcement really just a form of payment?
It seems on the surface a conspiracy theory. However, given all the things the Trudeau Foundation has been involved with, it’s no much of a stretch.
It wasn’t the Canadian Government that gave McGill University the $200 million. Instead, it was a member of the Trudeau Foundation, who has been illegally lobbying Justin Trudeau.
That hardly makes it better.
Also when searching, out came this little gem here:
This is Philippe Couillard, the former Premier of Quebec. He has some very interesting connections:
Member of Privy Council
Teaching health care governance at McGill University
Long time Liberal
Member of Trudeau Foundation
But hey, it’s probably all unrelated.
6. Not Likely To Be Prosecuted
Bribery of judicial officers, etc.
119 (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years who
(a) being the holder of a judicial office, or being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, directly or indirectly, corruptly accepts, obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for themselves or another person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by them in their official capacity, or
(b) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives or offers to a person mentioned in paragraph (a), or to anyone for the benefit of that person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by that person in their official capacity.
Marginal note: Consent of Attorney General(2) No proceedings against a person who holds a judicial office shall be instituted under this section without the consent in writing of the Attorney General of Canada.
Considering that the sitting Attorney General is a full fledged PARTICIPANT in this corruption, it is extremely unlikely he will agree to a prosecution.
This reeks of corruption, unfortunately, it’s kind of a rigged game.
Theoretically, Lametti could be removed, and a new Attorney General could open up a case. That is also unlikely, since Trudeau would have to do it. Perhaps his successor will.
7. Is This Flat Out Corruption?
Consider the facts:
SNC-Lavalin has at least two lobbyists: (a) Bruce Hartley; and (b) William Pristanski, who have been actively lobbying on SNC’s behalf in order to get a DPA for its criminal activity
David Lametti has previously been lobbied at least once by SNC-Lavalin.
Jody Wilson Raybould opposed allowing SNC-Lavalin access to a DPA (deferred prosecution agreement), as she felt it was inappropriate.
JWR is replaced by David Lametti, a law professor from McGill University, currently on leave.
4 days after announcing that Lavalin will be reconsidered for the DPA, McGill receives a $200M “gift” from John McCall MacBain.
John McCall MacBain sits on the Trudeau Foundation, as does Jacques Bougie (also on the Board of Directors for SNC-Lavalin).
McCall MacBain has also been investigated for illegal donations to Justin Trudeau.
Perhaps I’m missing something, but it looks pretty corrupt to me.
CLICK HERE, for CBC Propaganda #2, Europe Needs Open Borders. CLICK HERE, for CBC Propaganda #8, Border Walls Are Useless.
CLICK HERE, for UN supports migrant caravan invasion into USA. CLICK HERE, for more on US invasion through Mexico. CLICK HERE, for UN page on NGOs. CLICK HERE, for UN Refugee Agency, and NGO/Civil Societies. CLICK HERE, for UN New York Declaration (2016). CLICK HERE, for previous coverage of New York Declaration CLICK HERE, for the UN Global Migration Compact (2018) CLICK HERE, for UN book on people smuggling.
CLICK HERE, for Interpol and human smuggling. CLICK HERE, for UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols Thereto.
At least one organization, Advocates Abroad, is openly committing fraud in trying to get bogus “refugees” into Europe. This is done by concocting convincing stories with specific details in hopes of duping refugee agencies.
Ariel Ricker, the executive director of Advocates Abroad, a major non-profit NGO which provides legal aid to migrants, has been caught on tape openly discussing how she teaches refugees to lie to border agents. The video was released by Canadian right-wing activist, author and internet personality, Lauren Southern, and will be a part of her new documentary film project ‘Borderless,’ which takes on the European migration crisis.
One method she teaches migrants is to exploit the presumed Christian sympathies of the predominantly Eastern Orthodox Greece by pretending to have been persecuted for being Christian. She even describes telling them how to pray during interviews, ironically because doing so reflects “honesty.”
Advocates Abroad claim the video was selectively edited and manipulated to serve a particular agenda.
Interesting that Canada signed the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols Thereto.
The Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, adopted by General Assembly resolution 55/25, entered into force on 28 January 2004. It deals with the growing problem of organized criminal groups who smuggle migrants, often at high risk to the migrants and at great profit for the offenders. A major achievement of the Protocol was that, for the first time in a global international instrument, a definition of smuggling of migrants was developed and agreed upon. The Protocol aims at preventing and combating the smuggling of migrants, as well as promoting cooperation among States parties, while protecting the rights of smuggled migrants and preventing the worst forms of their exploitation which often characterize the smuggling process.
Canada claims to be against human smuggling. Yet we sign treaties (like the New York Declaration and Global Migration Compact), which facilitate human smuggling.
4. Interpol’s Take On Human Smuggling
For centuries, people have left their homes in search of better lives. In the last decade, the process of globalization has caused an unprecedented amount of migration from the least developed countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe to Western Europe, Australia and North America.
With this, we have seen an increase in the activities of organized criminal networks who facilitate irregular migration. By providing fake identification documents, organizing transport, and bypassing official border controls, criminals are making huge profits.
People smuggling syndicates are run like businesses, drawn by the high profit margins and low risks. They benefit from weak legislation and a relatively low risk of detection, prosecution and arrest compared to other activities of transnational organized crime.
Smuggling networks can be extensive and complex, and can include people who carry out a number of different roles:
A report published jointly by Europol and INTERPOL in May 2016 estimates that more than 90% of the migrants coming to the European Union are facilitated, mostly by members of a criminal network.
Worth pointing out: that while Interpol cites the UN’s policies against human smuggling, it neglects to mention that the UN’s policies around “rights” for illegals go a long way towards incentivizing mass illegal immigration.
It also neglects to point out the underhanded means which host countries have these forced on their populations by politicians.
5. Media Pussyfoots Around Illegal Immigration
(From a CBC article)
“Desperate migrants are choosing ever more dangerous sea routes to Europe and using smaller and less seaworthy boats, causing a sharp increase in drowning deaths, warns the International Organization for Migration.”
“Meanwhile in Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is ratcheting up his attacks on the European Union, calling it a “transport agency” for migrants that hands out funds and “anonymous bank cards” to “terrorists and criminals.”
“This is the kind of slippery slope which could again lead to a broken Europe,” Orbán declared today in an interview on Hungarian public radio.
The author of this trash deliberately and repeatedly skirted the main issue here: these hoards of “migrants” trying to get into Europe were doing so ILLEGALLY. Hence places like Hungary have every right to secure their borders.
(From one CBC interview)
“AMT: We all remember the Berlin Wall coming down. In fact it was 30 years ago this year. I’ve got a clip here that I’d like you to hear. These are two Germans talking about what it felt like to stand on top of the Berlin Wall after the crowds started streaming across the border.
AMT: Elisabeth Vallet, how did the fall of that iconic wall affect our ideas around the usefulness or function of walls?
ELISABETH VALLET: Well actually if you remember in 1989 it opened a almost a hippie era of international relations, where we believed that it was the end of borders me. Maybe even the end of state sovereignty or even the fading sovereignty of the state. We believed that peace would be dominating and that conflicts would be solved by the international community. It actually showed the good the positive aspects of globalization. And we overlooked the negative aspects of globalization. And when 9/11 arrived, it’s as if that negative aspect of globalization showed its face. And that’s when the only solution to that, governments came up with the one only solution which was building border fences, because there is no way to retain globalization, to contain globalization.”
In this garbage, the “expert” compares the Berlin Wall to border walls in general. The Berlin wall was built in the 1960s to keep Germans from fleeing, and in fact kept them prisoner. This is conflated with building walls to stop illegal immigration.
The above are just 2 examples of how media outlets (like the CBC) try to shade and distort the truth by downplaying how serious and criminal these actions actually are. They play to emotion and selectively avoid hard truths.
6. UN Openly Aids And Abets Refugee Fraud
(UN supports ongoing efforts to undermine US/Mexico border)
It involves some serious mental gymnastics to explain how the UN can both:
Support mass, uncontrolled entry into other countries
Oppose circumventing laws to get migrants into other countries
San Jose – The UN Migration Agency, IOM, continues to provide support and assistance to migrants who have joined the migrant caravans crossing Central America and opted to seek asylum in Mexico or return to their countries of origin.
In the Siglo XXI Migratory Station of Tapachula, managed by the National Institute for Migration (INM) of Mexico, IOM and the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs (SRE) have been supplying food and basic hygiene kits to over 1,500 migrants from the caravans seeking asylum in Mexico.
“IOM maintains its position that the human rights and basic needs of all migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status,” says Christopher Gascon, IOM Chief of Mission in Mexico. “In coordination with UNHCR we will continue to monitor the situation of the caravan counting on field staff, the Mexican Office of Assistance for Migrants and Refugees (DAPMyR), and partner NGOs, providing information regarding alternatives for regular and safe migration, as well as options for voluntary returns.”
“The caravan phenomenon in Central America is another expression of a migration process that the region has been facing for quite some time,” explains Marcelo Pisani, IOM Regional Director for Central America, North America, and the Caribbean. “It is a mixed migration flow, driven by economic factors, family reunification, violence and the search for international protection, among others.
That’s right. The UN admits that many of these cases are not refugees.
The United Nations willingly aids and abets efforts to overwhelm the US/Mexico border. Even knowing that the bulk of the asylum claims are bogus, the UN sees nothing immoral about perpetrating a fraud. Nor is there anything immoral about the burden dumped on the American public.
What is eerie is how coordinated these “refreshment aid packages” are delivered. Almost as if the UN planned this invasion from the beginning.
7. UN Erasing Borders With New York Declaration (2016) and Global Migration Compact (2018)
The New York Declaration (2016) was covered here previously.
5. We reaffirm the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. We reaffirm also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recall the core international human rights treaties. We reaffirm and will fully protect the human rights of all refugees and migrants, regardless of status; all are rights holders. Our response will demonstrate full respect for international law and international human rights law and, where applicable, international refugee law and international humanitarian law.
49. We commit to strengthening global governance of migration. We therefore warmly support and welcome the agreement to bring the International Organization for Migration, an organization regarded by its Member States as the global lead agency on migration, into a closer legal and working relationship with the United Nations as a related organization. We look forward to the implementation of this agreement, which will assist and protect migrants more comprehensively, help States to address migration issues and promote better coherence between migration and related policy domains.
56. We affirm that children should not be criminalized or subject to punitive measures because of their migration status or that of their parents.
77. We intend to expand the number and range of legal pathways available for refugees to be admitted to or resettled in third countries. In addition to easing the plight of refugees, this has benefits for countries that host large refugee populations and for third countries that receive refugees.
The UN Global Migration Compact (2018) was covered here, and again here. Sorry, but I don’t believe Michelle Rempel’s half-assed “rejection” of the Compact.
OBJECTIVE 5: Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration
21. We commit to adapt options and pathways for regular migration in a manner that facilitates labour mobility and decent work reflecting demographic and labour market realities, optimizes education opportunities, upholds the right to family life, and responds to the needs of migrants in a situation of vulnerability, with a view to expanding and diversifying availability of pathways for safe, orderly and regular migration
OBJECTIVE 11: Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner 27. We commit to manage our national borders in a coordinated manner, promoting bilateral and regional cooperation, ensuring security for States, communities and migrants, and facilitating safe and regular cross-border movements of people while preventing irregular migration. We further commit to implement border management policies that respect national sovereignty, the rule of law, obligations under international law, human rights of all migrants, regardless of their migration status, and are non-discriminatory, gender-responsive and child-sensitive.
