Category: Globalism

Posted on

CV #35(B): Deja Vu? Parallels With 2009 H1N1; Ferguson; PCR; Limited Trials; Indemnification

“The Minister may make an interim order that contains any provision that may be contained in a regulation made under this Act if the Minister believes that immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk, direct or indirect, to health, safety or the environment.” Section 30.1(1) of the Food and Drugs Act. Sure, there are standards, but they can be bypassed if needed.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

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

2. Important Links

Imperial College London Modelling H1N1
https://archive.is/KLgV2
Imperial College London’s Findings On Swine Flu (H1N1)
https://archive.is/gj4R6
CDC Approves PCR Tests For H1N1 Detection
Interim Order Allowing H1N1 Vaccine
[A] Q&A About Vaccine Arepanrix H1N1 Approval
[A] Information About Research Performed
https://archive.is/WskgA
[B] Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Pandemic Monovalent Vaccine
https://archive.is/wip/q1Z79
Food & Drug Act Of Canada
Adam v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2019 ONSC 7066 (CanLII)
2010 Film: Outbreak, Anatomy Of A Plague
Rockefeller.Foundation.lockstep.2010

Order In Council: 2009-1769
Order In Council: 2009-1857

3. Neil Ferguson’s Shoddy Modelling

Neil Ferguson and Imperial College London were also involved in modelling H1N1 (Swine Flu), over a decade ago. His models are about as off the mark then as they are now.

Imperial College London has financial ties to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Gates himself shows interest in many of ICL’s activities.

Professor Neil Ferguson, the corresponding author of the new research from the MRC Centre for Outbreak Analysis and Modelling at Imperial College London, said: “Our study shows that this virus is spreading just as we would expect for the early stages of a flu pandemic. So far, it has been following a very similar pattern to the flu pandemic in 1957, in terms of the proportion of people who are becoming infected and the percentage of potentially fatal cases that we are seeing.

“What we’re seeing is not the same as seasonal flu and there is still cause for concern – we would expect this pandemic to at least double the burden on our healthcare systems. However, this initial modelling suggests that the H1N1 virus is not as easily transmitted or as lethal as that found in the flu pandemic in 1918,” added Professor Ferguson.

Even back in 2009 (and in fact earlier), Ferguson was quite willing to push the panic button based on very incomplete information. It must be noted that models are not proof or evidence, they are merely predictions. These predictions are subjected to the same limitations and biases of the people conducting them.

Ferguson’s “models” predicted some 65,000 deaths in the U.K. as a result of Swine Flu. A total of 457 materialized in the end. And it’s just one of the times he’s grossly overshot the mark.

4. PCR Tests Used For Swine Flu Detection

This guidance was revised to clarify that the current rRT-PCR developed by CDC to detect novel influenza A ( H1N1) is authorized by the FDA. The FDA authorization, also termed Emergency Use Authorization or EUA, is not equivalent to FDA cleared, which was incorrectly stated in the previous version of the guidance.

Those PCR tests (which don’t detect Covid-19), were also approved for use in diagnosing H1N1 by the Center for Disease Control in the U.S. The technology wasn’t suited then, and isn’t now.

5. Inadequate Clinical Trials: (Arepanrix H1N1)

4. What evidence was used to support the authorization of Arepanrix™ H1N1?
A prototype or “mock” vaccine was developed in the pre-pandemic period using another strain of influenza virus, the H5N1 strain. During this period Health Canada inspected the vaccine manufacturing facilities, validated the vaccine production process, and reviewed results from both animal and human studies with the mock vaccine. In addition, the safety and effectiveness of the adjuvant to be used with the vaccine was assessed by Health Canada. Once the H1N1 virus emerged as the pandemic virus, the manufacturer initiated vaccine production using the strain recommended by the WHO.

5. What are the benefits and potential risks associated with Arepanrix™ H1N1?
Criteria have been established to assess the immunogenicity of vaccines. Clinical trial results indicate that Arepanrix meets all of these criteria, which means that the vaccine produces an adequate level of protection against the H1N1 pandemic virus.
.
As with all medicinal products, there may be side effects or adverse events associated with the use of the product. Some of the very common adverse events that have been observed in clinical trials with the pandemic vaccine include pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, swollen glands in the neck, joint pain, and muscle ache. Refer to the product leaflet for additional information on adverse events.

6. How was Arepanrix™ H1N1 authorized?
Arepanrix™ H1N1 was approved because it was shown that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh any risks. The time frame between vaccine manufacturing and the need to use the vaccine in time to provide the public with protection against the virus is very short. As a result, it has not been possible for the manufacturer to collect the usual full information necessary for a Notice of Compliance to be issued under the Food and Drug Regulations. For this reason, an Interim Order was used to provide an alternate pathway to allow for the authorization for sale of the vaccine. Under the Interim Order, the manufacturer is required to continue submitting data on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada will review this information as it becomes available.

This vaccine was rushed out for use in the general population. This was despite the testing not being complete. The Minister of Health signed an interim Order allowing it to be dispensed anyway.

It’s worth pointing out that initial trials were not even conducted on the H1N1 influenza strain, but on another one. Fair to ask how valid that initial research would be.

Elderly (>60 years):
There are limited data available from clinical studies with Pandemrix™ (H1N1) and with Arepanrix™ H1N1 vaccine in adults aged over 60 years.
.
The recommended dosage for this age group is one dose of 0.5mL.
.
Immunogenicity data obtained at 3 weeks after administration of Pandemrix (H1N1) or Arepanrix™ H1N1 in clinical studies in this age group suggest that a single dose may be sufficient.
.
If a second dose is administered, it should be given after an interval of at least three weeks. See section Pharmacodynamics.

Children and adolescents aged 10-17 years:
No clinical data are available for Arepanrix™ H1N1 in this age group. There are limited data available from a clinical study with Pandemrix™ (H1N1) in this age group.
.
The recommended dosage for this age group is in accordance with recommendations for adults.

Children aged from 6 months to 9 years:
One dose of 0.25mL (i.e. half of the adult dose) at an elected date.

Preliminary immunogenicity data obtained in a limited number of children aged 6-35 months who received two doses of 0.25 mL of Pandemrix™ (H1N1) containing 1.9 µg HA derived from A/California/7/2009 (H1N1) and a limited number of children aged 3-9 years who received one dose of 0.5 mL of Pandemrix™ (H1N1) show that a good immune response is elicited after the first dose, but there is a further immune response to a second dose of 0.25 mL administered to children aged 6-35 months after an interval of three weeks.

Extremely limited studies were done prior to getting interim approval from the Minister of Health. In some cases, they were using different vaccines and working with different strains. Not really an apples to apples comparison.

6. Inadequate Trials: (Monovalent Vaccine)

Elderly (>60 years):
No clinical data are available for Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Pandemic Monovalent Vaccine (Without Adjuvant) in this age group. One dose of 0.5mL may be administered at an elected date.

Children and adolescents aged 10-17 years:
No clinical data are available for the Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Pandemic Monovalent Vaccine (Without Adjuvant) in this age group. One dose of 0.5mL may be administered at an elected date.

Children aged 3-9 years:
No clinical data are available for the Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Pandemic Monovalent Vaccine (Without Adjuvant) in this age group. The use of this vaccine should be considered in light of PHAC recommendations for the A/California/7/2009(H1N1)v-like vaccination. Preliminary data with other similar unadjuvanted vaccines suggest that if used in this age group, a 2-dose regimen (0.5mL with an interval of at least 21 days between doses) is recommended.

Children aged from 6-35 months:
No clinical data are available for the Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Pandemic Monovalent Vaccine (Without Adjuvant) in this age group. The use of this vaccine should be considered in light of PHAC recommendations for the A/California/7/2009(H1N1)v-like vaccination. Preliminary data with other similar unadjuvanted vaccines suggest that for this age group, unadjuvanted vaccine may not be suitable against this pandemic strain.

Children aged less than 6 months:
Vaccination is not currently recommended in this age group.
For further information, see section Pharmacodynamics.

This isn’t selective editing or anything of the sort. Health Canada approved the use of this drug for children between 6 months and 17 years, and over the age of 60, without there being clinical data to support that it worked. This is chilling to read.

7. Approval Of Experimental Drugs

“The Minister may make an interim order that contains any provision that may be contained in a regulation made under this Act if the Minister believes that immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk, direct or indirect, to health, safety or the environment.” [from the Food and Drugs Act]

That is Section 30.1(1) of the Food and Drug Act of Canada. It was used to approve 2 vaccines without full and complete trials. They were:
[1] Arepanrix™ H1N1 (AS03-Adjuvanted H1N1 Pandemic Influenza Vaccine)
[2] Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Pandemic Monovalent Vaccine (Without Adjuvant)

The Minister has the discretion to do this. And it happened, despite there not being adequate testing done. Could the same thing happen with Covid-19?

8. Indemnification From The Courts

Adam, Abudu v. Ledesma-Cadhit et al, 2014 ONSC 5726 (CanLII)
Adam v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2019 ONSC 7066 (CanLII)

There are actually 2 different rulings based on vaccine injury from GlaxoSmithKline. Here are quotes from the later ruling.

[15] In early 2009, the WHO became aware of the development of a new strain of influenza virus: H1N1, commonly known as swine flu. It had not been seen in human populations before, as a result of which humans had no built up immunity. The WHO declared H1N1 to be a pandemic.

[16] On June 11, 2009, the WHO declared a phase 6 pandemic. This is the final and most serious stage of a pandemic. It marks sustained human-to-human transmission of the virus in more than one region of the world. By early July there had been 94,512 reported cases and approximately 429 recorded deaths attributable to H1N1.

[17] In the summer of 2009, the WHO called for manufacturers to begin clinical trials for a vaccine to combat H1N1.

[18] GSK developed two vaccines to combat H1N1: Arepanrix and Pandemrix. Both are substantially similar. Pandemrix was manufactured and distributed in Europe. Arepanrix was manufactured and distributed in Canada. Clinical trials for Arepanrix began in 2008 but had not been completed when the pandemic was declared.

[19] The federal Minister of Health authorized the sale of the Arepanrix vaccine pursuant to an interim order dated October 13, 2009. Human trials of the vaccine were still underway. The Minister of Health is empowered to make interim orders if immediate action is required because of a danger to health, safety or the environment. In issuing the interim order, Health Canada deemed the risk profile of Arepanrix to be favourable for an interim order. The authorization was based on the risk caused by the current pandemic threat and its danger to human health. As part of the interim order process, Health Canada agreed to indemnify GSK for any claims brought against it in relation to the administration of the Arepanrix vaccine.

[20] Although human trials of Arepanrix were not finished by the time Health Canada authorized its use, the vaccine was not without clinical history.

[34] The plaintiffs’ principal allegation with respect to the standard of care is that GSK failed to make adequate disclosure of the risks involved with Arepanrix.

[35] The plaintiffs began their challenge about disclosure with the evidence of Ms. Hyacenth who testified that she was not told that: (i) the vaccine had not been tested through the usual route, (ii) the vaccine had been subject to a hastened approval process by Health Canada, (iii) adjuvants had never been used in children, (iv) the Government of Canada was indemnifying the vaccine manufacturer; and (v) some countries refused to make the vaccine available because of safety concerns. Ms. Hyacenth says that had she been told about these things she would not have risked having her children vaccinated.

[36] Part of the challenge of the plaintiffs’ inadequate disclosure case is that Ms. Hyacenth was not the direct purchaser of the vaccine. Vaccines are administered through a “learned intermediary,” in this case, her family physician. The issue is significant because any disclosures GSK makes are made in product monographs or inserts that accompany each vial of vaccine. The patient getting the vaccine does not receive the box containing the vaccine and whatever disclosure document it contains. It is the physician who receives this.

[37] GSK did disclose in its Product Information Leaflet for the Arepanrix vaccine and in its product monograph that Health Canada had authorized the sale of the vaccine based on only limited clinical testing and no clinical experience at all with children. Dr. Ledesma-Cadhit believes she knew this from the Health Canada website. She was also aware that Arepanrix was authorized through a special process because of the pandemic.

[38] The product monograph for Arepanrix disclosed that there was limited clinical experience with an investigational formulation of another adjuvanted vaccine but no clinical experience with children. In addition, the product information leaflet and product monograph disclosed a number of risks.

In short, Health Canada approved, or rather authorized, a vaccine that in which trials were still ongoing. The doctor, despite reading the lengthy disclaimer, injected it, and this comes in spite of there being no trials on children.

The Canadian Government had agreed to indemnify the manufacturer, GSK, ahead of time. Moreover, the victims didn’t buy the product from the manufacturer, but from the doctor, a “learned intermediary”. In short, GlaxoSmithKline was legally off the hook for what it sold to the public.