OBJECTIVE 13: Use immigration detention only as a measure of last resort and work towards alternatives
29. We commit to ensure that any detention in the context of international migration follows due process, is non-arbitrary, based on law, necessity, proportionality and individual assessments, is carried out by authorized officials, and for the shortest possible period of time, irrespective of whether detention occurs at the moment of entry, in transit, or proceedings of return, and regardless of the type of place where the detention occurs. We further commit to prioritize noncustodial alternatives to detention that are in line with international law, and to take a human rights-based approach to any detention of migrants, using detention as a measure of last resort only.
OBJECTIVE 15: Provide access to basic services for migrants
31. We commit to ensure that all migrants, regardless of their migration status, can exercise their human rights through safe access to basic services. We further commit to strengthen migrant inclusive service delivery systems, notwithstanding that nationals and regular migrants may be entitled to more comprehensive service provision, while ensuring that any differential treatment must be based on law, proportionate, pursue a legitimate aim, in accordance with international human rights law.
OBJECTIVE 17(c) Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internetbased information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media
The United Nations is fully on board with erasing borders with their mass migration policies. The 2016 and 2018 agreements leave no doubt of that.
Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), or Civil Societies, are involved in bringing large numbers of people from the third world over to the first. Some do it out of guilt or conscience, while others do it for money.
Obvious question: Do these NGOs and the UN work together?
8. Many NGOs (Civil Societies) Work With UN
(NGO Branch Department of Economic and Social Affairs of UN)
(The UN “directly” collaborates with NGOs/Civil Societies)
Faced with many complex challenges in recent years, UNHCR has redoubled its efforts to strengthen its partnerships with UN organizations and NGOs, both international and national, seeking to maximise complementarity and sustainability in its work for refugees and others of concern.
Today, UNHCR works with more than 900 funded, operational and advocacy partners to ensure that the rights and needs of populations of concern are met. UNHCR continues to give high priority to its relations with partners, and strives to strengthen strategic and operational collaboration at global, regional and country levels.
The main goal of the organization’s vast network of partnerships is to ensure better outcomes for persons of concern by combining and leveraging complementary resources and working together in a transparent, respectful and mutually beneficial way. These partnerships also underpin UNHCR’s engagement in inter-agency fora and processes, where mutual understanding and strong alliances help ensure that refugees, IDPs and stateless persons are adequately prioritised.
(Page 8) Salt and Stein suggested treating international migration as a global business that has both legitimate and illegitimate sides. The migration business is conceived as a system of institutionalized networks with complex profit and loss accounts, including a set of institutions, agents and individuals each of which stands to make a commercial gain.
The model conceives trafficking and smuggling as an intermediary part of the global migration business facilitating movement of people between origin and destination countries. The model is divided into three stages: the mobilization and recruitment of migrants; their movement en route; and their insertion and integration into labour markets and host societies in destination countries. Salt and Stein conclude their theory by citing the need to look at immigration controls in a new way, placing sharper focus on the institutions and vested interests involved rather than on the migrants themselves.
Aranowitz puts forward a similar view and claims that smuggling could not have grown to such proportions if it were not supported by powerful market forces. Furthermore, Aranowitz argues that smugglers exhibit entrepreneur-like behaviour and circumvent legal requirements through corruption, deceit and threats. They specialize either in smuggling or in trafficking services, and the profit generated varies accordingly.
Interesting. The UN absolutely does recognize the “business” element of human trafficking, and likens it to any other type of business. It is driven by high demand.
However, the elephant in the room must be pointed out. The UN itself helps to drive such demand with its “one world” policies. By arranging accords (like New York or Global Migration Compact), the UN helps create these conditions. If it becomes mandatory that a host country MUST provide basic services, regardless of legal status, then people will flock to those countries. The UN also tries to facilitate housing and other social services at the expense of taxpayers.
To add insult to injury, these accords limit the ability of host Governments to jail illegals, and attempt to shut down legitimate criticism.
About the fake addresses, the video talks about 50 people using the same address (as one example) to claim residency.
The Rebel video makes a great point: If this Ministry can’t be bothered to properly follow up on obvious cases of citizenship fraud, how can Canadians expect them to properly screen and select “refugees” for entry into Canada?
The report shows that several people and possibly dozens managed to be accepted as Canadian citizens through fraud that went undetected, or through lax controls.
The report noted cases of people with serious criminal records who were accepted as citizens. It also found that between 2008 and 2015, 50 different applicants used the same single address on their citizenship applications during overlapping time periods during which time seven of the applicants became Canadian citizens. It took seven years before the scheme was found during an investigation.
The report also noted that in some 49 similar cases where an address anomaly had been detected, citizenship officials failed to follow-up on 18 of the cases to see if the applicants actually met residency requirements.
The report indicated that citizenship officers did not consistently apply their own standards to identify and deal with suspicious immigration documents including checking travel documents against the department’s database of lost, stolen and fraudulent documents.
Disclaimer: political parties lie all the time, so take this with a grain of salt.
The CPC claims it will focus on “UN selected” refugee claimants, while the PPC claims that “Civil Society Groups” should be making the selections instead. However, this omits several important facts:
First, neither party will address the corruption and fraud that goes on both within the UN and with Civil Societies. Finding corruption within the process is a very quick and easy thing to do.
Neither will acknowledge that the vast majority of these “refugees” will likely be Islamic, an ideology which is completely incompatible with Western society. There is this MINOR problem of Muslims trying to take over the world.
This United Nations v.s. Civil Societies is a false distinction, as many Civil Societies work with the UN.
Canadians don’t want, nor were ever asked if they would support hordes of refugees being shipped into Canada.
Trudeau and the Liberals are an easy target for criticism for lack of proper screening. However, PPC and CPC fail to indicate how they would properly screen to protect Canadians.
Another question they won’t address: will these “refugees” be expected to work and contribute at some point, or will they be permanent welfare cases?
However, it would be fair to point out that Stephen Harper, in 2015, suggested focusing on Christians and Yazidis refugees. This would have been a considerable improvement over importing more Islam (and hence more Islamic violence), into Canada.
12. Little Difference In NGO v.s. UN Selection
Just an opinion, but there doesn’t seem to be much of a difference between the 2 ideas.
Considering how many Civil Societies (NGOs) work with the UN, it seems an exercise in futility to try to separate them.
And given the rampant corruption, and total lack of respect for national sovereignty, BOTH seem like very bad options.
CLICK HERE, for SNC-Lavalin homepage. CLICK HERE, for the SNC Board of Directors. CLICK HERE, for Jacques Bougie, who is part of the Trudeau Foundation, and also sits on SNC-Lavalin Board of Directors. CLICK HERE, for Canada’s Infrastructure Banks, and Liberal connections. CLICK HERE, for Kevin Lynch call to Michael Wernick.
CLICK HERE, for a previous piece on Canadian Infrastructure Bank. CLICK HERE, for Canadian Infrastructure Bank Act CLICK HERE, for previous piece on “Deferred Prosecution Agreement”. CLICK HERE, for the Fall 2018 Economic Update (Pgs 37-42) CLICK HERE, for previous Unifor article, and $595 media buyoff. CLICK HERE, for Steering Committee (Social Finance) biographies.
CLICK HERE, for World Bank, list of debarred firms. CLICK HERE, for Act Respecting the Director of Public Prosecutions. CLICK HERE, for Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying in Canada. CLICK HERE, for Bruce Hartley, Liberal donor. CLICK HERE, for Bruce Hartley, Liberal donor. CLICK HERE, for William Pristanski, SNC-Lavalin lobbyist. CLICK HERE, for SNC Lavalin and Libya corruption.
2. Who Are The Board Members Of SNC-Lavalin?
Ian L. Edwards is the interim President and CEO. Prior to joining Lavalin, he worked at Leighton Asia, which had its own corruption scandal.
Kevin Lynch is the Chairman of SNC-Lavalin, but he has also held other interesting roles:
(1) former Clerk of Privy Council;
(2) former Secretary to the Cabinet;
(3) former Deputy Minister of Finance;
(4) former Deputy Minister of Industry;
(5) former Executive Director for Canada at the IMF;
(6) current Vice-Chairman of BMO Financial Group
Jacques Bougie, O.C., is member of Governance & Ethics Committee, with some connections of his own:
(1) Director of CSL Group Inc.;
(2) Director at McCain Foods Limited;
(3) former Board member at RBC;
(4) former Board Member at Bell Canada;
(5) former member of Trilateral Commission;
(6) Member of Trudeau Foundation
Isabelle Courville, Chair of the Human Resources Committee
(1) Chair of the board of directors of the Laurentian Bank of Canada;
(2) President of Bell Canada’s Enterprise segment from 2003 to 2006;
(3) Director of Canadian Pacific Railway Limited;
(4) director of the Institute for Governance of Private and Public Organizations;
(5) former member of APEC Business Advisory Council
Catherine J. Hughes, Member of the Audit Committee
Steven L. Newman, Chair of the Governance and Ethics Committee
(1) non-executive director of Tidewater, Inc.;
(2) Dril-Quip, Inc.;
(3) Rubicon Oilfield International Holdings GP Ltd;
(4) limited partner of Rubicon Oilfield International Holdings
Jean Raby, Member of the Audit Committee
(1) former adviser to the CFO of Nokia;
(2) member of the board of Fiera Capital Corporation;
(3) Co-CEO of Goldman Sachs (France, then Russia);
(4) Chief Financial and Legal Officer of Alcatel-Lucent S.A
Alain Rhéaume, Member of the Audit Committee
(1) Ministry of Finance of the Québec Government, 1974 to 1996;
(2) former public director of the Canadian Public Accountability Board;
(3) former Executive Vice-President of Rogers Wireless
Eric D. Siegel, ICD.D, Member of the Audit Committee
(1) former President and CEO of Export Development Canada (EDC);
(2) Director of Citibank Canada
Zin Smati,, Chair of the Safety, Workplace and Project Risk Committee
Benita M. Warmbold, Chair of the Audit Committee, has been in finance for decades. Here are some of her connections.
(1) Senior VP and COO of CPPIB from 2008 to 2013;
(2) Senior Managing Director and CFO of CPPIB from 2013-2017;
(3) Director at Bank of Nova Scotia;
(4) former CFO for Northwater Capital Management Inc
Kevin Lynch is Vice-Chairman of BMO Financial Group.
Jacques Bougie is a former Board Member at RBC.
Benita M. Warmbold is a former Director at Scotia Bank.
Eric D. Siegel is Director at Citibank Canada.
Isabelle Courville is Chair of BOD at Laurentian Bank.
Jean Raby is former Co-CEO of Goldman Sachs.
Alain Rhéaume is former Executive VP of Rogers.
Jean Raby is former advisor to CFP of Nokia.
Jacques Bougie is a former Director at Bell.
3. Access To Privy Council Via Kevin Lynch
(Kevin Lynch, Chairman of SNC Lavalin, among other roles, was Clerk of the Privy Council. He clearly still has access to the Council. Taken from his BMO profile.)
SNC Lavalin Chairman Kevin G. Lynch, who also serves as Bank of Montreal‘s Vice Chairman, placed a call on October 15th to Michael Wernick, during which he repeatedly threatened the Clerk of the Privy Council of a potential loss of 9,000 Canadian jobs — ominously suggesting that the decision was to be made at a looming board meeting. Lynch feared that his firm could be implicated in the widespread bribery of First Nations officials in British Columbia.
Wernick, who holds a bachelors degree in economics from the University of Toronto, did not apply scrutiny to that assertion, despite his training, before repeating the threat to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and others in the PMO.
Although Lynch had left the Privy Council a decade ago, he clearly still has some clout. A single phone call was enough to get Michael Wernick to attempt to get SNC Lavalin off the hook via the DPA (deferred prosecution agreement). Wernick doesn’t seem to see problem with SNC-L having such easy access to the Privy Council. However, the majority of Canadians do.