Can we expect the same sort of thing here with Covid-19? Will the Government approve a vaccine (or multiple vaccines), that haven’t properly been tested, and indemnify the manufacturers? After all, the patients aren’t buying directly from the manufacturer, but are getting it from their doctors.

Moreover, doctors are largely immune from action against them if they are following approved practices. In this case, it would be administering drugs that Health Canada approved.

GSK has been registered as lobbying the Federal Government since 1996, and there are hundreds of communications reports. But getting an indemnification agreement was probably just a coincidence.

9. Strange Events Happened In 2010

The next year, Tam would go on to have an appearance in the movie “Outbreak: Anatomy Of A Plague”. She advocated locking people up and putting tracking bracelets on them. Quite the bit of predictive programming.

Rockefeller.Foundation.lockstep.2010

The infamous “Lockstep Narrative” was also written in 2010. That was just one scenario laid out in the infamous paper, but it largely parallels what’s happening today.

10. History Repeating Itself In 2020?

This may seem a bit hyperbolic, but what is going on in 2009 with Swine Flu closely parallels what is happening Covid-19. Main points include:

-Neil Ferguson and Imperial College London
-Useless PCR tests to detect viral infection
-Vaccines not fully tested
-Health Canada approves despite incomplete tests
-Vaccine manufacturers are indemnified

There are some differences though. The World Economic Forum wasn’t touting the “Great Reset”, and communist movements weren’t nearly as overt as today. Or perhaps that was all just setting it in motion.

Posted on

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

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

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

1. About Green New Deal Group

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

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

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

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

2. GNDG Used To Reboot After 2008 Crash

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

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

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

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

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

3. GND Group To Solve “Triple Crunch”

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

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

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

4. History Of The Green New Deal

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

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

5. UK PM Gordon Brown Promotes GND

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

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

6. Green Quantitative Easing

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

Green Quantitative Easing Paper

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

7. GND Group UK Budget Submission

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

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

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

8. Protests/Riots Partly Entirely For Show<

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

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

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

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

9. Bankers Run Climate Change Movement

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

WEF Great Reset: Banking Cartel; Climate Change; End Of Private Property; Privacy; Guns

At 5:10 in this video, Trudeau says that Canada will be giving 50% of the doses of vaccine it pays for to the 3rd World. Motion M-132 really was about financing drugs for the entire world.

Canadian Politicians Connected To WEF

Bachelor’s and Master’s degree in Economics, University of Calgary. 2002, Leader of the Opposition; co-founded Conservative Party and won party leadership; 2006, Prime Minister of Canada. Recipient of awards: Woodrow Wilson Award for Public Service; first Canadian to be awarded B’nai Brith Presidential Gold Medallion for Humanitarianism (2008).

Andrew Sheer is a Canadian politician serving as the Member of Parliament for Regina-Qu’Appelle since 2004 and as the leader of the conservative party and leader of the official opposition since 2017. He was one of the youngest MPs when he was first elected and his vision and leadership have earned him the continued confidence to be re-elected.

Build Back Stronger
The Liberals want to “build back better.” Conservatives will “build back stronger.”
We are facing the greatest economic crisis of our lifetime.
Canada’s Conservatives led by Erin O’Toole will bring back certainty and stability.
The Liberal agenda is to launch a risky experiment with Canada’s economy.
Justin Trudeau says, “We are all in this together.” But, under the Liberals, Canada is more divided than ever before.
With the Liberals, it’s the haves over the have-nots.
It’s Bay Street over Main Street.
It’s those with a salary, benefits, and a pension over those without.
It’s those with Liberal connections over the outsiders who have to play by the rules.
Instead, Erin O’Toole’s Conservatives will fight for you and your family, and the countless Canadians left behind by the Trudeau Liberal government.
.
Sign below if you want to build back stronger!

Canadian Member of Parliament. Has served in Cabinet as a Minister of State in the government of Stephen Harper. Has also managed the sponsored research portfolio for one of Canada’s top research intensive universities. Has over a decade of experience in managing and commercializing intellectual property, and in management consulting. Named one of Canada’s Top 100 Most Powerful Women, Women’s Executive Network. Twice named as Parliamentarian of the Year – Rising Star, Maclean’s Magazine.

Journalist and author. Began career as a Ukraine-based stringer; went on to hold senior positions at the Globe and Mail, the Financial Times and Thomson Reuters. First elected as a Member of Parliament in November 2013, was appointed International Trade Minister in November 2015, Minister of Foreign Affairs in January 2017 and Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs in November 2019. Has written two books: “Sale of the Century” (2000) and “Plutocrats” (2012).‎ In 2018, recognised as Foreign Policy’s Diplomat of the Year and awarded the Eric M. Warburg Award by Atlantik-Brücke. Speaks Russian, Ukrainian, Italian, French and English. Member of the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum.

Bachelor’s in Administrative Studies, York University, MBA, University of Windsor. Certified Management Accountant. Formerly: several years with the Ford Motor Company of Canada; Privy Councillor and Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister Paul Martin; Critic for Public Works and Government Services, the Treasury Board, International Trade, Natural Resources, and Small Business and Tourism. Member of Parliament for Mississauga-Malton; November 2015, appointed Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. Former: Adjunct Lecturer, Master of Public Service programme, University of Waterloo; Distinguished Visiting Professor, Ted Rogers School of Management, Ryerson University. Former director of social and cultural organizations within the non-profit sector. Recipient of numerous awards recognizing work in promoting diversity in communities.

1988, Bachelor’s in Economics, Harvard University; 1993, Master’s in Economics and 1995, Doctorate in Economics, Oxford University. Thirteen years with Goldman Sachs in London, Tokyo, New York, Toronto. 2003-04, Deputy Governor, Bank of Canada. 2004-08, Senior Associate Deputy Minister of Finance. 2008-13, Governor of the Bank of Canada. Since July 2013, Governor of the Bank of England. Chairman, Financial Stability Board (FSB); Member: Board, Bank for International Settlements and Chairman; Group of Thirty; Board of Trustees, World Economic Forum.

Carney isn’t officially a politician, but he may as well be, considering the many roles he plays.

https://www.weforum.org/people/stephen-harper
https://www.weforum.org/people/andrew-scheer
https://www.conservative.ca/cpc/build-back-stronger/
https://www.weforum.org/people/michelle-rempel
https://www.weforum.org/people/chrystia-freeland
https://weforum.org/people/navdeep-bains
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/mark-carney
https://www.weforum.org/people/jagmeet-singh

Great Reset To Abolish Private Property

A large part of the Great Reset is abolishing real private property rights, at least for the average person. The Reset has been openly discussed for a long time, and they aren’t even bothering to hide their agenda anymore.

Beyond physical property, this refers to money as well. Overhauling the monetary system, and removing physical cash means much less (or none), control for people over their own wealth.

The World Economic Forum (and its participants), want people to view property not as theirs, but as the community’s. This is Marxism.

“Stakeholder Capitalism” Being Pushed

The concept of stakeholder capitalism has been gaining traction against the prevailing shareholder-primacy model of profit maximization. As the World Economic Forum’s founder, Klaus Schwab, asked in a recent editorial: “What kind of capitalism do we want”?

Profits are not the sole purpose of a business. Let us remind ourselves that corporations exist to solve problems and provide services. If they are successful at doing this, shareholder long-term returns can increase, as society in general is better served.

The debate regarding the role of stakeholders within a firm is, primarily, a governance debate. As in most challenges that require robust leadership to change the way we live, work and interact, transformation starts from the top. Corporate governance sits at the heart of this – and for this reason, the World Economic Forum has recently published a framework structured around seven pillars:

These people are communists, but want to make it less obvious. Consequently, they refer to property owners as “shareholders”, and the public at large as “stakeholders”. The focus is on converting from a shareholder economy to a stakeholder one.

Great Reset & Digital Cooperation

A lot of what is talked about is access to the internet for more and more of the population. While this sounds fine, there are areas that are quite alarming. These include the ever ambiguous “trust and safety” provisions, laid out in the Digital Cooperation Roadmap.

Terrorist groups and violent extremists have exploited the Internet and social media to cause harm in both the digital and physical worlds. Cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns targeting election infrastructure, political parties and politicians are undermining political participation, as well as the legitimacy of essential institutions, while sowing discontent and mistrust. States and non-State actors are rapidly increasing their cyber capabilities and developing increasingly sophisticated cyber arsenals. Nevertheless, close to half of all countries in the world do not have a Computer Emergency Response Team, which would give them the organizational and technological capacity to respond to cyberthreats.

Over the past few years, important efforts have been under way to address the rising threats to the online world. Encouraging voluntary efforts have been seen, including the Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace, the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise, the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace and the Contract for the Web, many of which are multi-stakeholder, as well as initiatives on specific issues, such as the Christchurch Call to Action to address terrorist and violent extremist narratives. The initiatives have helped to bring about important progress for multi-stakeholder engagement. However, these efforts are not yet universal, and their reach, though broad in some cases, does not yet cover large swathes of the world.

Of course, everyone supports free speech. However, there needs to be some global regulations, such as digital cooperation, to manage it all.

Along with the dilution of free speech, one can expect privacy to be eroded as well. After all, you can’t hunt down people to cut off their freedom if you don’t know who they are.

WEF Great Reset & Digital Identity

At the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting 2018 in Davos, a diverse group of public and private stakeholders committed to shared cooperation on advancing good, user-centric digital identities. The Platform for Good Digital Identity seeks to advance global activities towards digital identities that are collaborative and put the user interest at the center: e.g. they are fit for purpose, inclusive, useful, secure, and offers choice to individuals. It will do so by advancing the Identity Coalitions Network: the learning and action network of organizations that implement Good ID solutions that are human centric and collaborative, by:
.
– Mapping digital identity coalitions advancing digital identity
.
– Encouraging shared learnings and new coalitions through a global action network
.
– Focusing on practitioners implementing user-centric use cases collaboratively: e.g. e-KYC, payments, health credentials, safe work, safe mobility, etc.
.
– Creating a digital identity implementation guidance for current and future coalitions

Well, the digital ID system will make it easier to eliminate cash, since everyone will be hooked into the financial system electronically. No word on people being microchipped, but that will probably come up later.

The other benefit (from their perspective), is that it becomes much easier to erase and financially cripple dissidents if they are completely dependent on the electronic systems.

Central Bankers Support Great Reset

Taking place from 16-20 Nov, the Pioneers of Change Summit is happening as the news is full of optimistic reports about vaccines for COVID-19. If there is light at the end of the tunnel, what needs to happen next to get economies back on their feet and make the transformations needed to cope with future pandemics and climate change – and to make the benefits of scientific advances available to all?

Christine Lagarde, head of the ECB, (European Central Bank), appeared on the Pioneers of Change podcast.

10. Central Banks Pushing Digital Currency

The decline of cash use in western economies has accelerated due to COVID-19. Meanwhile, central bank digital currencies are emerging, potentially upending the existing global economic hierarchy.

Lockdowns limit physical interactions and naturally reduce physical cash use. But there also credible concerns that paper money can transmit the virus. Research has shown that the average European banknote plays host to around 26,000 colonies of bacteria. The human influenza virus can survive on a banknote for up to 17 days; with one-dollar and five-dollar bills changing hands more than 100 times per year on average, the risk during a global pandemic is considerable.

Who then can blame the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) when it announced in February that it would be destroying cash collected in high-risk environments, such as public transport, markets or in hospitals?

China is not alone. Deutsche Bank Research has tracked almost 20 digital currency projects led by central banks across all regions globally. Meanwhile, the private banking sector has also launched multiple initiatives, such as the R3 consortium, or in India, the Blockchain Infrastructure Company.

Using the “pandemic” to convert to cashless system had been decried for a long time as a conspiracy theory. Now, it is quite openly admitted, but advocates just put a different spin on it.

Central Banks Support Climate Hoax

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/02/fossil-fuel-monetary-policy-economics-reassessment/
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/01/financial-policymakers-climate-change/

In a 2015 speech, Mark Carney, the outgoing governor of the Bank of England, sparked a debate about whether monetary policymakers should look beyond the horizon of the business and credit cycles to ensure financial stability in light of the risks posed by climate change. More recently, European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde has said that she wants the ECB to tackle climate change, in addition to its traditional price-stability remit.

The climate threats to financial stability that central bankers worry about could arise not only from increasingly frequent and severe natural disasters, but also from the shift away from fossil fuels as a source of energy. That transition ultimately would turn reserves of oil, natural gas, and coal into stranded assets, jeopardizing the financial health of corporations, insurers, and other financial institutions that are exposed to fossil fuels.