4. Jacques Bougie Sits On Trudeau Foundation
(Jacques Bougie, Member of the Governance and Ethics Committee for SNC Lavalin, also is part of the Trudeau Foundation)
Yet another obvious conflict of interest case. A board member of Lavalin also sitting on the board of the Trudeau foundation. Not that these two roles would ever get Goudie to lean on Trudeau for favourable treatment towards Lavalin.
5. Jacques Bougie Also Sits On McCain’s B.O.D.
(Finance Minister Bill Morneau is married to Nancy McCain, heiress to McCain’s Food’s Ltd. Jacques Bougie from SNC-Lavalin “also” sits as a Director for McCain’s.)
6. Bruce Hartley: SNC Lobbyist & Liberal Donor
(Bruce Hartley is a regular Liberal donor, according to Elections Canada.)
(Hartley is also a registered lobbyist for SNC-Lavalin)
Bruce Hartley, now a lobbyist for SNC-Lavalin, has donated 124 times since 2005 to the Liberal Party and its members. But now that he acts as a lobbyist, he certainly won’t get the Liberals (whom he supports financially) to do anything nefarious, would he?
Actually, he did. Hartley, in his capacity as an SNC-Lavalin employee, lobbied the Federal Government to introduce the “Deferred Prosecution Agreement” (or DPA). This DPA would allow companies like Lavalin to avoid a 10 year ban on receiving government contracts if found guilty of criminal activity
That’s right. A long time Liberal supporter gets a job as a lobbyist. He then turns around and uses that position to get the law changed to allow his new employer to get off the hook for what would have been a 10 year ban on Canadian contracts.
And here is another lobbyist, William Pristanski, who also lobbied to get the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) for Lavalin.
Reading through his profile with the Lobbying Commissioner of Canada, it seems Pristanski’s role was basically the same as Hartley’s.
7. SNC Lobbied Current Attorney General David Lametti
(then Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for ISED, David Lametti, met with SNC Lavalin President Neil Bruce)
(McGill University Law Professor, David Lametti, Who is on leave while he sits as the Attorney General of Canada)
(February 13, 2019, McGill University is “gifted” $200M)
(The people who “donated” $200M to McGill University were also caught “donating” almost $1M to Trudeau)
David Lametti is now the Attorney General of Canada, after Jody Wilson-Raybould resigned. Interesting to note that Wilson-Raybould thought that SNC-Lavalin “didn’t” deserve the deferred prosecution. Her successor, Lametti did. Could it be because of Lavalin lobbying him?
Within days of Lametti deciding that SNC-Lavalin was not worth prosecuting, McGill University (where Lametti teaches law), received a $200M “gift” from European Climate Founder McCall MacBain.
Note: Trudeau had also received 2 donations from them.
$500,000 in 2015 as a candidate
$428,000 IN 2016 as sitting Prime Minister
8. Lavalin & Libya Connections
The case against SNC and two of its subsidiaries stems from the company’s dealings in Libya between 2001 and 2011, when a senior executive established close ties with Saadi Gaddafi, son of dictator Muammar Gaddafi.
Court documents allege the company offered bribes worth $47.7 million “to one or several public officials of the ‘Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,’” as Gaddafi called the nation he ruled until he was overthrown and killed in 2011.
SNC and its subsidiaries SNC-Lavalin Construction Inc. and SNC-Lavalin International Inc. are also alleged to have defrauded various Libyan public agencies of approximately $129.8 million.
“Corruption of foreign officials undermines good governance and sustainable economic development,” RCMP Assistant Commissioner Gilles Michaud said Thursday. “The charges laid today demonstrate how the RCMP continues to support Canada’s international commitments and safeguard its integrity and reputation.”
Lavalin denies all the allegations, but interesting to see just how deep this runs. There are also allegations that Canadian taxpayers are on the hook for $30,000 for prostitution services for Saadi Gaddafi. He is the son of former dictator Mummar Gaddafi.
9. Fall 2018 Economic Update Social Finance Fund, A Potential Slush Fund?
While the $595 million media bailout received much attention in the media, far less was paid to the slush fund that was also announced to the Social Finance Program that was also launched.
In June 2017, the Government created a Social Innovation and Social Finance Strategy Co-Creation Steering Group, primarily comprised of experts from the charitable and non-profit sector, to provide recommendations on the development of a social innovation and social finance strategy. The Steering Group delivered its final report, Inclusive innovation: New Ideas and New Partnerships for Stronger Communities, in August 2018. One of the report’s key recommendations was to create a Social Finance Fund to help close the capital financing gap faced by organizations that deliver positive social outcomes, and to help accelerate the growth of the existing social finance market in Canada.
To help charitable, non-profit and other social purpose organizations access new financing, and to help connect them with private investors looking to invest in projects that will drive positive social change, the Government proposes to make available up to $755 million on a cash basis over the next 10 years to establish a Social Finance Fund. Additionally, the Government proposes to invest $50 million over two years in an Investment and Readiness stream, for social purpose organizations to improve their ability to successfully participate in the social finance market. It is expected that a Social Finance Fund like the one the Government is proposing could generate up to $2 billion in economic activity, and help create and maintain as many as 100,000 jobs over the next decade.
(Former Manitoba Premier Gary Doer replaces former Saskatchewan Premier Roy Romanow on Air Canada Board of Directors)
(Trilateral Commission: Doer and Andre Desmarais have seats)
(Emőke J.E. Szathmáry is on Power Corp B.O.D.)
(Emőke J.E. Szathmáry is a director on: the International Institute for Sustainable Development, the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, the Prime Minister’s Advisory Committee on Science and Technology)
1. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for Part 1: Desmarais, Power Corp, Bombardier & Loblaws.
CLICK HERE, for the Power Corp Board of Directors CLICK HERE, for Roy Romanow, former Saskatchewan Premier, joining Air Canada Board of Directors in 2010. CLICK HERE, for the Trilateral Commission, which Gary Doer and Andre Desmarais both sit on. CLICK HERE, for Air Canada placing Bombardier order. CLICK HERE, for Bombardier thanking Canadian taxpayers for bailout, by laying off 7,000 of its staff. CLICK HERE, for 2003 bankruptcy protection for Air Canada. CLICK HERE, for 2009 Air Canada bailout. CLICK HERE, for 2013 Air Canada bailout.
CLICK HERE, for the International Institute for Sustainable Development, which wholeheartedly endorses Agenda 2030. CLICK HERE, for the Trudeau Foundation. CLICK HERE, for the Trudeau Foundation B.O.D.
2. From Last Time
Pierre Beaudoin is the Chairman of Bombardier. He also sits on the Board of Directors for Power Corp. Explains how Bombardier was able to keep securing bailouts.
Anthony Graham is Vice Chairman, and a director of Whittington Investments, which owns Weston-Loblaws. Could be how Loblaws secured a $12 million subsidy for its new fridges.
3 former NDP Premiers: Roy Romanow (Saskatchewan); Gary Doer (Manitoba); and Bob Rae (Ontario) all have connections to Power Corp and/or Air Canada. Interesting.
Just for good measure, here is former Deputy Prime Minister and former Quebec Premier Jean Charest.
In 2016 Air Canada placed an order for 45 CS-300 airliners, with an option to buy another 30. Quotes from the article:
Air Canada announced Wednesday that it would order 45 CS-300 airliners with an option for another 30 jets.
“We are delighted to announce this important agreement with Bombardier for the purchase of CS-300 aircraft as part of the ongoing modernization of Air Canada’s narrowbody fleet,” Air Canada president and CEO Calin Rovinescu said in a statement.
The 45-plane order is worth as much as $3.7 billion. The option for 30 additional CS-300 aircraft could add as much as $2.5 billion to the deal.
Gary Doer and Pierre Beaudoin sit on the Board of Directors for Power Corp, owned by the Demarais family. Doer sits on the B.O.D. for Air Canada as well, and Beaudoin is the Chairman of Bombardier. Almost like this deal was pre-arranged.
In fairness, this announcement came in 2016, prior to Doer joining Air Canada’s Board of Directors. Still, one has to wonder about all the connections. Doer did just replace Romanow on Air Canada’s B.O.D.
Having people sit on executive boards for multiple companies creates a significant conflict of interest. It also creates an atmosphere where crony capitalism and corruption can thrive. Who loses? Customers and taxpayers.
Like Bombardier, Air Canada has had several bailouts over the years. And all of this costs the public heavily. See the links in Section 1 above for more details.
If only there was some common link between Air Canada, Bombardier, and Loblaws. No, there couldn’t possibly be.
4. Power Corp & Agenda 2030
Emőke J.E. Szathmáry also sits on the Board of Directors for Power Corp. And if we scroll down on her biography, we get some interesting insight on the woman.
She is on a number of other boards. Some open call for acting in support of Agenda 2030, global sustainability.
The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) is an independent think tank championing sustainable solutions to 21st century problems. Our mission is to promote human development and environmental sustainability.
Our big-picture view allows us to address the root causes of some of the greatest challenges facing our planet today—ecological destruction, social exclusion, unfair laws and economic rules, a changing climate. Through research, analysis and knowledge sharing, we identify and champion sustainable solutions that make a difference. We report on international negotiations, conduct rigorous research, and engage citizens, businesses and policy-makers on the shared goal of developing sustainably.
Interestingly, the IISD implies that the leaders of G20 nations know that “climate change” is a hoax. Despite pledges to phase out subsidies to coal energy, they have actually increased.
Geneva, June 25, 2019 – G20 governments have more than doubled the amount of financial support they provide to coal power plants in just three years, despite pledging a decade ago to phase out subsidies to all fossil fuels and help prevent catastrophic climate change.
In a new report, ‘G20 coal subsidies: Tracking government support to a fading industry’, researchers found that despite a historic fall in total investment in coal, the average annual amount G20 governments spent to help build and sustain coal-fired power plants increased from $17 billion to $47 billion between 2014 and 2017.
The links are articles are too numerous to go through here, but they are worth at least skimming. This entire organization is devoted to advancing Agenda 2030.
5. Power Corp & Trudeau Foundation
Edward Johnson is both Vice-Chair of the Board of the Trudeau Foundation, and formerly Vice President and General Counsel for Power Corp.
Oliver Desmarais is Senior Vice President for Power Corp. That is no surprise. But the interesting detail is where he did his articling (apprenticeship) in law. The firm Heenan Blaikie — which went under in 2014 — is the same firm both Jean Chretien and Pierre Trudeau worked at.
Note: Bruce McNiven, who is a Director at the Trudeau Foundation, also worked at Heenan Blaikie.
Megan Leslie, is a former Deputy Opposition leader in the House of Commons (NDP). While being a Director for the Trudeau Foundation, she is also a Senior Consultant on Oceans Governance for WWF-Canada. This is the same organization Gerald Butts works for.
Bessma Momani is another Director of the Trudeau Foundation. She covers Arab-Canadians and “trans-nationalism” issues. Didn’t Justin refer to Canada as a “post-national state”?
Marc Renaud is yet another Trudeau Foundation Director with a very interesting side gig. He has served as an advisor for UNESCO, the OECD, the European Union. The EU wants to stamp out individual nations in Europe, and UNESCO is the UN Global Citizens nonsense, which pushes the gender agenda.
Worth a mention Alexandre Trudeau, Justin’s jihad sympathizing brother, is named as a founding member.
One more who needs a shoutout is ex-Saskatchewan Premier Roy Romanow. Yes that same Roy Romanow who was a director for Air Canada. Likewise, former Governor David Johnson sits as a Director.
The Trudeau Foundation cites 4 important areas:
human rights and dignity,
Canada and the world, and
people and their natural environment
So, What Does Trudeau Foundation Do?
The Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation supports research and engagement in the humanities and social sciences, and fosters a fruitful dialogue between scholars and decision makers in the arts community, business, government, and civil society organizations. The Foundation:
Encourages emerging talent by awarding scholarships to the most talented doctoral students in Canada and abroad;
Entrusts fellows and mentors distinguished for their knowledge and wisdom with the mission to build an intellectual community to support the work of the scholars; and
Creates and maintains an international network of fellows, scholars, and mentors
CLICK HERE, for the case R. v. Morris,  O.J. No. 4631. CLICK HERE, for the Canadian Criminal Code, robbery section. CLICK HERE, for the Canadian Criminal Code, firearms section. CLICK HERE, for a National Post article covering a case where an Ontario criminal court judge wants to expand “Gladue” to include blacks. CLICK HERE, for a similar article. CLICK HERE, for a University of Toronto research paper on race, crime and incarceration.
CLICK HERE, for race-based discounts in criminal court. CLICK HERE, for child-killer Terri McClintic going to a “healing lodge”. CLICK HERE, for incarceration rates among Aboriginals.
2. Quotes From Ruling
In a way this is not surprising at all. The 1997/1999 Gladue rulings created essentially a “discount” for Aboriginal offenders specifically on the basis of “historical oppression”.
Now, there is a case that is pending before the Ontario Court of Appeals, which could see the same provisions apply to blacks as well. This is a (potential) expansion of a horrible idea: race-based-discounts in the criminal justice system.
People should be outraged by this. Your crime, seriousness, and past (if any) criminal record should impact your sentence. Not your race, ethnicity, or skin colour. It is the anti-thesis of equality under the law.
 A jury found you guilty of a number of offences. I convicted you of possession of an unauthorized firearm, possession of a prohibited firearm with ammunition, and carrying a concealed weapon. The jury acquitted you of assaulting a peace officer with intent to resist arrest.
 The basic facts of your crime are straightforward. On December 13, 2014, the police received a call about a home invasion in Scarborough. As the police officers sent to investigate drove to the scene, they came upon four Black males walking in the parking lot. The officers were in plainclothes and drove unmarked police cars. One officer stopped the young men. You were one of them. You ran. As you ran, D.C. Moorcroft, who was not the officer who stopped you but was also driving into the lot, accelerated to stop you.
Police were responding to a home invasion. When they arrived, there just happened to be 4 black men in the area, and the defendant took off.
Of course, it is just a coincidence that he had a gun on him. Now it is apparently a charter violation that a police car was used to stop him.
 I must now sentence you for your offences. Let me go over what the Crown and your defence lawyers said should be the sentence. These positions were pretty far apart. The Crown asked for 4 to 4.5 years in jail. Your lawyers argued that the sentence should be 1 year before credit was given for the Charter breaches.
There is something here we are not being told. The Crown (supposedly) wants 4 to 4.5 years for gun possession for a first time offender? What else went on that is not included?
 Let me briefly explain to you what I did in Jackson. I began my judgment in that case by saying sentencing is a very individual process. The criminal law has recognized that there are cases where, in order to determine a fit and proportionate sentence, consideration must be given to an individual’s systemic and social circumstances. These circumstances may extend beyond a person who is being sentenced to include factors such a systemic discrimination and historical injustice. This has been recognized by the criminal courts, particularly in the case of Indigenous offenders. While the distinct history of colonial violence endured by Indigenous peoples cannot simply be analogized to Black Canadians, I found that the ability to consider social context in a sentencing decision is extended to all under section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code. This allowed me to consider the unique social history of Black Canadians in sentencing Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson was a Black male offender not too much older than you, who pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of a prohibited gun. His lawyers presented a great deal of evidence to me on systemic anti-Black racism and its role in Mr. Jackson’s life. I took note of this evidence. I also took judicial notice, independently of these materials, of the history of colonialism, slavery, policies and practices of segregation, intergenerational trauma, and both overt and systemic racism that continue to affect Black Canadians today. With an understanding of these social factors I was able to better appreciate the circumstances that led Mr. Jackson to come before me. I sentenced him accordingly.
Gladue was horrible for exactly this reason. Instead of holding people accountable to as similar a standard as possible, some get to play the “oppression card” and get much lighter sentences. It stands the idea of equality before the law completely on its head.
The ruling would then go on to quote some social worker at length about the struggles that blacks face, and how its circumstances must be considered.
 Giving your acts a contextual analysis in light of the wealth of evidence provided to me on this sentencing, I do not find this to be a weighty aggravating factor in your case. I appreciate that accused people should not flee from police. Especially carrying a loaded firearm. But it is understandable to me that you ran. It was not a coldly calculated act to escape but one based upon emotion and a state of mind that has been shaped both generally and specifically by the historical racism suffered by Blacks and by you. In other words, not every flight from the police should be treated the same. Here there is a connection in the evidence between your act of flight and the systemic factors. I find it would be wrong to punish you more severely for this. When I view how anti-Black racism and historical injustices have contributed to your actions, the needs of general deterrence and denunciation normally raised by this act of flight is tempered. Given that the choice you made to do so was affected by these factors, the moral blameworthiness of your actions is also lessened.
 In addition, in assessing the seriousness of the offences, when I look at potential aggravating factors that often exist in the case law, here, there is no evidence that your possession of the gun is connected with other crimes such as crimes of violence or drug trafficking.
 There are also some very traditional mitigating factors. You are a first offender. You were young when you committed these crimes. You were 22 years old. You have supportive family and friends. There is a side of you that speaks well to your rehabilitation. I have mentioned them before. Your warmth, kindness, and respectfulness.
Being a young, first time offender is a legitimate reason to cut someone a break. No argument on that point.
But that is where the agreement ends. All this nonsense about historical racism and systemic factors (repeated throughout the ruling), was nauseating to read.
 Sentencing must always be an individual process. In these cases judges gave sentences of 1 year, 15 months, 18 months, just under 2 years. Some of these sentences were permitted to be served in the community rather than in jail. The cases are: R. v. Ishmael, 2014 ONCJ 136; R. v. Garton, 2018 ONSC 544; R. v. Rutledge, 2015 ONSC 6625; R. v. Shunmuganathan, 2016 ONCJ 519;
R. v. Nuttley, 2013 ONCJ 727;
R. v. Kelsy,  O.J. No. 3879;
R. v. Cadienhead,  O.J. No. 3125;
R. v. Williams,  O.J. No. 3352 (S.C.J.);
R. v. Brown,  O.J. No. 4681 (S.C.J.);
R. v. Carranza,  O.J. No. 6041 (S.C.J.)
Fair enough. The Judge was looking for a little consistency.
82 Now I want to talk about that elephant in the room. I know you are in custody on other charges. What those charges are were not explained to me by either the Crown or your lawyers. However, I do know from some of the materials filed what the charges are said to be. Of course, there is a charge of breaching your bail. There are also some other offences. But they are not gun offences. Your surety surrendered your bail so you are in custody on the charges I am sentencing you for. To someone hearing this, I am sure they will say you have not behaved well while on bail. They may be right. But you are presumed innocent of these alleged new offences. I am sentencing you as a first offender. Someone without a criminal record. The new charges do not change that. The presumption of innocence is the foundation of our criminal justice system. While it may be hard for many to understand, I cannot let that foundation be eroded or chipped away by taking into account the new charges.
So, “first-timer” comes with a few caveats: Morris breached his bail, and is facing additional charges. However, the Judge has decided to ignore this in sentencing him as a first-timer.
It would be nice to know how exactly bail was breached, and what exactly the other charges are. But they are not mentioned.
 I also find that the anti-Black racism evidence presented on the sentencing is relevant in assessing the weight I should give this. Racism can operate very subtly. It can be there lurking in the background of people’s minds, unconsciously influencing their judgment and making them act in certain ways towards certain people.
 I want to be clear that I am not painting the police with the brush of overt racism in this case. I do not have the evidence to support that. But I am troubled. If I asked myself: If it was someone other than a young Black man running away from the police that night, would D.C. Moorcroft have driven in the aggressive way that he did? Would Mr. Morris and the car have collided? I am troubled because in all honesty, I cannot conclude it would have happened in the same way.
So, racism happens, but I have no evidence that there was any in this case. Therefore, I will still bring it up as a mitigating factor.
This Judge talks in circles about how there is all this systemic racism, and how it can be very subtle. Yet he notes that there is no proof that there was racism in this case. So what is the point then?
 After mitigation for the Charter violations, I have sentenced you to a jail sentence of 12 months. You have done a lot of dead time. The sentence will be based upon the credit you will receive for that dead time. I will credit you 1.5 to 1 for that pre-trial custody. The evidence shows that you received no real programming, had a difficult time in jail, and at times experienced physical discomfort in jail due to your medical conditions. You also did not receive consideration for parole or remission while in pre-trial custody. I find it right to give this enhanced credit. Therefore, 243 days of pre-trial custody will be used up. You will be sentenced to a further 1 day in jail on each charge concurrently. I also made a DNA order, s. 109 weapons prohibition, and the forfeiture order.
So not even a year. Just 8 months.
3. University of Toronto Article On Race & Crime
Although not specific to this case, this article by Akwasi Owusu-Bempah is an interesting read. If nothing else, it shows the extent that this academic will go to avoid the obvious conclusion:
SOME GROUPS JUST COMMIT MORE CRIME
Yes, that’s it. Groups are not equal when it comes to committing crime. That is the hard truth that lawyers, judges, politicians, academics and social workers refuse to address.
On the topic of “disparity”, it’s worth noting that males make up over 90% of prison inmates. However, there is no push claiming discrimination against them. Oh, the double standards.
Instead, he will talk in circles. Owusu-Bempah will blame mistrust, victimization in black and Aboriginal neighbourhoods, racial bias (without proving it), and Court discrimination (again, without proving it). Although the author touches the topic of crime rates, he avoids making any definitive statements. It’s like he is deliberately avoiding the obvious answer.
Abstract and Keywords Canada effectively bans systematic collection and dissemination of racially disaggregated criminal justice statistics. A significant proportion of Canada’s racial minority populations perceive bias in the criminal justice system, especially on the part of police. Aboriginal and black Canadians are grossly overrepresented in Canada’s correctional institutions. Some evidence suggests that both Aboriginal and black populations are overrepresented with respect to violent offending and victimization. Social conditions in which Aboriginal and black Canadians live are at least partially to blame for their possibly elevated rates of violent offending. Evidence indicates that racial bias exists in the administration of Canadian criminal justice. At times, this discrimination has been supported by court decisions. Discrimination and disparity are at times acknowledged by government, but they are seldom wholeheartedly addressed. There is a lack of political will to address issues of racial minority overrepresentation in relation to manifestations of racial discrimination or to the societal conditions that lead to criminal offending.
Oh, the mental gymnastics of the author are blatant:
Minorities “perceive” bias against them
There is overrepresentation
Bias in administration
Government acknowledges disparity
No political will to address overrepresentation
Societal conditions lead to offending
The author mentions overrepresentation regarding offending, but immediately lumps it in with “victimization”, as if to muddy the waters
Lack of available objective data, yet we are able to make conclusions based on much more subjective things, such as perceived bias
Right, not elevated rates, but “possibly” elevated rates
Connections among race, crime, and criminal justice are often portrayed in Canadian media images and are captured in the popular imagination. Yet, in comparison to the United States and Great Britain, these phenomena receive relatively little attention from Canadian academics and policy makers. A lack of readily available criminal justice data disaggregated by race makes it particularly difficult for researchers to examine the nature of these racial differences. Thus, we are unable to determine the extent to which higher rates of offending among certain racial groups and discrimination in the administration of criminal justice contribute to the apparent overrepresentation
There’s a lack of data, but this author will still make claims about bias and discrimination, without actually proving it. He will also tap-dance around the obvious: If a group commits crime at a much higher rate, doesn’t that justify higher incarceration rates?