The overall exposure of advanced economies such as the United Kingdom or those of the European Union to fossil fuels may appear to be relatively small. Nonetheless, we should not underestimate the systemic risk posed by stranded assets – after all, the 2008 global financial crisis was triggered by developments in the relatively small subprime mortgage market in the United States. And, for fossil-fuel exporters, stranded-asset risks are undeniably larger. The collapse in oil prices that started in June 2014 provided a recent stark reminder of the risks posed by excessive dependence on fossil fuels.

In addition, central banks’ response to the risk of stranded assets may influence how fossil-fuel exporters invest their wealth. Many oil exporters have accumulated vast financial assets. These countries’ strategic allocation of such assets is all the more important given the mounting risks to their main source of wealth. By looking beyond the business-cycle horizon, central banks can play a critical role in facilitating these countries’ investments in non-fossil-fuel assets.

In the face of the challenge posed by climate change, the focus of monetary policy often seems very short term. Central bankers must break this “curse of horizons” and take decisive steps to address fossil-fuel-related risks. They need to reflect on and communicate the existential threat of stranded reserves and capital, advocate the adoption of appropriate structural policies, pursue a suitable interest-rate policy, and provide supportive financial policies to encourage both economic diversification and changes in strategic asset allocation. Combating climate change while maintaining global financial stability requires nothing less.

A question has to be asked here: have the bankers simply infiltrated and hijacked the environment movement? Or have they always played a role, even if behind the scenes?

Instead of simply ripping off the public under the guise of fiscal policy, now it’s done under the pretense of stopping climate change.

WEF Interested In Gun Control

Canada’s Liberal government unveiled proposals on Tuesday to tighten already tough gun control laws to address a spike in crimes involving firearms, including a deadly attack on a mosque last year.

The measures include enhanced background checks on people seeking to buy firearms, especially those with a history of violence. They also would oblige retailers to maintain adequate records of inventories and sales.

The World Economic Forum took notice of Bill C-71, introduced in 2018 to create a backdoor long gun registry, and to make it harder to own guns. In fact, WEF publishes many articles on the topic of guns, and gun control.

WEF’s Predicted Dystopian Paradise

You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy.
Can’t really top that.

This has nothing to do with a virus. It is, and has always been, about implementing much larger social changes. Everything in the mainstream media is a lie.

Posted on

Michelle Rempel Upset That Liberals, Not Conservatives, Will Get To Implement The Great Reset

Justin Trudeau has let it slip out that Liberals intend to implement the “Great Reset“. In short, this means using the fake pandemic as an excuse to accelerate Agenda 2030, the so-called “Sustainable Development Agenda”.

That isn’t going over so well in conservative circles. And why? Because it was Stephen Harper who signed Agenda 2030 on September 25, 2015. It was Harper who domestically implemented Agenda 21 in 2008 (which Brian Mulroney signed). In short, Conservatives had paved the way for the reset, and now Trudeau was stealing their thunder.

What’s a girl to do?

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

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

2. Conservatives Support The “Great Reset”

The Liberals want to “build back better.” Conservatives will “build back stronger.”
.
We are facing the greatest economic crisis of our lifetime.
.
Canada’s Conservatives led by Erin O’Toole will bring back certainty and stability.
.
The Liberal agenda is to launch a risky experiment with Canada’s economy.
.
Justin Trudeau says, “We are all in this together.” But, under the Liberals, Canada is more divided than ever before.
.
With the Liberals, it’s the haves over the have-nots.
.
It’s Bay Street over Main Street.
.
It’s those with a salary, benefits, and a pension over those without.
.
It’s those with Liberal connections over the outsiders who have to play by the rules.
.
Instead, Erin O’Toole’s Conservatives will fight for you and your family, and the countless Canadians left behind by the Trudeau Liberal government.
.
Sign below if you want to build back stronger!

The Conservative Party of Canada completely supports the “Great Reset”. In fact, they coined the term: “build back stronger” as a way to show how cool and edgy they are.

To be clear, Michelle Rempel-Garner and the CPC aren’t upset that the Great Reset is taking place. They just pretend to be because Trudeau and the Liberals will get credit for it.

3. Conservatives Support Increased Lockdowns

OTTAWA — Conservative leadership candidate Erin O’Toole called Monday for the country to be placed on “war footing” to combat the spread of COVID-19, the latest escalation of rhetoric in the race now thrown into flux by the rapidly evolving crisis.

O’Toole said the federal government should invoke the Emergencies Act so the federal government can prohibit travel, enforce self-isolation and control assemblies, while also mobilizing the military to back up the health system.

“Now is the time to put our government and our economy on a war footing, with leadership from the top,” he said in an email to supporters.

When O’Toole was running to be the leader of the CPC, he openly advocated for even more draconian measures that what Trudeau had done. So much for conservatives valuing freedom.

4. CPC Still Calls For Less Freedom

MOTION TEXT
That the Standing Committee on Health be instructed to undertake a study on the emergency situation facing Canadians in light of the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that this study evaluate, review and examine any issues relevant to this situation, such as, but not limited to:

(a) rapid and at-home testing approvals and procurement process and schedule, and protocol for distribution;
.
(b) vaccine development and approvals process, procurement schedules, and protocol for distribution;
.
(c) federal public health guidelines and the data being used to inform them for greater clarity on efficacy;
.
(d) current long-term care facility COVID-19 protocols as they pertain solely to federal jurisdiction;
.
(o) the government’s contact tracing protocol, including options considered, technology, timelines and resources;
.
(p) the government’s consideration of and decision not to invoke the federal Emergencies Act;

Yes, Michelle Rempel-Garner is demanding to know why (among other things), the Emergencies Act hasn’t been invoked. She also supports contact tracing, and rapid test kits (even though the tests don’t work). These are clearly the actions of someone who supports the Great Reset deep down. No mention that when the long term care deaths are excluded, the death rate drops to almost nothing.

At no point do Conservatives complain that these measures are excessive, or question the highly dubious “science” behind it. The only objections are in how it’s carried out.

5. Rempel A Well Known WEF Globalist

Canadian Member of Parliament. Has served in Cabinet as a Minister of State in the government of Stephen Harper. Has also managed the sponsored research portfolio for one of Canada’s top research intensive universities. Has over a decade of experience in managing and commercializing intellectual property, and in management consulting. Named one of Canada’s Top 100 Most Powerful Women, Women’s Executive Network. Twice named as Parliamentarian of the Year – Rising Star, Maclean’s Magazine.