Nonetheless, available evidence indicates that a significant proportion of Canada’s racial minority populations and a sizable proportion of the white population perceive bias in the criminal justice system. These public perceptions are supported by data that show that certain racial minority groups, particularly Aboriginal and black Canadians, are grossly overrepresented in Canada’s correctional institutions. Further evidence indicates that racial bias does exist in the administration of Canadian criminal justice, and, at times, this discrimination has been supported by court decisions. We cannot discount, however, the probability that increased rates of offending among certain racialized groups contributes to their overrepresentation in correctional statistics. As we show in this essay, research suggests that Aboriginal and black Canadians are overrepresented with respect to violent offending and victimization. The Canadian federal government itself has pointed out that the social conditions in which Aboriginals live is at least partially to blame for their rates of violent offending (Department of Justice 2009). We have previously made the same connection with respect to black Canadians (Wortley and Owusu-Bempah2011a).
Owusu-Bempah contradicts himself here. He claims there is “perceived” bias from many people. Not “actual” bias, but perceived bias. He then goes on to say that there is overrepresentation among certain groups.
He then offers a perfectly reasonable explanation for the higher incarceration rate: increased offending.
Just a thought. If a certain group commits crime at a higher rate, then it is not bias or discrimination that there would be more of them involved with the courts.
Unfortunately, there is an apparent lack of political will to address issues of racial minority overrepresentation in the Canadian criminal justice system. Ambivalence to address these issues relates both to the manifestations of racial discrimination in the system, as well as to the societal conditions that lead to criminal offending. Discrimination and disparity may be at times acknowledged, but they are seldom wholeheartedly addressed. When addressed, the means are seldom thoroughly evaluated for effectiveness, and, when evaluated, the results are rarely made public.
Difficult to believe, but this is just the next paragraph. Owusu-Bempah claims there is no political will to address racial minority overrepresentation. Yet, he previously commented that there was a higher rate of offending.
This seems like a solution in search of a problem.
Many have argued that relatively high rates of homicide and gun crime among African Canadians and Aboriginals in Canada are reflective of their overrepresentation in street gangs. Unfortunately, official police statistics on Canadian gangs are almost nonexistent
Yeah, good job.
Canada’s reluctance to acknowledge and document race is most evident in the operation of its criminal justice system and in its criminal justice policies. Unlike in the United States and the United Kingdom, where race-based criminal justice statistics are readily available to the public and researchers alike, the Canadian criminal justice system does not systematically collect or publish statistics on the race of individuals processed through the system. The debate over the collection of racial data from the criminal justice sector in Canada can be traced back as far as 1929 (Roberts 1992). Discussions about the collection, or more accurately, the public release of these data have emerged more recently in the context of broader debates about race, crime, and the administration of criminal justice—particularly related to the circumstances of Aboriginal and black Canadians (Hatt 1994; Johnston 1994; Gabor 1994; Roberts 1994; Wortley 1999; Owusu-Bempah and Millar 2010). On the one hand, allegations of racial discrimination have been leveled against the justice system to explain the overrepresentation of certain racial minority groups in the few available sources of police and correctional data. On the other hand, it has been suggested that racial minorities are disproportionately involved in criminal activity, which accounts for their disproportionate involvement with the criminal justice system as reflected in the data. Unfortunately, our ability to test either of these claims is limited by the absence of available data, despite numerous calls for its collection. Several major attempts have been made in Canada to collect racial and ethnic data, particularly in the policing sector (Fine 1990; Wortley and Marshall 2005; Leclair InfoCom 2009); these attempts, however, have not paved the way for systematic data collection
The author addresses crime rates, but gives a wishy washy answer. There’s not enough data to tell one way or another whether it is: (a) discrimination; or (b) actual crime, that results in the disparities. Yet, feelings about perceived bias and virtue signalling bureaucrats apologizing are apparently good evidence.
There is an interesting point to be taken from this: if there was concrete data on race and crime rates, then the debate could be put to bed once and for all.
The article keeps repeating the same idea and muddying the waters: we don’t have data, so we can’t be sure what causes discrepancies in the representation.
If the author wanted a reference point, why not check the data from the US and UK? After all, he knows it is there.
There were 698,737 arrests in 2017/18, a fall of 8% on the previous year – both years’ figures exclude Lancashire Police (see ‘Things you need to know’)
-Black people were over 3 times as likely to be arrested as White people – there were 35 arrests for every 1,000 —Black people, and 11 arrests for every 1,000 White people
-overall, men were over 5 times as likely to be arrested as women – there were 22 arrests for every 1,000 men, and -4 arrests for every 1,000 women
-Black women were more than twice as likely to be arrested as White women – there were 7 arrests for every 1,000 —Black women, and 3 arrests for every 1,000 White women
And a few pages later,
there were 698,737 arrests in England and Wales in 2017/18 (excluding the Lancashire police force area), at a rate of 13 arrests per 1,000 people
there were 62,501 fewer arrests in 2017/18 compared with the previous year, a fall of 8% (excluding Lancashire Police from both years)
Black people were over 3 times as likely to be arrested as White people – there were 35 arrests for every 1,000 Black people, and 11 arrests for every 1,000 White people
people with Mixed ethnicity were over twice as likely to be arrested as White people – there were 25 arrests for every 1,000 people with Mixed ethnicity, and 11 arrests for every 1,000 White people
So the UK Government is willing to be quite open and blunt about the disparities in race and offending. And what about the US.
5. Crime Data From US FBI
CLICK HERE, for FBI Uniform Crime Reporting, Table 21. This is compiled from 2016, though the stats over the years don’t change much.
Looking at Table 21C (people aged 18 or over)
Worth noting the US black population is about 13% commits:
52% of homicides
28% of rapes
51% of robberies
32% of aggravated assault
36% of violent crime
41% of weapons carrying
30% buying stolen property
…. and so on.
Are blacks greatly overrepresented in US prisons? Absolutely. And for a very good reason — disproportionate amount of violent and serious crime.
Are US sentences in general too harsh? A fair point, but a topic for another day. This post concerns treating people equally.
6. Gladue 2.0 Addresses Wrong Problem
With this proposed change, the scope of Gladue will be broadened. This means that it will not be restricted to Aboriginals.
The claim is that this will reduce overrepresentation in the courts and prison system. Problem is: it focuses on making prisons look like a random sample of society, rather than a reflection of who is actually committing the most serious crime.
It’s what liberals do not want to acknowledge:
SOME GROUPS JUST COMMIT MORE CRIME
It is not necessarily due to “oppression” or “systemic bias”, or any other such nonsense. It is caused by these groups, on average, behaving differently. While it is obviously desirable for society to reduce crime and their prison populations, this is a backwards approach.
Should the Ontario Court of Appeals (and possibly the Supreme Court of Canada) confirm this nonsense, racial equality dies. Your skin colour will determine your punishment, not your crime. Though arguably that was the case with Gladue.
Keep in mind, it is the Supreme Court of Canada that upheld Gladue in the first place (appealed from BC). There is nothing to indicated they wouldn’t extend their ruling to this.
(Pierre Beaudoin, Bombardier Chairman, sits on Power Corp BOD)
(Anthony Graham, is Vice-Chairman of Whittingham Investments Ltd, which happens to own the Weston-Loblaw Group. Graham also sits on Power Corp Board of Directors)
(Hélène Desmarais, Chair-Woman of Montreal Economic Institute)
1. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for Globe & Mail article on the Desmarais family, 2004. CLICK HERE, to search Elections Canada donors.
CLICK HERE, for the Trilateral Commission. CLICK HERE, for Abeldanger blog, citing Desmarais tentacles in Canadian politics. CLICK HERE, for memorial on Paul Desmarais Sr. CLICK HERE, for Andre Desmarais, Jean Chretien’s son-in-law. CLICK HERE, for Canada Steamship lines. CLICK HERE, for a biography on Paul Martin. CLICK HERE, for the oil-for-food-scandal CLICK HERE, for a Maclean’s article on Desmarais from 2006 CLICK HERE, for a Financial Post article on the politicians who attended Paul Desmarais Sr.’s funeral. CLICK HERE, for Gary Doer, former Manitoba Premier (NDP), who sits on PowerCorps Board of Directors
CLICK HERE, for Pierre Beaudoin, Bombardier Chairman, who also sits on PowerCorp’s Board of Directors. CLICK HERE, for Bombardier bailout, and Pierre Beaudoin’s bonuses. CLICK HERE, for Andrew Coyne estimates Bombardier received $3.7B. CLICK HERE, for Fraser Institute claims Bombardier has been bailed out 48 times by Industry Canada, going back to 1966.
CLICK HERE, for Loblaws receiving $12M bailout from taxpayers to buy energy-efficient fridges. CLICK HERE, for an article on fridge subsidies and vote buying.
CLICK HERE, for biography on Paul Desmarais Jr., son of the legend. CLICK HERE, for Hélène Desmarais, wife of Paul Jr. CLICK HERE, for Maxime Bernier’s profile. CLICK HERE, for the Montreal Economic Institute.
2. Desmarais And Trilateral Commission
Linda Koch Lorimer and Andre Desmarais both sit on the Trilateral Commission, which promotes global trade in:
(a) The Americas
(c) Asia-Pacific Rim
Among the other members on the Trilateral Commission:
Rona Ambrose – MP, former Conservative Party leader
Total compensation for the Montreal-based manufacturer’s top five executives and board chairman Pierre Beaudoin was US$32.6 million in 2016, up from US$21.9 million the year before, according to a proxy circular ahead of Bombardier’s annual meeting on May 11.
CEO Alain Bellemare received US$9.5 million, up from US$6.4 million in 2015, including US$5.2 million in share and option-based awards and a US$1 million salary. His annual bonus almost doubled to US$2.36 million.
. Beaudoin’s total compensation increased to US$5.25 million from US$3.85 million a year earlier.
That’s right, Bombardier gets bailed out by taxpayers. And Pierre Beaudoin, Bombardier’s Chairman, is also on the Board of Directors for Power Corp, with all its ties to politicians. No corruption here.
From the Fraser Institute:
Bombardier Inc., which recently announced it would lay off 1,700 people, has been one chronic seeker and a regular recipient of such taxpayer assistance. The Montreal-based aerospace company is thus a useful example of corporate welfare in action, the tax dollars at stake, and the regular, inflated claims about the beneficial effects of such subsidies.
Bombardier’s corporate welfare began, at least federally, in 1966 when it received its first disbursement of $35 million from the federal department, Industry Canada. In the decades since, various Bombardier iterations received over $1.1 billion (all figures adjusted for inflation) in 48 separate disbursements from just Industry Canada. That includes two 2009 cheques worth $233 million.
Let’s connect the dots:
The Desmarais family owns Power Corp.
Andre Desmarais is on the Board of Directors.
Andre Desmarais is son-in-law of ex-PM Jean Chretien.
“Many” Canadian politicians connected to Power Corp.
Pierre Beaudoin is also on Power Corp B.O.D.
Pierre Beaudoin doubles as Bombardier Chairman.
Pierre Beaudoin in in position to have Canadian Government bail out Bombardier whenever needed. He also increases his own bonuses.
Bombardier is repeatedly bailed out.
Beaudoin is able to cash in from these bailouts.
5. Power Corp & Loblaws Bailout
Remember: Anthony Graham is Vice-Chairman of Whittington Investments, which owns Loblaws. He also is on Power Corp’s Board of Directors.
This one is straightforward to connect.
The Desmarais family owns Power Corp.
Andre Desmarais is on the Board of Directors.
Andre Desmarais is son-in-law of ex-PM Jean Chretien.
“Many” Canadian politicians connected to Power Corp.
Anthony Graham is also on Power Corp B.O.D.
Anthony Graham doubles as Vice-Chairman of Whittington Investments, which owns Loblaws.
Anthony Graham is in position to have Canadian Government bail out Loblaws.
Unclear how much Graham’s bonus will be.
6. Desmarais And Brian Mulroney
Mulroney said he felt confident that Desmarais died knowing he had led a productive life and made a remarkable contribution to his country. “He was a close and intimate friend of mine for 48 years,” Mulroney said. “I feel very sad, but I feel very happy for a life really well lived. Paul’s life was unconventional because it really was a love story: for his wife, his kids and his country. So, he’s happy. He knows he had a good life and a productive life.”
From the (CBC article), Paul Desmarais Sr. and Brian Mulroney have been close friends for decades.
7. Desmarais And Jean Chretien
André Desmarais is currently Deputy Chairman, President and Co-Chief Executive Officer of the company his father took control of in 1968, Power Corporation, based in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. He is also Executive Co-Chairman of Power Financial. Power Corporation is a diversified international management and holding company, which has holdings in leading financial services, renewable energy, communications and other business sectors.
He married France Chrétien Desmarais, the daughter of former Prime Minister of Canada Jean Chrétien, on May 23, 1981. They have four children.
In August 2016, The Wall Street Journal mentions that André Desmarais and his brother Paul Jr. “are readying their 34-year-old sons (Olivier Desmarais and Paul Desmarais III) to take over Power Corp
Jean Chretien is connected to Desmarais by way of marriage. His daughter, France, married Andre Desmarais, son of Paul Desmarais Sr. They have 4 children together.
8. Desmarais And Paul Martin
Martin began his career as a special assistant to Paul Desmarais, a friend of his father’s and a man often referred to as Canada’s wealthiest citizen. Desmarais was the force behind the creation of the Power Corporation, an immense conglomerate with stakes in the pulp and paper industry, the media, public transport, and insurance services. By 1969 Martin had risen to a vice presidency at the Montreal–based giant, and four years later Desmarais put him in charge of one of its subsidiaries, Canada Steamship Lines Ltd. (CSL). Martin worked to improve the flagging finances of the shipping company, and in 1981 he and a business partner bought CSL for $116 million. They had to borrow the funds for the purchase, and interest rates were above 20 percent at the time. On the day that Martin signed the loan papers, a well–known Wall Street analyst predicted that rates might rise as high as 30 percent. “I gambled everything that interest rates had reached their peak,” Martin recalled in an interview with Anthony Wilson–Smith in Maclean’s. “If they had continued to rise, I was cooked.”
Paul Martin was an employee of the Desmarais family for many years in Canada Steamship Lines (CSL). Martin eventually bought out the company.
9. Desmarais’ Influence At His Death
MONTREAL — Tributes poured in for the late Paul Desmarais on Tuesday in a commemorative ceremony that featured a veritable who’s who of politicians and businessmen past and present. Four Canadian prime ministers, a former French president and five Quebec premiers were among those who attended the tribute to the late business tycoon at the Notre-Dame Basilica. Prime Minister Stephen Harper remembered Desmarais as a humble and generous man who was passionate about Canada.
From the Financial Post article:
Tuesday’s crowd also included Quebec Premier Pauline Marois and predecessors Daniel Johnson, Lucien Bouchard, Bernard Landry and Jean Charest.
Also present were ex-media mogul Conrad Black, former Bombardier president Laurent Beaudoin, ex-Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe, former federal Liberal leader Bob Rae and his successor, Justin Trudeau.
The Ontario-born businessman remained a staunch Canadian federalist after he moved to Quebec, where he became one of the country’s wealthiest and most powerful figures.
Desmarais had incredible influence in both Federal and Provincial politics. Several Premiers and Prime Ministers all had direct connections to him. He even had ties to politicians in France.
10. Desmarais and Montreal Economic Institute
An interesting bit of information worth mentioning. There is yet another connection to Desmarais.
Paul Desmarais Sr. had 2 sons: Andre and Paul Jr. Andre married France Chretien, daughter of former Prime Minister Jean Chretien. Paul Jr. is married too. His wife, Hélène Desmarais, is the Chair-Woman at the Montreal Economic Institute, a think-tank promoting liberalized economic policies.
MEI had a new Executive Vice-President in 2005. His name: Maxime Bernier.
In 2006, Bernier left to get into politics. He is now a 4 term MP, and 3 time Cabinet Minister. He now heads his own “populist” party, promoting MEI style economic liberalism.
Mr. Bernier has a long-standing interest in business and during his career worked for several financial and banking institutions before becoming Executive Vice-President of the Montreal Economic Institute in 2005.
11. Desmarais, Power Corp, Bombardier & Loblaws
Although this article could have been much, MUCH longer, it will stop here. Hopefully, there will be a followup. This doesn’t come close to covering everything.
But to summarize, many of Canada’s most powerful politicians are directly connected to the Desmarais family, and to Power Corporation. It is hard to overstate the influence the family has had in Canadian politics. These politicians, while from different parties, all cooperate in the same corporate, globalist agenda.
And while difficult to prove, it looks almost certain that corruption played a role in Canadian taxpayers having to bailout 2 companies: Bombardier and Loblaws.
CLICK HERE, for China Tribunal. CLICK HERE, for China Tribunal, forced harvesting of organs from China’s political prisoners. CLICK HERE, from China Tribunal’s December 2018 findings. CLICK HERE, for firstthings.com, and then US Vice President Joe Biden’s attitude to what went on in China. CLICK HERE, for 2015 on China’s organ trafficking. CLICK HERE, for Lifesite article on China. CLICK HERE, for NBC article, China promises to phase out practice. CLICK HERE, for an NBC article on China’s practice.
In This Series CLICK HERE, for Part 1, New York and Virginia. CLICK HERE, for Part 2, Kill The Survivors. CLICK HERE, for Part 3, UN Endorses Abortion As Human Right. CLICK HERE, for Part 4, Fallout and Pushback. CLICK HERE, for Part 5, ONCA ruling doctors “must” provide referrals if they are not willing to do the work themselves. CLICK HERE, for Part 6, 9th Circuit Rules Against Planned Parenthood Federal Funding,
2. China Tribunal’s Findings
From the December 2018 interim report:
“The Tribunal’s members are certain – unanimously, and sure beyond reasonable doubt – that in China forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practiced for a substantial period of time involving a very substantial number of victims.”
That was part of the interim report. But now the final report goes on even further:
The Tribunal has considered evidence, in its many forms, and dealt with individual issues according to the evidence relating to each issue and nothing else and thereby reached a series of conclusions that are free of any influence caused by the PRC’s reputation or other potential causes of prejudice.
These were as follows;
• That there were extraordinarily short waiting times (promised by PRC doctors and hospitals) for organs to be available for transplantation;
• That there was torture of Falun Gong and Uyghurs;
• That there was accumulated numerical evidence (excluding spurious PRC data) which indicated:
o the number of transplant operations performed, and
o the impossibility of there being anything like sufficient ‘eligible donors’ under the recently formed PRC voluntary donor scheme for that number of transplant operations;
• That there was a massive infrastructure development of facilities and medical personnel for organ transplant operations, often started before any voluntary donor system was even planned; That there was direct and indirect evidence of forced organ harvesting.
And this led to the conclusion that:
forced organ harvesting has been committed for years throughout China on a significant scale and that Falun Gong practitioners have been one – and probably the main – source of organ supply. The concerted persecution and medical testing of the Uyghurs is more recent and it may be that evidence of forced organ harvesting of this group may emerge in due course. The Tribunal has had no evidence that the significant infrastructure associated with China’s transplantation industry has been dismantled and absent a satisfactory explanation as to the source of readily available organs concludes that forced organ harvesting continues till today.
However, on the topic of “genocide” China Tribunal pussyfoots around the issue and says they cannot conclude there is intent for genocide. This despite stating that the actions met the other elements.
The Tribunal considered whether this constituted a crime of Genocide; The Falun Gong and the Uyghurs in the PRC each qualify as a ‘group’ for purposes of the crime of Genocide. For the Falun Gong, the following elements of the crime of Genocide are clearly established:
• Killing members of the group;
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.
Thus, bar one element of the crime, Genocide is, on the basis of legal advice received, clearly proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. The remaining element required to prove the crime is the very specific intent for Genocide. Accepting legal advice about proving this intent, the Tribunal cannot be certain that the requisite intent is proved and thus cannot be certain that Genocide itself is proved.
That’s right. Due to legal advice, China Tribunal cannot actually conclude there is intent to commit genocide, despite the prolonged actions that would justify the claims.
China Tribunal then “appears” to condemn what happens to Falun Gong and the Uyghurs, but waters down the language to “criminality”, despite the included detail. The tribunal claims the “elements have been met for crimes against humanity”.
Commission of Crimes Against Humanity against the Falun Gong and Uyghurs has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by proof of one or more of the following, legally required component acts:
• imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
• rape or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
• persecution on racial, national, ethnic, cultural or religious grounds that are universally recognised as impermissible under international law ;
• enforced disappearance
in the course of a widespread and systematic attack or attacks against the Falun Gong and Uyghurs.
This seems to be splitting hairs. It meets the criteria for crimes against humanity. Yet China Tribunal, on advice from their lawyers, refuse to state there is intent to qualify as “genocide”.
The report ends with a very interesting comment about the power of media and citizen journalists.
Governments and international bodies must do their duty not only in regard to the possible charge of Genocide but also in regard to Crimes against Humanity, which the Tribunal does not allow to be any less heinous. Assuming they do not do their duty, the usually powerless citizen is, in the internet age, more powerful than s/he may recognise. Criminality of this order may allow individuals from around the world to act jointly in pressurising governments so that those governments and other international bodies are unable not to act.
The China Tribunal has no power to actually do anything. However, it seems to believe that by spreading word online it can put pressure on governments to act.
But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China. You have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable. So hopefully we can act in a way on a problem that’s much less severe than yours, and maybe we can learn together from how we can do that.
In order to maintain the 1-child policy, China has had to result to extreme and inhuman measures:
sex-selective abortions against girls
Biden seemed critical that the declining birth rate would be able to sustain the retired population. However he seemed to have no concern over the mass aborting and sterilizations that went on.
In 2014, state media reported that China would phase out the practice of taking organs from executed prisoners and said it would rely instead on a national organ donation system.
The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Tuesday was not immediately available to comment on the tribunal’s findings.
In a statement released alongside the final judgment, the tribunal said many of those affected were practitioners of Falun Gong, a spiritual discipline that China banned in the 1990s and has called an “evil cult.” The tribunal added that it was possible that Uighur Muslims — an ethnic minority who are currently being detained in vast numbers in western China — were also being targeted.
China had been promising for years to end this practice, but it doesn’t seem to have happened.
5. Lifesite Take On The Situation
Still, there has been too much reporting for too long about this profound human-rights abuse to ethically continue to look the other way. The question thus becomes: Will the U.S. specifically outlaw traveling to China for the purpose of buying an organ — just as we do participating in pedophilia tourism overseas? (Spain, Israel, Italy, and Taiwan have passed such laws already.) I can’t think of one argument against pursuing such a course.
If we don’t at least do what we can, it seems to me that we make ourselves complicit in allowing the demand for black-market organs forcibly harvested from murdered prisoners to continue unimpeded — and the blood of the slaughtered victims will also be on us.
(Lifesite article here) This echoes what China Tribunal has been saying: that political pressure is needed to put a stop to this practice.