Can this woman really be trusted, given the glowing review the World Economic Forum has given to her? Keep in mind, WEF is one of the major pushers of the reset.

6. Agenda 2030 Signed In September 2015

In September 2015, Canada and all other 192 United Nations Member States adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the UN General Assembly. This initiative is a global call to action to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity by 2030.

The 2030 Agenda presents Canada, and the world, with a historic opportunity to positively shape how societies of tomorrow grow and develop sustainably and inclusively to the shared benefit of all.

Canada signed onto Agenda 2030 on September 25, 2015. This was less than a month before Stephen Harper was voted out of office.

7. Pierre Poilievre’s Bogus Petition

Lovely petition, but again, the Conservatives were in power when Agenda 2030 was launched. The “Great Reset” is just Agenda 2030. And why is he still flying a foreign flag in his office?

8. Conservative Inc. Media Obscures Truth

Founded in 1967 with the express goal to stand up for Canadian taxpayers and to champion small-C conservative values, The National Citizens Coalition is made up of a dedicated group of individuals working together to ensure the continued success of Canada’s largest non-partisan organization.

Keep the term non-partisan in mind. While claiming to be independent and non-partisan, the NCC leaves out that Stephen Harper (yes, the former Prime Minister), used to head the organization.

Fernando acts as cheerleader for Rempel-Garner, in opposing the “Reset”. However, he fails to mention that the former head of National Citizens Coalition, his organization, signed Agenda 2030 in the first place. That agreement helped drive the Reset in motion. He also omits Rempel-Garner’s award from the World Economic Forum.

An epic conflict of interest that isn’t disclosed.

9. Would Harper Have Pushed The Great Reset?

This is impossible to know for sure. However, looking at his past actions, it’s clear that he had no real concern for Canada’s sovereignty or well being. Here are some examples:

(a) He domestically implemented Agenda 21
(b) He fought COMER to keep the banking cartel intact
(c) He added over $100 billion to the national debt
(d) He signed FIPA without allowing full debate
(e) He set “emissions targets” regarding the climate change scam
(f) He signed Agenda 2030
(g) He left the loophole in the Safe 3rd Country Agreement, allowing illegal aliens to enter from the U.S.

Would Harper and the Conservatives be implementing the “Great Reset” if they were still in power today? Just an opinion, but yes they would. Michelle Rempel-Garner is just angry she doesn’t get credit.

Posted on

Tax Inspectors Without Borders; Partnered With OECD & UNDP

Get ready for increased efforts to enforce taxation rules globally. While this is promoted as a means of stopping tax cheats, it’s unlikely stop there. Once the infrastructure is fully up and operational, what’s to stop organizations like the UN from simply imposing global taxes?

1. TIWB Partners With OECD/UNDP

OECD/UNDP Partnership
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) have joined forces to extend the global reach of Tax Inspectors Without Borders (TIWB) and to scale-up operations. The partnership was launched at the Third Financing for Development conference in Addis Ababa on 13 July 2015 and was welcomed by stakeholders from business, civil society, as well as OECD and developing country governments attending the conference. The Initiative was widely hailed as capable of assisting developing countries mobilize much-needed domestic revenues in support of the post-2015 sustainable development agenda. The TIWB Initiative facilitates targeted, tax audit assistance programmes in developing countries across the globe. The TIWB Initiative is a strong response to the attention given to effective and efficient mobilisation of domestic resources in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and the commitments made by the international community in Addis Ababa to strengthen international tax co-operation

UNDP contributes in the following ways:
.
-Through its country offices, supports development and completion of TIWB programmes in developing, countries;
-Promotes lessons learned and the sharing of good practices of TIWB country programmes with the international development community;
-Manages a roster of tax audit experts;
-Manages designated donor financial resources for TIWB activities;
-Handles contracts for retired experts (or former tax officials) participating in TIWB programmes.

The OECD contributes in the following ways:
.
-Hosts the TIWB Secretariat at the OECD offices in Paris;
-Identifies and provides support to host tax administrations on technical taxation issues and assists host and partner tax administrations in the set-up of TIWB programmes;
-Provides technical support to UNDP on selection and quality assurance of the roster of tax audit experts;
-Develops manuals, tools and research on best administrative practices in tax administrations and for TIWB Programmes.
-Monitors, assesses and reports on results of TIWB programmes.

So it isn’t just about helping certain countries get their tax money. It’s also about achieving the UN Sustainable Development Agenda goals laid out in 2015. The OECD also made their announcement about the partnership.

In reality, this is the equivalent, (or soon to be the equivalent), of a global tax administration. Think of the Canada Revenue Agency, just on a worldwide scale. While there seems to be nothing wrong on the surface with stoppin tax cheats, it reeks of growing intrusion into national affairs.

2. TIWB Conference September 28, 2020

This high-level event provided an opportunity to engage with government ministers and senior officials and look at the TIWB approach of bringing countries together to tackle tax avoidance, evasion and Illicit Financial Flows. The panel reflected on how the experiences from the initiative can be utilised to recover from COVID-19 and re-imagining a new future, specifically in the context of the Financing for Development in the Era of COVID-19 and Beyond process.
.
The TIWB Annual Report 2020 was launched during the event.
.
This event took place in the margins of the 75th United Nations’ General Assembly on 28 September 2020.

The Panel talks about efforts that TIWB is undertaking, and about how they can help advance the UNSDA in light of the coronavirus pandemic. How convenient it is for them.

3. Tax Inspectors Without Borders’ Donors

Seems rather strange that the World Bank and the Open Society, (George Soros), would be contributing to such a program. Or perhaps it isn’t. There are several donor nations in Europe, and Japan, also contributing.

4. World Bank Global Tax Umbrella Program

The Global Tax Program (GTP) provides an umbrella framework for tax support and leads an ongoing program of activities at both international tax and country levels focused on strengthening tax institutions and mobilizing revenues at the international and domestic levels. The GTP Program is one of the Umbrella 2.0 pilots for Trust Fund Reforms recently undertaken by the WBG.

The international community has set ambitious goals to end extreme poverty and boost inclusive and sustainable growth by 2030. Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals requires massive investment in physical and human capital. Focus is needed on the quality, fairness, and equity of domestic tax collection.

To be clear, this isn’t simply about tax collection. It’s also about seeing that those taxes are used according to the goals set out by TIWB/OECD/UNDP. There are certainly strings attached.