6. My Take On This Story
If the allegations are true, and they seem to be, then this is abhorrent.
At some level this is no different that what abortion industries like Planned Parenthood do: snuff out lives in order to obtain a commodity, their organs. If we subscribe to the idea that life is valuable, then this is little — though more heinous — than a common murder and robbery.
While donation of organs (for after death), should be encouraged, this is an entirely different matter. This is premeditated mass murder in order to steal those parts. The practice is barbaric.
Consider the flack Canada has taken over the Government’s genocide claims over Indigenous women and girls. Most of the deaths and disappearances (at least where it is known) were at the hands of Indigenous men they knew. That is apparently a “genocide”. Yet what is going on in China is not really worth the attention apparently.
CLICK HERE, for an article on Planned Parenthood. PP would stand to lose $50-$60 million a year from defunding.
CLICK HERE, for PP suing Idaho over new reporting requirements. CLICK HERE, for Idaho’s House Bill 638.
CLICK HERE, for a Politico article which covers ongoing cases CLICK HERE, for Planned Parenthood & Ohio. CLICK HERE, for Planned Parenthood challenging a ban on aborting fetuses with Down’s Syndrome. CLICK HERE, for Kentucky banning abortions based on race, sex or disability, which Planned Parenthood and ACLU plan to challenge. CLICK HERE, for Ohio Senate Bill 23 “Heartbeat Bill”. (Hearts beat 45 days into pregnancy). CLICK HERE, for Ohio Senate Bill 27, Medical Tissue Disposal Bill. CLICK HERE, for Planned Parenthood challenging Indiana law requiring the remains of aborted babies to be either cremated or buried. CLICK HERE, for an article on selling aborted baby parts. CLICK HERE, for David Daleiden fined $195,000. CLICK HERE, for Daleiden charged for illegal recordings.
In This Series CLICK HERE, for Part 1, New York and Virginia. CLICK HERE, for Part 2, Kill The Survivors. CLICK HERE, for Part 3, UN Endorses Abortion As Human Right. CLICK HERE, for Part 4, Fallout and Pushback. CLICK HERE, for Part 5, ONCA ruling doctors “must” provide referrals if they are not willing to do the work themselves.
2. Quotes From Ruling
In 1970, Congress enacted Title X of the Public Health Service Act (“Title X”) to create a limited grant program for certain types of pre-pregnancy family planning services. See Pub. L. No. 91-572, 84 Stat. 1504 (1970). Section 1008 of Title X, which has remained unchanged since its enactment, is titled “Prohibition of Abortion,” and provides: None of the funds appropriated under this subchapter shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.
Pretty straightforward. Title X was never meant to be a means which to funnel money to fund abortions.
In ruling on a stay motion, we are guided by four factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although review of a district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction is for abuse of discretion, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir. 2003), “[a] district court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law,” Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996).
This is the 4 part test to decide on a motion to stay a ruling. Is the applicant likely to succeed? Is there public interest? What harm will come to the parties?
As a threshold matter, we note that the Final Rule is a reasonable interpretation of § 1008. Congress enacted § 1008 to ensure that “[n]one of the funds appropriated under this subchapter shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.” 42 U.S.C. § 300a-6. If a program promotes, encourages, or advocates abortion as a method of family planning, or if the program refers patients to abortion providers for family planning purposes, then that program is logically one “where abortion is a method of family planning.” Accordingly, the Final Rule’s prohibitions on advocating, encouraging, or promoting abortion, as well as on referring patients for abortions, are reasonable and in accord with § 1008. Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that § 1008 “plainly allows” such a construction of the statute. Rust, 500 U.S. at 184 (upholding as a reasonable interpretation of § 1008 regulations that (1) prohibited abortion referrals and counseling, (2) required referrals for prenatal care, (3) placed restrictions on referral lists, (4) prohibited promoting, encouraging, or advocating abortion, and (5) mandated financial and physical separation of Title X projects from abortion-related activities). The text of § 1008 has not changed.
This makes a great deal of sense. If abortion was never intended to be covered as “family planning” under Title X, then organizations that openly promote, encourage, or otherwise facilitate it shouldn’t be allowed to receive federal monies. It would do an end run around rules.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall not promulgate any regulation that—
(1) creates any unreasonable barriers to the ability of individuals to obtain appropriate medical care;
(2) impedes timely access to health care services;
(3) interferes with communications regarding a full range of treatment options between the patient and the provider;
(4) restricts the ability of health care providers to provide full disclosure of all relevant information to patients making health care decisions;
(5) violates the principles of informed consent and the ethical standards of health care professionals; or
(6) limits the availability of health care treatment for the full duration of a patient’s medical needs.
Pub. L. No. 111-148, title I, § 1554 (42 U.S.C. § 18114) (“§ 1554”). These two provisions could render the Final Rule “not in accordance with law” only by impliedly repealing or amending § 1008, or by directly contravening the Final Rule’s regulatory provisions
So these limitations would not be violate, specifically because § 1008 would need to be repealed or amended. Or the “Final Rule’s” provisions would have to be violated.
Plaintiffs admit that there is no irreconcilable conflict between § 1008 and either the appropriations rider or § 1554 of the ACA. E.g., California State Opposition to Motion for Stay at p. 14; Essential Access Opposition to Motion for Stay at p.14. And we discern no “clear and manifest” intent by Congress to amend or repeal § 1008 via either of these laws—indeed, neither law even refers to § 1008. The appropriations rider mentions abortion only to prohibit appropriated funds from being expended for abortions; and § 1554 of the ACA does not even mention abortion.
The US Congress has no intent to rewrite or amend § 1008. And § 1554 of the ACA (Affordable Care Act) does not even mention abortion. It looks pretty weak to attempt an end run around what the law explicitly forbids.
Although the Final Rule does require the provision of referrals to non-abortion providers, id. at 7788–90, such referrals do not constitute “pregnancy counseling.” First, providing a referral is not “counseling.” HHS has defined “nondirective counseling” as “the meaningful presentation of options where the [medical professional] is not suggesting or advising one option over another,” 84 Fed. Reg. at 7716, whereas a “referral” involves linking a patient to another provider who can give further counseling or treatment, id. at 7748. The Final Rule treats referral and counseling as distinct terms, as has Congress and HHS under previous administrations. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 300z-10; 53 Fed. Reg. at 2923; 2928–38 (1988); 65 Fed. Reg. 41272–75 (2000). We therefore conclude that the Final Rule’s referral requirement is not contrary to the appropriations rider’s nondirective pregnancy counseling mandate.2
It is not “counselling” to refer a woman for abortion procedures. Counselling, as repeatedly held, is explaining options to a person.
Because HHS and the public interest would be irreparably harmed absent a stay, harms to Plaintiffs from a stay will be comparatively minor, and HHS is likely to prevail in its challenge of the preliminary injunction orders before a merits panel of this court (which is set to hear the cases on an expedited basis), we conclude that a stay of the district courts’ preliminary injunction orders pending appeal is proper. The motion for a stay pending appeal is GRANTED.
3. PP Sued Idaho Over Reporting Rules
Chapter 95: Abortions Complications Reporting Act
(f) Abortion and complication reporting do not impose undue burdens on a woman’s right to choose whether she terminates pregnancy. Specifically, the “collection of information” with respect to actual patients is a vital element of medical research, so it cannot be said that the requirements serve no purpose other than to make abortions more difficult.
This raises a valid point. If abortions, or any particular technique were leading to health complications later down the road, then it would be useful to know that information.
Here is Planned Parenthood’s response when filing suit.
This law require providers in the state to report on more than 37 new “complications,” ranging from medical conditions that have no link to abortion, like breast cancer, to the inability to come in for a follow-up appointment, which is not a medical condition. The reporting requirement doesn’t exist for any other medical procedure. The bill was signed into law by Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter in March.
Yet none of this actually prevents abortions from going on. It is a bit confusing. Does PP “not” want the patients (specifically), or the public (generally) to know what kinds of health and follow-up issues are going on?
4. PP Sued Ohio Over Heartbeat Bill
(1) At least twenty-four hours prior to the performance or inducement of the abortion, a physician meets with the pregnant woman in person in an individual, private setting and gives her an adequate opportunity to ask questions about the abortion that will be performed or induced. At this meeting, the physician shall inform the pregnant woman, verbally or, if she is hearing impaired, by other means of communication, of all of the following: (a) The nature and purpose of the particular abortion procedure to be used and the medical risks associated with that procedure; (b) The probable gestational age of the embryo or fetus; (c) The medical risks associated with the pregnant woman carrying the pregnancy to term. The meeting need not occur at the facility where the abortion is to be performed or induced, and the physician involved in the meeting need not be affiliated with that facility or with the physician who is scheduled to perform or induce the abortion.
(3) If it has been determined that the unborn human individual the pregnant woman is carrying has a detectable fetal heartbeat, the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion shall comply with the informed consent requirements in section 2919.192 2919.194 of the Revised Code in addition to complying with the informed consent requirements in divisions (B)(1), (2), (4), and (5) of this section
While “controversial”, this bill (and similar ones) make a very valid point. How is it not “alive” if there is an actual heart beating?
All of this talk about the right to an abortion, but no concern over the life of the unborn child. Why?
Perhaps Senate Bill 27 will explain it. Planned Parenthood not only sues to make abortion “more accessible”, but it opposes efforts to “force the disposal” of the bodies either by burial or by cremation. Those aborted babies are worth a lot of money, if you harvest the organs.
5. Real Reason PP Is So Pro-Abortion
Let’s connect the dots here
PP supports abortion with federal funds.
PP supports aborting babies with Down’s Syndrome.
PP supports abortion based on sex, race, or disability.
PP opposes laws mandating burial or cremation of fetus.
While all of these are troubling, it is the last point that explains it: Planned Parenthood doesn’t want States mandating the disposal of fetal tissue, because there is a lot of money to be made in that.
From the Washington Examiner:
When pro-life activist David Daleiden and his team at the Center for Medical Progress released the tapes in 2015, Planned Parenthood leaned heavily on the defense that the videos were unfairly doctored. This defense was parroted immediately by a servile press, despite that Planned Parenthood never explained what additional context would have exonerated its senior director of medical services saying on tape that the group was “doing a little better than” breaking even for donated organs (it is illegal to profit from the donation of fetal tissue. It is also illegal under federal law to perform partial birth abortions).
From the Christian Post article:
The undercover journalist who in 2015 exposed Planned Parenthood’s baby body parts selling operation is fighting a nearly $200,000 fine amid an ongoing court battle.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to hear an appeal from David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress last week, an appeal of a $195,000 imposed on him for using video footage which supposedly violated a gag order imposed by a lower court judge.
“The federal judge presiding over related civil lawsuits, District Judge William Orrick, had held that criminal defense counsel’s use of the videos violated a gag order he imposed in one of the federal civil actions. Daleiden and his defense counsel appealed, arguing that Orrick had improperly imposed a criminal contempt penalty without granting the accused due process and that the federal civil injunction should not apply to Daleiden’s state criminal proceeding,” according to a statement from the Thomas More Society, which is representing Daleiden.
While the court proceedings are likely not over, David Daleiden performed a much needed service by exposing what really goes on. Aborted (a.k.a. murdered) children are worth a lot of money dead, as their organs can be harvested and sold.
It also explains why Planned Parenthood has such an unwavering pro-abortion stance. These are not babies, but raw supplies. It further makes clear why PP doesn’t want aborted babies buried or cremated. Not much of a business model if you final products are required to be thrown out.
Aborted babies are essentially in a chop-shop for spare parts. Nothing humane or compassionate about it.
CLICK HERE, for race- based discounts in sentencing. CLICK HERE, for Terri McClintic, child killer, in a healing lodge. CLICK HERE, for 2016/2017 StatsCan data on incarceration rates. CLICK HERE, for Table 5, incarceration by race and gender. CLICK HERE, for Table 6. CLICK HERE, for archived findings form Correctional Service of Canada form 1999. CLICK HERE, for a Larry Elder video on single parent households. CLICK HERE, for a documentary on drug use on reserves. CLICK HERE, for a video on lack of drinking water on reserves.
This is a proposal to scrap so-called “Gladue Rights” which specifically are designed to give Aboriginal offenders special consideration when it comes to sentencing in the criminal justice system.
Please don’t interpret this as an indication not to give anyone a break if the circumstances permit. Rather, rights and options should be available to everyone. They should not be given to one specific group, or denied to one specific group.
Disclaimer: I am not a criminologist, or a sociologist. Just a researcher.
Now, how great are the discrepancies?
From the StatsCan 2016/2017 findings:
The Criminal Code mandates that all sanctions other than imprisonment are to be considered with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. In 2016/2017, Aboriginal adults accounted for 28% of admissions to provincial/territorial correctional services and 27% for federal correctional services, while representing 4.1% of the Canadian adult population (Table 5). In comparison to 2006/2007, the proportion of admissions of Aboriginal peoples to correctional services was 21% for provincial and territorial correctional services and 19% for federal correctional services.
Aboriginal adults accounted for 30% of admissions to custody and 25% of admissions to community supervision among the provinces and territories in 2016/2017. Aboriginal adults accounted for 27% of admissions to custody and 26% of admissions to community supervision in federal correctional services (Table 5).
The proportion of Aboriginal admissions to adult custody has been trending upwards for over 10 years. It has increased steadily from 2006/2007 when it was 21% for provincial and territorial correctional services and 20% for federal correctional services.
Among the provinces, Aboriginal adults made up the greatest proportion of admissions to custody in Manitoba (74%) and Saskatchewan (76%). These two provinces also have the highest proportion of Aboriginal adults among their provincial populations at 15% for Manitoba, and 14% for Saskatchewan.
Aboriginal males accounted for 28% of admissions to custody in the province and territories, whereas non-Aboriginal males accounted for 72%, in 2016/2017. Aboriginal females made up a greater proportion of custody admissions than their male counterparts, accounting for 43% of admissions, while non-Aboriginal females accounted for 57% (Table 6).
Here is the data in a more visual form.
Abor. Total Pop’n
Abor. Group Pop’n
Non-Abor. Total Pop’n
Non-Abor. Group Pop’n
Note: Here is how to calculate the rates. Assume there is a population of 100,000 people, and 1,000 of them are locked up and then break in down as percentages of the population.
Now that we can make an apples-to-apples comparison, 0.068/0.0075 =~9.1
So on a per-capita basis, Aboriginals are about 9 times as likely as non-Aboriginals to be locked up
Next, covering Aboriginal women and incarceration rate. For this. Assume that the overall percentages are about same: 95.9% non-Aboriginal, and 4.1% Aboriginal. Here instead of making up 28% overall in Provincial jails, it is 57%, approximately double.
Abor. Total Pop’n
Abor. Group Pop’n
Non-Abor. Total Pop’n
Non-Abor. Group Pop’n
And once more we need to convert to rates of respective populations.
When women inmates are looked at specifically, the ratio goes to 0.1390/0.0045 ~= 30.88
That’s right, looking at women, there are (per capita) 30 times as many Aboriginal women locked up as non-Aboriginal women.
3. Evidence Of Discrimination Or Bias?
By itself, no. Having groups with different rates of something is not evidence that there has been discrimination. Either these differences are caused by something that justifies it (such as higher crime rate), or there may be some external factor. Let’s start with the Criminal Code.
718.2(e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.
It is written right into the Canadian Criminal Code, to give offenders (where reasonable), an alternative to custody, with special consideration to Aboriginals. And this is codified in 3 cases.
R. v. Gladue, 1997 CanLII 3015 (BC CA)
R. v. Gladue,  1 SCR 688, 1999 CanLII 679 (SCC)
R. v. Ipeelee,  1 SCR 433, 2012 SCC 13 (CanLII)
Looking at the Criminal Code, and recent decisions, there doesn’t seem to be any legalized discrimination. So let’s look elsewhere.
4. R. v. Proulx (Conditional Sentencing Guidelines)
12 Since it came into force on September 3, 1996, the conditional sentence has generated considerable debate. With the advent of s. 742.1, Parliament has clearly mandated that certain offenders who used to go to prison should now serve their sentences in the community. Section 742.1 makes a conditional sentence available to a subclass of non-dangerous offenders who, prior to the introduction of this new regime, would have been sentenced to a term of incarceration of less than two years for offences with no minimum term of imprisonment.
13 In my view, to address meaningfully the complex interpretive issues raised by this appeal, it is important to situate this new sentencing tool in the broader context of the comprehensive sentencing reforms enacted by Parliament in Bill C-41. I will also consider the nature of the conditional sentence, contrasting it with probationary measures and incarceration. Next, I will address particular interpretive issues posed by s. 742.1. I will first discuss the statutory prerequisites to the imposition of a conditional sentence. Thereafter, I will consider how courts should determine whether a conditional sentence is appropriate, assuming the prerequisites are satisfied. I conclude with some general comments on the deference to which trial judges are entitled in matters of sentencing and dispose of the case at hand in conformity with the principles outlined in these reasons.
16 Bill C-41 is in large part a response to the problem of overincarceration in Canada. It was noted in Gladue, at para. 52, that Canada’s incarceration rate of approximately 130 inmates per 100,000 population places it second or third highest among industrialized democracies. In their reasons, Cory and Iacobucci JJ. reviewed numerous studies that uniformly concluded that incarceration is costly, frequently unduly harsh and “ineffective, not only in relation to its purported rehabilitative goals, but also in relation to its broader public goals” (para. 54). See also Report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections, Toward Unity: Criminal Justice and Corrections (1969); Canadian Sentencing Commission, Sentencing Reform: A Canadian Approach (1987), at pp. xxiii‑xxiv; Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, Taking Responsibility (1988), at p. 75. Prison has been characterized by some as a finishing school for criminals and as ill-preparing them for reintegration into society: see generally Canadian Committee on Corrections, supra, at p. 314; Correctional Service of Canada, A Summary of Analysis of Some Major Inquiries on Corrections – 1938 to 1977 (1982), at p. iv. In Gladue, at para. 57, Cory and Iacobucci JJ. held:
Without rehashing the entire ruling, Proulx, which was based on Bill C-41, set the benchmark for giving out “conditional sentences”, aka “house arrest”. The ruling noted the destructive long term effect prison can have.
While conditional sentencing is completely inappropriate for certain offences, it can have its benefits.
In areas with high crime rates, poverty, or high drug use, a person has to reasonably ask what will be the best solution overall. Does the community benefit from locking up large amounts of its people?
One caveat, breaks in sentencing, and alternatives to prison should be equally available to all Canadians. One group shouldn’t receive a greater aid, or detriment.
See the next section for the CSC report on Aboriginal circumstances.
5. Information Worth Looking At
This comes from the 1998 Corrections Service of Canada Paper (linked above). It also has an impressive bibliography, worth at least a peek.
1.3 Aboriginal Population
Approximately, one-third of all Aboriginal children under the age of 15 in Census families lived in a lone-parent family, twice the rate within the general population. The rate was even higher in urban areas. About 46% of Aboriginal children under 15 in Census families who lived in a census metropolitan area were in a lone-parent family. One-quarter of the Aboriginal population reported that they had an Aboriginal language as mother tongue. Cree was the largest Aboriginal mother tongue. The number of people who could speak an Aboriginal language was about 10% higher than the number who reported an Aboriginal mother tongue, indicating that a significant number of persons learned such a language later in life. (Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1998).
This mentions a very interesting issue. Conservative commentator Larry Elder frequently talks about this. Single parent households (mostly missing fathers), is a very good indicator of crime and education. And it cuts across race.
1.4 Demographic and Socio-Economic Data
Increasing evidence points to a strong correlation between socio-economic disadvantage and involvement with the criminal justice system. A large proportion of the Aboriginal population in Canada suffers socio-economic disadvantage in comparison to non-Aboriginal Canadians. The social and economic conditions outlined in the section below illustrates a correlation between these factors and Aboriginal involvement with the criminal justice system. Poverty, inadequate educational opportunities, unemployment, poor living conditions, alcohol abuse and domestic violence all contribute to Aboriginal people coming into conflict with the law. The challenges to which the criminal justice system must respond are rooted in addressing these disadvantaged conditions.
These problems are prevalent, in particularly on remote reserves. To be fair, it isn’t restricted to reserves. It is heartbreaking to hear the problems and 3rd world conditions.
Suicide is approximately three times more common among Aboriginal people than non-Aboriginal people. It is also five to six times more prevalent among Aboriginal youth than non-Aboriginal youth. In First Nations communities, suicide is more prevalent among the young and usually results from feelings of hopelessness and despair.
Wow. Just wow.
2.4 Urban vs. Rural Aboriginal Offenders
A recent study (Johnston, 1997) of Aboriginal inmates incarcerated in Canadian federal penitentiaries found that one-quarter (24%) of the group had originally came from reserve or remote areas; 44% originally came from rural areas, and 30% from urban areas. The interviewers did not ask about where the offenders had been living at the time of the offence. In addition, the study also found that a majority of the group had left their home community after their youth. Eighteen percent had lived in their home community all their life apart from periods spent incarcerated. Furthermore, the study found that 66% of the Aboriginal inmates incarcerated in federal penitentiaries were considered high-need. Forty-seven per cent were rated as both high-need and high-risk. A majority were rated by case management officers and other penitentiary staff who knew them, as having needs in the following areas:
-substance abuse needs (88%),
-personal/emotional needs (82%),
-employment needs (63%), and
-education needs (54%).
A large proportion were also rated as having needs in relation to:
-pro-criminal attitudes (49%),
-marital and family issues (42%),
-community functioning (36%),
-criminal associates (33%), and
-sexual offending (31%).
This is shocking. Almost 9 in 10 with substance abuse, 4 in 5 with personal needs, 2/3 with employment needs, and half lacking in education.
Canada is supposed to be a 1st world country, but standard of living for those away from any urban area are falling far short of what should be acceptable.
6. So Why Abolish Gladue?
Quite simply, it is a band-aid solution that ignores the real problems. “Rigging” the rules to let Aboriginal offenders off easier (or let them out earlier) turns a blind eye to the problems cited in the previous section. Lack of drinking water being one in the news lately.
Are Aboriginals disproportionately represented in criminal courts and jails? Yes, absolutely. The data and evidence for that is overwhelming.
But it is also plain and obvious that there are many problems with the more remote areas that should not be happening. Setting up different sentencing guidelines does nothing to address any of that.
It could easily be argued that problems with poverty, remote living, drugs, alcohol and domestic violence contribute to crime. These are the causes and crime is the effect. But Gladue gets it entirely backwards. It impacts the EFFECT, hoping to impact the CAUSES.
Hopefully this doesn’t come off as heartless. However, I view the “Gladue Rights” idea as completely missing the point, and ignoring genuine concerns.
7. Actually, There Is Discrimination
Instead of our Prime Minister blowing our money on virtue signalling foreign adventures, perhaps fixing the problems within our borders is a better approach.
Safe drinking water
Access to social services
Seriously evaluate if reserve system is sustainable
We certainly have money to blow on every UN adventure.
While the criminal justice system itself isn’t set up to discriminate, our government does. Entire sections of Canada’s population is left to die while we show the outside world how generous we are.
Gladue is the quick-fix that covers up the real problem.