5. Int’l Monetary Fund On Tax Avoidance

The IMF, or International Monetary Fund, has taken an interest in tax collecting, estimating that $12 billion is in corporate shells, and another $7 billion is hidden by people overseas.

Information from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), have allowed more research and study to take place.

6. Reported By Yahoo News In 2015

Yahoo reported the launch of Tax Inspectors Without Borders back in 2015. Short article, but it covered a lot of important points. Reuters and TaxConnections addressed it as well.

7. TIWB Ultimately Pushing Policy Change

Tax Inspectors Without Borders talks about how they are helping in the 3rd World with regard to tax evasion, but they minimize a very important issue. TIWB is interested in pushing policy changes in taxation, and they are trying to get more money spent on Agenda 2030. This isn’t altruism on their part, but is ideologically motivated.

With all of this in mind, one very serious question has to be asked: will TIWB (at some point), begin calling for global taxation schemes?

Tax Inspectors Without Borders Mainpage
TIWB Partners With Both OECD/UNDP
OECD Announces Launch Of TIWB Programme

Tax Inspectors Without Borders Annual Report 2017
Tax Inspectors Without Borders Annual Report 2018
Tax Inspectors Without Borders Annual Report 2019
Tax Inspectors Without Borders Annual Report 2020

Tax Inspectors Without Borders Twitter (@TIWB_News)
Tax Inspectors Without Borders YouTube Channel
UN Development Programme YouTube Channel

World Bank Global Tax Program (Mainpage)
World Bank Global Tax Programme, 2020 Report
World Bank Global Tax Program, 2020 Report
World Bank, Taxation, Sustainable Development
International Monetary Fund On Tax Evasion

Yahoo: TIWB Started In 2015
Reuters On Covering The Launch Of TIWB

Posted on

Some Thoughts On Leslyn Lewis’ Pro-Paris Accord PhD Dissertation

Leslyn Lewis finished her PhD dissertation in May 2019 from York University, in Toronto. It covered a number of legal areas around climate change, the Paris Accord, intellectual property, and trade agreements. Months after finishing, she ran for the leadership of the CPC, as Andrew Scheer had been forced out.

1. About Leslyn Lewis’ PhD Dissertation

To start out: the quality of the writing is very good. The content is well organized and the paper well cited. This wasn’t just some mess hastily thrown together. This is not to question her reading or writing abilities — which are impressive — but to ask ideologically what she stands for.

However, the concern now starts to creep in. This wasn’t some undergraduate paper written 20 or 30 years ago, but Lewis’ PhD dissertation. She finished it in 2019, at the age of 48.

From the content of the paper, it seems clear that Lewis fully embraces the climate change scam as a reality. She supports the Paris Agreement, despite its explicit and repeated focus on “climate finance, and its focus on “alternative energy sources”. She appears to have bought into the green agenda. The paper itself discusses (among other things), how trade agreements and intellectual property disputes can impede efforts to fight climate change.

Less than a year later, Lewis, (a political unknown), would be running for the Conservative Party of Canada leadership. She finished 3rd. Like most “conservatives”, she sings the praises of the UNSDA and Paris Accord, only objecting to a Carbon tax.

Lewis also calls herself a “social conservative”, but was once a Director at LEAF, the Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund. LEAF is a pro-death, anti-family organization.

2. Offshoring, Globalization, Free Trade

The other posts on outsourcing/offshoring are available here. It focuses on the hidden costs and trade offs society as a whole has to make. Contrary to what many politicians and figures in the media claim, there are always costs to these kinds of agreement. These include: (a) job losses; (b) wages being driven down; (c) undercutting of local companies; (d) legal action by foreign entities; (e) industries being outsourced; (f) losses to communities when major employers leave; and (g) loss of sovereignty to foreign corporations and governments. Intellectual property also becomes a tricky issue. Don’t believe the lies that these agreements are overwhelmingly beneficial to all.

3. Debunking The Climate Change Scam

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

4. Quotes From Lewis’ 2019 Dissertation

The dissertation consists of several chapters, each with its own abstract. The document itself is large enough to stand alone as a book. This review doesn’t really do justice to the volume of writing, but outlines the more interesting parts.

(screenshots from the dissertation)

[Page 112]
ABSTRACT
Climate change abatement strategies are intrinsically linked to policies that encourage the use of alternative energy sources such as renewable energies. The importance of these strategies has been entrenched in various World Trade Organization (WTO) treaties including the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“SCM Agreement”), Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPS”), Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (“TRIMs”), as well as pre-WTO treaties like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (“GATT”). The issue of environmental subsides, specifically renewable energy subsidies, have resurfaced in a number of disputes before the WTO Dispute Settlement Body since its first green subsidy case, brought in 2010 by Japan against Canada’s Feed-In Tariff Program (“FIT Program”). In the initial case, Japan alleged that the Ontario FIT Program’s local content requirement was discriminatory against foreign renewable energy products. Moreover, discrimination amounted to a prohibited subsidy under the SCM Agreement and was simultaneously contrary to the most favourable nation status (“MFN”) under the GATT. This decision raises concern about whether the SCM Agreement poses a barrier to governmental policies promoting FIT Programs to encourage renewable energy usage and its impact on the developing world. Specifically, do treaties like the SCM Agreement impede the development of government climate change abatement policies by requiring these programs to meet a minimum standard of trade compliance? Should WTO treaties like the SCM Agreement be amended to include flexibilities to combat climate change, especially in light of the goals set in the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change? This paper will review the WTO subsidy rules and query whether flexibilities need to be entertained within the area of nonactionable subsidies. This mode of inquiry questions whether FIT Programs be classified as subsidies under the SCM Agreement. If FIT Programs are properly classified as subsidies, should these initiatives be granted an exemption under the SCM Agreement on the basis of public policy— with the goal of facilitating affordable renewable energy and climate change abatement in the developing world?

For better or for worse, there are a number of trade regulations, such as those imposed by the World Trade Organization. These set out guidelines for international trade. Lewis makes an argument that perhaps exceptions should be put into such rules in certain circumstances. In this case, she specifically refers to climate change and complying with the Paris Agreement.

[Page 171]
ABSTRACT
Intellectual property law was constructed to facilitate innovation and development by granting a limited monopoly in exchange for the public’s right to use an invention after the period of exclusivity expires. The trade-off of granting intellectual property protections in reward for the investment in an invention is intended to be a temporary benefit. Trade secrets have been thought of as the weakest form of intellectual property, because non-disclosure is the only form of protection. In other words, infringement of a trade secret occurs upon the unauthorized disclosure of the secret. However, absent reverse engineering and/or legitimate disclosure, protection over trade secrets may arguably extend the exclusivity rights in perpetuity. The debate on “evergreening” has focused largely on extending the life cycle of pharmaceutical patents to the omission of other forms of intellectual property, like trade secrets. The concept has also been widely ignored in relation to climate change abatement technologies. In this regard, considerations around evergreening and trade secrets have been substantially neglected. The loophole in international intellectual property treaties, like Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPS”), may lead to inequalities between industrial nations and developing ones, especially for products like photovoltaic solar panels that rely heavily on trade-secret protection. In addition, this non-disclosure may also impact on green technology transfer and may impede climate change abatement strategies in the developing world. This paper will explore the practice of evergreening as it relates to the prospect that trade secret protection may extend beyond the 20-year limit, as prescribed in TRIPS, and the implications of this practice for developing countries that seek to meet climate change commitments as outlined in the 2016 Paris Climate Change Agreement (the “Paris Agreement”). Arguably, the absence of a fixed statutory period for trade secrets may enable patent owners to participate in creative ways to “evergreen” their products or processes, with the result of extending the life-cycle. The practice of evergreening through trade secrets may have a negative impact on the ability of developing nations to meet their national climate change objectives. Specifically, international treaties like TRIPS, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1994 (“GATT”), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (the “UNFCCC”), and the Paris Agreement, have attempted to incorporate climate change flexibilities that assist developing countries in meeting their climate change goals. The efficacy of technology transfer provisions in international law will be examined within the context of how the lack of a fixed term for trade secrets impacts on actual green technology transfer. It will canvass whether trade secret protection of off-patent green technologies acts as an inadvertent barrier to technology transfer within the developing world.

Intellectual property is what it sounds like. When a person creates or discovers things, they have certain rights to it. This makes sense. Patents prevent others from scooping and using another’s inventions, at least for a number of years. Trademarks or copyright prevent others from using creations or designs (subject to fair dealing limitations).

Lewis raises the argument of making exceptions to these IP laws if they were used for a “greater good”, such as combatting climate change.

[Page 245]
ABSTRACT
A number of Conference of Parties (“COP”) to the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (“the UNFCCC”) have addressed the issue of climate change and its effect on the developing world. Energy insecurity must be addressed as a precondition to sustainable development, along with the regional factors that pose legal and institutional barriers to implementing of green energy projects in sub-Saharan Africa. Many sub-Saharan African nations have enacted renewable energy laws and regulations to increase investor confidence in green energy projects. Despite current regulatory enhancements, investors are still reluctant to invest in the region due to financing and political risks. Climate financing could potentially address investor concerns, however, initiatives like the Green Climate Fund (“GC Fund”) and the African Climate Change Fund need to be implemented in a manner that promotes confidence among investors in these high capital projects. Arguably, for climate financing to achieve its full potential in sub-Saharan Africa it must be implemented in an innovative fashion that contemplates the infrastructure, environment and social governance for investments as well as fulfilling the dual goal of development and balancing national commitments under the Paris Climate Change Agreement (COP 21).

In this chapter Lewis goes on to make the argument that “climate financing”, (which really means a variety of Carbon taxes), should be implemented in order to fulfill the Paris Agreement and promote development in the 3rd World.

Lewis doesn’t seem to have an issue with intellectual property or trade regulations on principle. She just argues that exceptions should be made for fighting climate change.

These, of course, are just abstracts of a few chapters, not the entire dissertation. The whole document is quite long, nearly 400 pages when all the references and citations are added in.

5. Paris Accord Will Kill Oil & Gas Industry

Just read Article #9…..

Article 9
1. Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention.

2. Other Parties are encouraged to provide or continue to provide such support voluntarily.

3. As part of a global effort, developed country Parties should continue to take the lead in mobilizing climate finance from a wide variety of sources, instruments and channels, noting the significant role of public funds, through a variety of actions, including supporting country-driven strategies, and taking into account the needs and priorities of developing country Parties. Such mobilization of climate finance should represent a progression beyond previous efforts.

4. The provision of scaled-up financial resources should aim to achieve a balance between adaptation and mitigation, taking into account country-driven strategies, and the priorities and needs of developing country Parties, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change and have significant capacity constraints, such as the least developed countries and small island developing States, considering the need for public and grant-based resources for adaptation.

5. Developed country Parties shall biennially communicate indicative quantitative and qualitative information related to paragraphs 1 and 3 of this Article, as applicable, including, as available, projected levels of public financial resources to be provided to developing country Parties. Other Parties providing resources are encouraged to communicate biennially such information on a voluntary basis.

6. The global stocktake referred to in Article 14 shall take into account the relevant information provided by developed country Parties and/or Agreement bodies on efforts related to climate finance.

7. Developed country Parties shall provide transparent and consistent information on support for developing country Parties provided and mobilized through public interventions biennially in accordance with the modalities, procedures and guidelines to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Agreement, at its first session, as stipulated in Article 13, paragraph 13. Other Parties are encouraged to do so.

8. The Financial Mechanism of the Convention, including its operating entities, shall serve as the financial mechanism of this Agreement.

9. The institutions serving this Agreement, including the operating entities of the Financial Mechanism of the Convention, shall aim to ensure efficient access to financial resources through simplified approval procedures and enhanced readiness support for developing country Parties, in particular for the least developed countries and small island developing States, in the context of their national climate strategies and plans.

Paris Agreement Full Text

That is, of course, just Article 9. Here is an earlier review. Claiming to be able to implement the Paris Accord without Carbon taxes is disingenuous, as large parts of the Agreement specifically refer to climate finance.

While many could claim that they never actually read the Agreement, Lewis’ dissertation revolves around this and the Sustainable Development Agenda. She quotes it at length. She has clearly read and understood what is going on. The dissertation is very well written, and it’s clear a lot of work went into it.

So what does Leslyn Lewis actually believe when it comes to climate change, the Paris Agreement, and various UN taxes? Who knows?

Note: Since Lewis did run to become head of the CPC (and official Opposition Leader), and since she is still running for office, she is a public figure.

As an side: Alberta MP Garnett Genuis tried to defend voting for the Paris Agreement in 2017. It didn’t go well. Here is a clip of him with Ezra Levant from Rebel News.

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress