Category: Globalism

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.

Posted on

International Bankers Run The Climate Change Industry, Science Is Irrelevant

People in the climate change movement frequently gaslight skeptics as “deniers” and “anti-science”. While they may be dismissed as ideologues, there is another angle to look at. This isn’t a grassroots organization, but one financed and supported by the banking industry. Under the guise of preventing climate change, it’s possible to further enslave humanity forcing even more debt upon them.

Side note: “Coalition of the willing” was an expression George W. Bush used to describe the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The modern climate change agenda is just another way to fleece the public. Under the pretense of “combatting climate change”, governments are subjected to rules and regulations, which cannot be fulfilled. For example, Carbon Dioxide is plant food — necessary for photosynthesis — and it cannot simply be removed from the atmosphere. However, so-called experts tell us that drastic changes are needed. Alternatively, simply pay fees (such as Carbon taxes), and all will be forgiven.

As will be shown, central banks are fully complicit in the climate hoax. The bankers fully support this, and are pushing for the narratives to be embedded into financial policies. After all, who would care about climate change if there wasn’t a lot of money to be made?

There are undeniably many well-meaning people who are against the disaster they are TOLD is happening. However, they are just being used as pawns. Vocal opponents are used to put public pressure on governments to shell out money in order to “do something”.

1. Koch-Funded Fraser Institute On Pricing

This was covered in an earlier piece. Joel Wood of the Fraser Institute gave a lecture on various climate pricing options. It was never really explained how any of this stopped climate change. Of course, Fraser isn’t a bank, but they do act as a “think tank” trying to influence public policy.

2. Climate Bonds Initiative On Central Banks

About us
Climate Bonds Initiative is an international organisation working solely to mobilise the largest capital market of all, the $100 trillion bond market, for climate change solutions
.
We promote investment in projects and assets necessary for a rapid transition to a low carbon and climate resilient economy.
.
The strategy is to develop a large and liquid Green and Climate Bonds Market that will help drive down the cost of capital for climate projects in developed and emerging markets; to grow aggregation mechanisms for fragmented sectors; and to support governments seeking to tap debt capital markets.
.
Climate Bonds Initiative is an investor-focused not-for-profit. Our work therefore is an open source public good and falls into three workstreams.

The Climate Bonds Initiative talks about climate change the way that bankers talk about credit risks. It pushes the idea that behaviour should be examined for risk, and rewarded or punished accordingly. Now, CBI has a financial stake in pushing climate bonds, which is a serious conflict of interest. CBI believes that climate bonds are an industry worth in excess of $100 trillion.

Not really about the climate, is it?

3. Bank Of Canada On Climate Change

[/video]

Investment decisions are changing
More investors—from individual Canadians to big companies like those that manage pension funds—are looking at environmental factors when making investment decisions.

This shift in investor preferences can help in the move to a low-carbon economy, but investments in carbon-intensive industries may become less attractive.

Many businesses are choosing to report on their own carbon footprint and the risks they face from climate change. This transparency can help businesses better manage these risks and provide comfort to investors. Businesses that aren’t as transparent may be viewed as higher risk.

Why are central banks thinking about climate change?
The Bank of Canada is ramping up efforts to better understand climate change because of its important effects on the economy and prices (inflation). The Bank also needs to understand the risks from climate change on the financial system as part of efforts to help keep it safe for Canadians.

Central banks cannot solve climate change
Central banks do not set environmental policy; that’s the job of governments. But central banks are in a unique position to improve society’s understanding of the economic and financial system impacts of climate change and the policies to address it. This can help investors, regulators and everyday Canadians make informed decisions.

The Bank of Canada claims not to set environmental policy. However, it also admits to trying to drive behaviour by pushing for certain types of financial decisions. Interestingly, Mark Carney never gives a straight answer on what will happen to the oil & gas sector.

4. Bank Of England On Climate Change

Our response to climate change
The Bank’s response to climate change is motivated by its statutory objectives. The first involves promoting safety and soundness by enhancing the PRA’s approach to supervising the financial risks from climate change. The second involves enhancing the resilience of the UK financial system by supporting an orderly market transition to a low-carbon economy. We first set out our strategy for responding to these risks in an article published in the June 2017 edition of our Quarterly Bulletin.

We set up the Future of Finance project to look at how financial services might evolve over the next decade, and what this could mean for everyone who uses, provides or regulates them. Huw van Steenis led the review and published his findings and recommendations in June 2019. This included the recommendation for the Bank to promote the smooth transition to a low carbon economy. The Bank set out its response to that review and committed to take action to support an orderly transition.

Bank of England climate-related financial disclosure
The Bank published its own climate-related financial disclosure for the first time in June 2020. This sets out the Bank’s approach to managing the risks from climate change across its entire operations, and explains what it’s doing to improve its understanding of these risks. This forms part of the Bank’s work under its strategic goal on climate change. It reflects the importance that the Bank attaches to climate-related risk disclosure, and the high standards that it expects both of itself, and the firms it regulates.

Mark Carney has headed the Bank of England, in addition to the Bank of Canada. The BoE intends to make climate change a main factor its financial decisions. And some of England’s “dirty” industries are going to be phased out in favour of “green” industries. It doesn’t appear to be optional.

5. U.S. Federal Reserve On Climate Change

Let’s start with monetary policy. Increasingly, it will be important for the Federal Reserve to take into account the effects of climate change and associated policies in setting monetary policy to achieve our objectives of maximum employment and price stability. Monetary policy seeks to buffer the economy from unexpected adverse disruptions, or “shocks.” It is generally more challenging for monetary policy to insulate the economy from shocks to the supply side of the economy than to the demand side. So it is vital for monetary policymakers to understand the nature of climate disturbances to the economy, as well as their likely persistence and breadth, in order to respond effectively.

Although perhaps not done as formally as other banks, the Federal Reserve, (which is a private bank), has now stated that climate change will become an increasingly important component in the decisions it makes.

6. European Central Bank On Climate Change

The financial community’s most important action with regard to climate change has happened in the last few years: many stakeholders in the financial industry, and central bankers, too, have realised that climate change is not an issue for next century. It’s an issue for now, and it’s a topic not only for other sectors but also for the financial sector and for central bankers and supervisors.

The ECB is paying a lot more attention to climate risks, not least through its participation in the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS). We think about and work on climate change-related risk from four broad perspectives:
.
-There is the question of how we use our micro-prudential supervisory arm to assess and address climate change-related risk in banks.
-There is the question of climate change-related risk and its impact on financial stability.
-There is the question of whether and how we take climate change into account in our investments in own funds and pension funds.
-And there is the question of how we assess the potential impact of climate change on the factors that are important to monetary policy.

The ECB, or European Central Bank, takes the stance that climate change needs to be factored into almost every aspect of finance and commerce. No skepticism whatsoever of the agenda.

7. Network For Greening The Financial System

Purpose of the Network for Greening the Financial System
The Network’s purpose is to help strengthening the global response required to meet the goals of the Paris agreement and to enhance the role of the financial system to manage risks and to mobilize capital for green and low-carbon investments in the broader context of environmentally sustainable development. To this end, the Network defines and promotes best practices to be implemented within and outside of the Membership of the NGFS and conducts or commissions analytical work on green finance.

This is essentially a coalition of central banks who have all bought into the climate change agenda, and who seek to embed it into every part of the financial sector. All of this is done with an eye towards the Paris Accord.

8. International Monetary Fund In 2019

>

https://rumble.com/embed/v71pnok/?pub=4obh78

https://rumble.com/embed/v71po2y/?pub=4obh78

This was from an October 2019 conference the IMF (International Monetary Fund held. The topic was whether or not central banks have a role to play in the climate change agenda. They all agreed, yes, and that financial pressures can be applied to get people to fall in line.

Climate change has potential to do significant economic harm, and poses worrying tail risks. It is a global externality—one country’s emissions affect all countries by adding to the stock of heat-warming gases in the earth’s atmosphere from which warming arises.

The process of climate change is set to have a significant economic impact on many countries, with a large number of lower income countries being particularly at risk. Macroeconomic policies in these countries will need to be calibrated to accommodate more frequent weather shocks, including by building policy space to respond to shocks. Infrastructure will need to be upgraded to enhance economic resilience.

Elsewhere, climate change can entail significant risks to macrofinancial stability. Nonfinancial corporate sectors face risks from climate damages and stranded assets—such as coal reserves that become uneconomic with carbon pricing—and the disruption could affect corporate balance sheet quality.

The IMF claims that climate change is a threat to both financial stability and to economic growth.

9. World Bank Introduces Green Bonds

In 2008, the World Bank launched the “Strategic Framework for Development and Climate Change” to help stimulate and coordinate public and private sector activity to combat climate change. The World Bank Green Bonds is an example of the kind of innovation the World Bank is trying to encourage within this framework.

The World Bank Green Bond raises funds from fixed income investors to support World Bank lending for eligible projects that seek to mitigate climate change or help affected people adapt to it. The product was designed in partnership with Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken (SEB) to respond to specific investor demand for a triple-A rated fixed income product that supports projects that address the climate challenge.

Since 2008, the World Bank has now issued over USD 13 billion equivalent in Green Bonds through more than 150 transactions in 20 currencies.

World Bank Green Bonds are an opportunity to invest in climate solutions through a high quality credit fixed income product.

The triple-A credit quality of the Green Bonds is the same as for any other World Bank bonds.
Positive environmental returns by supporting World Bank projects addressing mitigation and adaptation solutions for climate change

The World Bank launched the first green bonds over a decade ago. The stated goal was to be able to raise large sums of money in order to combat climate change, or to help people who have already been impacted by it.

Bit of a side note: the World Bank is also involved in selling vaccine bonds globally. It doesn’t add anything other than drive up the cost of the nations’ pledges, by adding in a bunch of middlemen.

10. Bank For International Settlements, Green Bonds

The Bank for International Settlements is integrating climate change into its priorities, despite it not being within their mandate. See here, here and here. BIS is a “central bank for central banks”, and it should focus exclusively on monetary policy. However, like the individual banks, BIS apparently sees nothing wrong with getting involved in unrelated issues.

11. Mark Carney, UN Climate Finance

On 1 December 2019, in Madrid, Spain, the Secretary-General announced the appointment of Mr. Mark Joseph Carney, OC, of Canada as his Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance. As Special Envoy, he will focus on ambitious implementation of climate action, with special attention to significantly shifting public and private finance markets and mobilizing private finance to the levels needed to achieve the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. This will include building the frameworks for financial reporting, risk management and returns in order to bring the impacts of climate change to the mainstream of private financial decision making and to support the transition to a net zero carbon economy.

We need unprecedented climate action on a global scale. And public and private financial systems must be transformed to provide the necessary finance to transition to low-emission and resilient systems and sectors. The Secretary-General will count on Mark Carney to galvanise climate action and transform climate finance as we build towards the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP) meeting in Glasgow in November 2020

Mr. Carney began his career at Goldman Sachs before joining the Canadian Department of Finance and later serving as the Governor of the Bank of Canada (2008-2013). He was born in Fort Smith, Northwest Territories, Canada in 1965. He received a bachelor’s degree in Economics from Harvard University in 1988. He went on to receive a master’s degree in Economics in 1993 and a doctorate in Economics in 1995, both from Oxford University.

It was announced almost a year ago that Carney would be joining the UN once his current contract ended. This is the same Mark Carney who has been in charge of both the Bank of Canada, and the Bank of England. This is the same man who pushed the climate change agenda in both jobs. Now, he works for the United Nations Climate Action & Finance Division.

Carney also has made a not-so-subtle threat. Companies who don’t play ball with the climate change agenda will go bankrupt. This just seems like a modern version of the mafia.

12. A New Technique To Siphon Money

Do any of these measures make the environment cleaner, or stop climate change? No, but that isn’t their purpose. The goal is to use these measures as a means of extracting large amounts of money from countries.

Previously, private central bankers ripped off the public by having policies enacted that forced governments to borrow money at interest. (Well, they still do that). However, it seems the next iteration is to persuade governments to shovel money — usually borrowed — at climate change initiatives. How exactly this stops climate change is never really explained.

Yes, a lot of these payments simply disappear, but money also gets funneled into: (a) climate bonds; (b) is loaned to countries who can’t pay it back, resulting in debt-for-nature swaps; or (c) used for a variety of alternative purposes.

This isn’t environmentalism here. It’s just another scam that bankers are perpetuating on the unsuspecting public.

Posted on

Green Climate Fund, And The GLOBAL Green New Deal

The Green Climate Fund is heavily pushing for countries to use this “pandemic” as a chance to implement widespread social changes. Others claim that climate change makes the world vulnerable to it happening again. If this wasn’t planned out, then at a minimum, it comes across as very opportunistic.

1. Green Climate Fund Conference Speakers

Letting the members speak for themselves might be the best option. They quite openly talk about how the Covid-19 “pandemic” creates an opportunity to implement broader social changes. It was never really about a virus, as that’s just an excuse. See here, here and here. Even giving them the benefit of the doubt, all of this comes across as very opportunistic.

2. UN Framework Convention On Climate Change

Background
At COP 16 held in Cancun, by decision 1/CP.16, Parties established the Green Climate Fund (GCF) as an operating entity of the Financial Mechanism of the Convention under Article 11. The Fund is governed by the GCF Board and it is accountable to and functions under the guidance of the COP to support projects, programmes, policies and other activities in developing country Parties using thematic funding windows.

The Green Climate Fund was a creation based on Article 11 of the UNFCCC, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, signed in December 2010.

[Article] 11. Agrees that adaptation is a challenge faced by all Parties, and that enhanced action and international cooperation on adaptation is urgently required to enable and support the implementation of adaptation actions aimed at reducing vulnerability and building resilience in developing country Parties, taking into account the urgent and immediate needs of those developing countries that are particularly vulnerable;

The Green Climate Fund was approved, (at least in principle), because of this article of the treaty.

3. What Is The Green Climate Fund?

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is the world’s largest dedicated fund helping developing countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and enhance their ability to respond to climate change. It was set up by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2010. GCF has a crucial role in serving the Paris Agreement, supporting the goal of keeping average global temperature rise well below 2 degrees C. It does this by channelling climate finance to developing countries, which have joined other nations in committing to climate action.

Responding to the climate challenge requires collective action from all countries, including by both public and private sectors. Among these concerted efforts, advanced economies have agreed to jointly mobilize significant financial resources. Coming from a variety of sources, these resources address the pressing mitigation and adaptation needs of developing countries.

GCF launched its initial resource mobilisation in 2014, and rapidly gathered pledges worth USD 10.3 billion. These funds come mainly from developed countries, but also from some developing countries, regions, and one city.

GCF’s activities are aligned with the priorities of developing countries through the principle of country ownership, and the Fund has established a direct access modality so that national and sub-national organisations can receive funding directly, rather than only via international intermediaries.

The Fund pays particular attention to the needs of societies that are highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, in particular Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and African States.

GCF aims to catalyse a flow of climate finance to invest in low-emission and climate-resilient development, driving a paradigm shift in the global response to climate change.

Our innovation is to use public investment to stimulate private finance, unlocking the power of climate-friendly investment for low emission, climate resilient development. To achieve maximum impact, GCF seeks to catalyse funds, multiplying the effect of its initial financing by opening markets to new investments.

Balanced portfolio
GCF’s investments are aimed at achieving maximum impact in the developing world, supporting paradigm shifts in both mitigation and adaptation. The Fund aims for a 50:50 balance between mitigation and adaptation investments over time. It also aims for a floor of 50 percent of the adaptation allocation for particularly vulnerable countries, including Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and African States.

Unlocking private finance
The Fund is unique in its ability to engage directly with both the public and private sectors in transformational climate-sensitive investments. GCF engages directly with the private sector through its Private Sector Facility (PSF). As part of its innovative framework, it has the capacity to bear significant climate-related risk, allowing it to leverage and crowd in additional financing. It offers a wide range of financial products including grants, concessional loans, subordinated debt, equity, and guarantees. This enables it to match project needs and adapt to specific investment contexts, including using its funding to overcome market barriers for private finance.

On the surface, all of this sounds fine. The Green Climate Fund claims that it’s raising money to deal with environmental affairs. However, it’s not so straightforward. This isn’t about preventing climate change, but about using warnings and fears about it to make money.

4. AOC: House Resolution 109, Green New Deal

Green-New-Deal-FINAL

While AOC is frequently mocked for low intelligence, the reality is that a lot of her actions are motivated by deceitfulness, not being naive. Take for example, House Resolution 109, the infamous Green New Deal. This was introduced in 2019, not long after she was elected to Congress.

Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

That admission pretty much killed Resolution 109. It became clear at that point that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her staff didn’t actually believe in what they were pushing. Instead, this was a pretext to enact a much larger social agenda.

Ocasio-Cortez was just a puppet in a much larger scheme.

5. The GLOBAL Green New Deal

The head of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) on Thursday called for a global Green New Deal in which redirected financial flows usher in an age of sustainable, post-pandemic growth that takes the heat out of dangerous planetary warming.

“Climate action and COVID-19 recovery measures must be mutually supportive to be effective,” said GCF Executive Director Yannick Glemarec during an international conference in South Korea exploring how COVID-19 recovery efforts can be directed away from investments that are harming the planet towards those creating a global green economy. 

The conference focused on South Korea’s national plans to counter the effects of the pandemic through economic recovery pathways leading to future carbon neutrality, while also reflecting on how similar “Green New Deals” are being adopted across the world.

Reflecting the urgency COVID-19 has brought to the need to take climate action, conference participants considered how the paths that countries take now in recovering from COVID-19 will determine whether the world achieves the Paris Agreement goals and a net zero emissions future.

The Government of South Korea, for example, seems to have fully embraced the Green New Deal. This is at least in part as a response to the coronavirus “pandemic”.

It certainly is convenient that this “pandemic” struck when and how it did. Otherwise, people might be a lot more hesitant to embrace the radical restructuring of their economy. Let’s be clear, this is just an excuse to implement their communist agenda.

While the focus here is on South Korea, the Green Climate Fund, (and their allies), support all countries adopting some version of the Green New Deal.

6. Climate-Related Financial Disclosures

Mandatory climate-related financial disclosures are already a reality in New Zealand, and is coming to Britain as well. And we are not too far off from adopting it in Canada. This is an initiative that the Green Climate Fund fully supports, just on a global scale. If fully implemented, many businesses (globally), would have to submit disclosure forms to the UN for their approval.

7. Canada’s Industries To Be Phased Out

The United Nations has officially asked for certain industries to be allowed to die off. In Canada, this certainly means the end of oil & gas, among others. It’s not like the Conservatives, and their modified “Build Back Better” expression will do much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye7bC-OSJq8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plrD1ICEFC4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtDndpaYljc

UN Framework Convention On Climate Change
Text Of 2010 UNFCCC Document
https://www.greenclimate.fund/about
South Korea: Global Green New Deal
Green Climate Fund Strategic Plan, 2020 to 2023
Mandatory Climate-Related Disclosures In New Zealand
Climate-Related Financial Disclosures In UK
https://twitter.com/theGCF/status/1308602992300560384
https://twitter.com/AniaGrobicki1/status/1324520561171521536/photo/1
https://twitter.com/antonioguterres/status/1299341836948058112

HR 109: Green-New-Deal-FINAL
The Lies Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Erin O’Toole: Build Back Stronger
Speech By Mark Carney (From 2015)

Posted on

Green Horizon Summit, The New Business Model

The “Great Reset” was for a while decried as a conspiracy theory. Now, these people don’t even bother to hide their plans. Now, over the last few days, the Green Horizon Summit has been underway. One of the goals is to flesh out the details for making that reset happen.

1. Mark Carney, Head Of UN Climate Finance

Some quotes from the November 2020 Climate Horizon Summit. Mark Carney used to be the Head of the Bank of Canada (and later the Bank of England). Now, he heads UN Climate Action and Finance, which will force businesses and Governments into playing ball with the climate change agenda. Interestingly, he talks about Japanese pensions already being poured into this project.

Carney became somewhat infamous after his public threat that companies who don’t play along with the climate change agenda will go bankrupt.

2. Green Horizon Summit Supported By WEF

It’s time to reset the relationship between finance and the real economy. For the sake of our planet, it’s also time for public and private finance to get behind the transition to a sustainable and resilient future for all.
.
But with no UN climate conference (COP) this year owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, maintaining momentum on climate action and the economic changes required is vital. From 9-11 November, the Green Horizon Summit: The Pivotal Role of Finance will help do just that.
.
Across 10 sessions and three days, the summit will virtually convene more than 2,500 people from around the world to discuss five main themes:
.
-Reporting, Risk Management and Return
–Financing the Energy Transition
-Infrastructure and Green Growth
-Financing Resilience and Adaptation
-Nature and Net Zero
.
The programme features a line-up of more than 100 global business and climate leaders, including HRH The Prince of Wales, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, Breakthrough Energy Founder Bill Gates, ECB Chief Christine Lagarde, UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance Mark Carney and many more.

The World Economic Forum (of which Chrystia Freeland is a Trustee), supports 100% the Green Horizon Summit. It’s no surprise, given WEF is driving the “Great Reset”. The goals overlap heavily.

WEF doesn’t even bother to hide their agenda anymore. In fact, many videos of it are freely available online. It’s quite the rabbit hole.

3. Bill Gates: Founder, Breakthrough Energy

It’s not enough that Gates is involved in the abortion industry, computers, vaccines, and eugenics. He’s also pushing the climate change agenda as well.

Mukesh Ambani
Reliance Industries Limited
Chairman and Managing Director
BOARD MEMBER

John Arnold
Laura & John Arnold Foundation
Co-chair
BOARD MEMBER

Jeff Bezos
Amazon
Founder & CEO

HRH Prince Alwaleed bin Talal
Alwaleed Philanthropies
Chairman

Michael Bloomberg
Bloomberg LP
CEO

Richard Branson
Virgin Group
Founder

Ray Dalio
Bridgewater Associates
Founder

John Doerr
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
Chairman
BOARD MEMBER

Bill Gates
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Co-chair
CHAIR OF THE BOARD

Reid Hoffman
LinkedIn
Co-founder

Chris Hohn
The Children’s Investment Fund
Founder

Vinod Khosla
Khosla Ventures
Founder
BOARD MEMBER

Jack Ma
Alibaba Group
Executive Chairman
BOARD MEMBER

Dustin Moskovitz & Cari Tuna
Good Ventures
Co-founders

Patrice Motsepe
African Rainbow Minerals (ARM)
Founder & Executive Chairman

Xavier Niel
Illiad Group
Founder

Hasso Plattner
SAP SE
Co-founder

Julian Robertson
Tiger Management
Founder & Chairman

David Rubenstein
The Carlyle Group
Co-founder and Co-Executive Chairman

Nat Simons & Laura Baxter-Simons
Prelude Ventures
Co-founders

Masayoshi Son
SoftBank Group Corp.
Founder, Chairman & CEO

Ms. Zhang Xin & Mr. Pan Shiyi
SOHO China
Co-founder & CEO, Chairman

Breakthrough Energy Ventures is a group of investors who are working together in a fund that is patient, flexible, and committed to the guiding principles of Breakthrough Energy – including supporting net-zero emissions technology and ensuring affordable, reliable, and clean energy for all.

On a semi-serious note: one has to ask if Gates’ desire to have less people on the planet counts as an official solution, or is just a personal preference.

4. Sean Kidney, Climate Bonds Initiative

Believe it or not, climate bonds are an actual industry, with serious backers pouring money into it. Sure, the climate bonds are bound to collapse, as they don’t offer anything tangible. However, for a time, they will make some people extremely wealthy.

5. Daniel Hanna, Standard Chartered Bank

Standard Chartered has had a long commitment to Sustainable Finance. Our approach brings together three themes. First, we believe in the critical importance of being a responsible institution through managing the potential negative impact that our activities could have through strong environmental, social and governance risk filters. Our Environmental and Social Risk Management team was first established in 1997. Second, we also believe in the power that fnance can have to catalyse a positive impact on our communities and the
environment. Our dedicated Sustainable Finance team brings together our experience and expertise in managing environmental, social and governance risk as well as spotting opportunities and structuring solutions to drive positive impact financing. Finally, we are focused on where we believe catalysing new sustainable fpnance matters most – regions where more capital is needed to drive sustainable growth and where their pathway to a low carbon future will have a major impact on the world’s ability to meet the Paris Agreement’s goal of keeping global warming well below 2 degrees.

More on the forced transition into a new economy. Standard Chartered has been around for a while, and is completely on board with the climate change agenda.

6. Noel Quinn (HSBC), Roger Gifford

Why does a bank have a climate plan?
The Paris Agreement signed by global leaders in 2015 set a goal to limit the rise in the planet’s temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2050. If that target is to be achieved, every organisation in the world has a part to play.

As a bank, we can help. The most significant impact we can have is helping clients to transition to producing lower carbon emissions through financing and investment.

We want to be the leading bank supporting the global economy in transitioning to net zero. By net zero we mean reducing emissions added to the atmosphere while increasing the amount taken out, achieving a balance that not only protects the planet but that builds a sustainable and thriving global economy.

Our international reach and global client network means we can influence and shape fundamental change. For more than 150 years we have opened up opportunities for our customers and communities. Achieving net zero is a huge opportunity the world has to take.

Complying with the Paris Accord is written right into their mission statement. This is one way to get people to implement your agenda. As a banker, simply refuse to have them as a client unless they make drastic changes. If enough bankers go along, the people are forced into making changes.

7. Christine Lagarde: European Central Bank

Climate change and the ECB
We at the ECB are exploring how we can be effective in the fight against climate change. We are working to identify the risks that climate change can present to the economy and the financial system. Climate change can affect the economy through extreme weather events and uncertainties related to the transition to a low-carbon economy.

The term “green bond” refers to debt securities whose proceeds are used to finance investment projects with an environmental benefit. There are different approaches to defining and certifying green bonds, and no global market standard has emerged so far.[2] While many green bonds are self-labelled, some jurisdictions have developed their own certification framework and others rely on various different guidelines.[3] As well as reducing transparency for investors, it is believed that the lack of standardised definitions and reporting requirements and the varying granularity of the underlying classifications are holding back supply,[4] inter alia because issuers face reputational risks and potential accusations of “greenwashing” if proceeds are not used for their declared purposes.[5] The ECB supports current EU initiatives under the European Commission’s action plan on sustainable finance to create a harmonised definition of “green” assets (taxonomy), which could improve transparency and facilitate the supply of green debt instruments.

It’s plain and obvious at this point that the bankers see this “pandemic” as an opportunity to implement a larger social agenda. It’s difficult to believe they weren’t in on it the entire time. The European Green Bonds seem to be thriving, however.

8. BlackRock: More Then Just Finance

As an asset manager, BlackRock invests on behalf of others, and I am writing to you as an advisor and fiduciary to these clients. The money we manage is not our own. It belongs to people in dozens of countries trying to finance long-term goals like retirement. And we have a deep responsibility to these institutions and individuals – who are shareholders in your company and thousands of others – to promote long-term value.

Climate change has become a defining factor in companies’ long-term prospects. Last September, when millions of people took to the streets to demand action on climate change, many of them emphasized the significant and lasting impact that it will have on economic growth and prosperity – a risk that markets to date have been slower to reflect. But awareness is rapidly changing, and I believe we are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance.

The evidence on climate risk is compelling investors to reassess core assumptions about modern finance. Research from a wide range of organizations – including the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the BlackRock Investment Institute, and many others, including new studies from McKinsey on the socioeconomic implications of physical climate risk – is deepening our understanding of how climate risk will impact both our physical world and the global system that finances economic growth.

Bit of trivia here: Blackrock actually owns SNC Lavalin, which has been involved in so much corruption in recent years. Also, Laurence (Larry) Fink is a Trustee of the World Economic Forum. This company claims to take sustainability very seriously.

9. Bank For International Settlements

Although not a speaker at the Green Horizon Summit, BIS, the Bank for International Settlements, (a central bank of central banks), is on board with the green agenda. In fact, many central banks are in lockstep with the climate movement.

This is by no means all of the parties who attended the Green Horizon Summit. But it does represent a sample of the groups were part of it.

Posted on

CV #35: Vaccine Indemnification Rulings In The Canadian Courts

If vaccines work as advertised, then why is it necessary to immunize (no pun intended), the manufacturers from potential legal action?

Bill Gates believes that Governments will have to be involved in the process of vaccine development and distribution, in order to indemnify (make immune), manufacturers for the harm their products will cause. However, Gates seems far less concerned about the potential harms from the vaccines. His worry appears to be potential lawsuits resulting from those harms. By the way, you don’t have a choice about being vaccinated.

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. Important Links

Quebec (Attorney-General) v. Lapierre, 1983 CanLII 2860 (QC CA)
QC Court Of Appeal Ruling
Lapierre v. A.G. (Que.), 1985 CanLII 66 (SCC), [1985] 1 SCR 241
Supreme Court Of Canada Ruling

Rothwell v. Raes (Ont. H.C.J.), 1988 CanLII 4636 (ON SC)
Rothwell 1988 Ruling
Rothwell Ruling 1988 Vaccine Injury

Frank v Alberta Health Services, 2019 ABCA 332 (CanLII)
Frank V. AHS Trial Court Ruling
Frank V. AHS Appellate Ruling

Interim Order For Temporary Vaccine Approval
Product Information For H1N1 Approved Vaccine
Adam, Abudu v. Ledesma-Cadhit et al, 2014 ONSC 5726 (CanLII)
2014 Ruling On Indemnification of Manufacturer
Adam v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2019 ONSC 7066 (CanLII)
Adam V. GSK Ruling (ONSC)
ONSC 2014 Ruling
Adam V GlaxoSmithKline 2019

WHO On Vaccine Injury Compensation Programs

3. LaPierre V. Attorney General Of Quebec

Appellant’s daughter was vaccinated against measles as part of a vaccination program established by the Government of Quebec. A few days after receiving the vaccine, she was the victim of acute viral encephalitis which ultimately resulted in the permanent almost total disablement of the child. Appellant brought an action for damages against the Government. The Superior Court allowed the action and decided against the Government on the basis of no‑fault liability resulting from necessity and grounded on art. 1057 C.C. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment on the ground that Quebec civil law does not recognize no‑fault liability. In this Court, the causal link between the vaccine and the encephalitis was no longer disputed and fault was no longer alleged against anyone. Appellant based his claim against the Government on no‑fault or “objective” liability. He relied on a legal principle derived from the theory of necessity, that damages suffered or costs incurred by an individual for the benefit of the community must be borne by the latter. The question was therefore whether the principle on which appellant’s entire case rested has any support in the law of Quebec.

Held: The appeal should be dismissed.
.
The Government of Quebec cannot be held liable for the harm caused to the child by administration of the vaccine. Although in the case at bar recognition of the existence of an obligation independent of any fault would be an excellent thing, no such obligation exists in Quebec civil law. Extrapolation of several provisions of the Civil Code and the ancient law provide no basis for a general principle of the civil law that damages suffered or costs incurred by an individual for the benefit of the community must be borne by the latter. Article 1057 C.C. also provides no legislative support for this principle. That article exists only to explain art. 983 C.C. by giving examples of obligations resulting solely from the operation of law. It does not have the effect of making fortuitous events ‑‑ the danger of an epidemic in the case at bar ‑‑ a sixth and new source of obligations.

The Supreme Court ultimately decided that just because someone may be harmed (by a vaccine), which was taken to protect the community, the community itself owes no obligation to the person. It seems no good deed goes unpunished.

Following this case, however, Quebec did end up introducing a plan to compensate victims of vaccine injury. It remains the only such program in Canada.

4. Rothwell V. Raes, Ontario, Et Al

Even the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses agreed that if a causal connection existed between pertussis vaccine and brain damage — encephalopathy — it was extremely rare. Thus the personal experience of such cases, even on the part of the most specialized consultants, was necessarily limited. The witnesses referred to many scientific publications in giving testimony and annexed them to their reports. The decision had to be based on the evidence of the witnesses including their reports, but articles and studies referred to could be used to assess the evidence where there was conflict. The question was difficult and complex.

The defendant physician was not negligent either in recommending the vaccination or in failing to warn of possible damaging effects. It was at the time the practice to recommend vaccination without reference to the rare possibility of harmful consequences. Three doses of the vaccine were administered, two of them by the locum, and no reaction which would have caused alarm occurred after either of the first two. Nor was the physician negligent in his choice of physicians to serve as locum tenens. No evidence of negligence on her part was offered.

Liability for the locum tenens
.
Even if the locum had been negligent, she was exercising her own professional skill and judgment and the family physician could not be vicariously liable.

Manufacturer’s liability
.
The manufacturer’s leading researchers were familiar with the literature postulating encephalopathy and grave brain damage as possible consequences of administration of the vaccine. Had the manufacturer warned the physician the court could not presume that he would have failed to discuss the possibilities or at least mention them. Therefore the manufacturer was negligent in this respect. It was not negligent in failing to manufacture the Japanese version of the vaccine since no tests had been done which would have led to its acceptance by the scientific community as superior to the product used.

The ministry’s liability
.
The province reasonably relied on the federal government to license and monitor vaccines. The province’s decision not to exercise the authority it had, and had at one time used, to regulate and monitor did not subject it to liability. No other province issued warnings at the time. Only one monitored drugs used. Hence no negligence could be found on the part of the ministry.

One of the reasons cited in the dismissal was failure to prove causation. However, the ruling makes it pretty clear that there would be no finding of negligence even if it were demonstrated. The only exception would have been the manufacturer (possibly), for failing to disclose risks.

5. Frank V. AB Health Services 2019

[1] Health Services, 2018 ABQB 541. The issue on this appeal is whether Alberta Health Services and the nurse who immunized her are immune from liability even if negligence was proven.

[2] The trial judge found that the respondents are protected by the immunity provisions in s. 66.1 of the Public Health Act, RSA 2000, c. P-37:
.
66.1(1) No action for damages may be commenced against
(a) the Crown or a Minister of the Crown,
(b) a regional health authority or a member, employee or agent of a regional health authority,
(c) an employee under the administration of the Minister,
(d) the Chief Medical Officer, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, an executive officer or a medical officer of health,
(e) a health practitioner,
(f) a teacher, a person in charge of an institution or a medical director of a facility, or
(g) repealed 2008 c. H-5.3 s. 24,
(h) a provincial health board established under the Regional Health Authorities Act
.
for anything done or not done by that person in good faith while carrying out duties or exercising powers under this or any other enactment.

(2) No action for damages may be commenced against any person or organization acting under the direction of the Crown, a Minister of the Crown, the Chief Medical Officer, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer or a medical officer of health for anything done or not done by that person or organization in good faith directly or indirectly related to a public health emergency while carrying out duties or exercising powers under this or any other enactment. [emphasis added]

[5] The trial judge wrote at para. 19 that Nurse Sykes was performing “a duty delegated to her”, which is no more than a synonym for “a duty assigned” to her. The appellant argues that immunity is not extended to those exercising “delegated duties”, but that would render the section largely redundant. It is difficult to conceive of a situation where an employee of the Health Authority (or a number of others in the protected categories, like “teachers”) would be “carrying out duties” (to use the words of s. 66.1) that are not in some sense “delegated” or “assigned” to them. The appellant also argues that the immunity does not extend to “negligence”, but that would also render the section ineffective. There is no civil liability for non-negligent health services, so the immunity clause must extend to the negligent provision of services to have any meaning.

[6] It is true that health care practitioners generally owe a private duty of care to their patients, and are liable in tort for negligent care that causes damage. But as the trial judge noted at para. 18, this statute is directed at “public” health concerns, not just “private” health concerns:

. . . The intent of the Act and the Communicable Diseases Regulation is in the protection of public health, including preventative care against communicable diseases which may affect large segments of the population. The liability immunity for health practitioners like Sykes is consistent with the purpose of the Act particularly when one considers the nature of mass vaccination clinics and the need for the Minister and regional health authorities to efficiently administer vaccinations.

There is a public benefit to having a significant level of vaccination against communicable diseases within the larger community. The Legislature has identified a public benefit in protecting professionals practicing in the public health field from liability for public health treatment administered in good faith.

[7] The appellant points to the rather complicated legislative history of this provision. The immunity clause, however, must be interpreted according to its plain words, in the context of the entire statute. On that basis there is no reviewable error in the decision under appeal.

[8] The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

In short, health practitioners (and bureaucrats), cannot be held liable in Alberta if they are acting in good faith, and are following the orders of Public Health Officials. While there may be some benefit to this, it allows practitioners to “pass the buck” in a sense, and just defer to someone else.

6. Interim Orders On H1N1 Vaccines

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.

[33] The fundamental challenge with the plaintiffs’ case in this regard is that they produced no expert to testify to this effect. While I agree with the plaintiffs’ submission that expert evidence is not necessarily required to demonstrate a breach of the standard of care, the absence of such evidence when faced with complex issues beyond the day-to-day experience of the trier creates additional challenges for the plaintiffs’ case.

[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 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 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.

7. Canada To Expedite Vaccines

This admission from Theresa Tam should concern people. She openly admits that vaccine development takes over a decade, but that this will be pushed ahead.

However, if this is such a “novel” virus, then how exactly can scientists rely on all this previous research? Either it’s a similar virus, or it’s very different. It can’t simultaneously be both.

And no, it wasn’t “Covid-19” that took away people’s livelihoods. It was the dictatorial actions of power hungry politicians and bureaucrats.

8. WHO On Vaccine Injury Compensation

Arguments for schemes
Arguments supporting vaccine-injury compensation include political and economic pressures, litigation threats, increasing confidence in population-based vaccine programmes and ensuring sustainability of vaccine supply. However, compensation schemes are also based on underlying principles of fairness and justice.

A vaccine-injury compensation scheme removes the uncertainty of tort liability for manufacturers and provides a more fair, efficient and stable approach for injured parties. Litigation is an expensive and restricted avenue that is inaccessible for many vaccine recipients. Furthermore, compensation schemes avoid the polarization of drug companies against vaccine recipients through litigation and the associated negative media coverage.

Standard of proof
No-fault vaccine-injury compensation programmes are based on the premise that the adverse outcome is not attributable to a specific individual or industry but due to an unavoidable risk associated with vaccines. A problem for all compensation schemes is determining whether there is a causal relationship between a vaccine and a specific injury. The method by which causation is proven in tort law can be quite different from the accepted method of establishing causation in science and epidemiology. The most commonly accepted criteria for establishing epidemiological causation are the Bradford Hill criteria. While they do not provide a definitive checklist for assessing causality, these criteria provide a framework for separating causal and non-causal explanations of observed associations. Despite its importance, there is no single, clear consensus on the definition of causation.

Conclusion
Vaccine-injury compensation programmes are increasingly regarded as an important component of successful vaccination programmes. They have been used for the past 50 years to ensure that individuals who are adversely affected in the interests of protecting the whole community are adequately compensated and cared for. There are a variety of schemes with different structures and approaches in use throughout the world. The schemes function most efficiently when they operate alongside well established, comprehensive national social welfare systems. In these countries, vaccine-injury compensation schemes have been found to have a relatively low administrative cost, especially compared to civil litigation cases.

In the first decade of the 21st century, acceptance of vaccine-injury compensation has grown. Schemes are being enacted beyond industrialized Europe and North America. The importance of these schemes, based on ethical principles, has been stressed by parent groups, and claimants have reported satisfaction in having received compensation through a streamlined process. Apart from the reluctance of governments to move away from the adversarial approach to providing compensation, we believe there is a strong argument for widespread implementation of these programmes in other developed countries.

This is a 2011 article from the World Health Organization. Despite the claimed benefits, there are certainly drawbacks. It’s worth pointing out that they don’t actually make vaccines any safer. They are just a way to placate the public and increase confidence by offering a (tax-payer funded), way for victims to get some money.

Drug companies will still get their profits, but the losses will be socialized. This is typical of the corporatist mindset.

From their perspective, there isn’t really any downside. Pharma companies can still push their drugs onto the public, and any serious harm will be paid back by the public. While the process for collecting is certainly easier than going to court, it ensures that the full truth will never come out.

Currently, a vaccine injury compensation program exists in Quebec, but no other Canadian Province.

Posted on

CV #25(B): StatsCan Sending DNA Kits For Antibody Tests, Other Purposes

Statistics Canada is now mailing out DNA collection kits to random households. While this is “supposed” to be a public health measure, they clearly state that the DNA may be used for alternative purposes.

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. Important Links

https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/survey/household/5339
https://archive.is/6q5pT
WayBack Machine Archive

https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/289529513
https://archive.is/mwdsh
WayBack Machine Archive

4Chan Posting Of Kit Mailed In Canada
Facebook Posting Of Home-Test Kits
Documentary On Theranos, Elizabeth Holmes

FEDERAL — LOCATIONS OF DEATH REPORTS
Covid In Canada August 16 to 22
Covid In Canada August 23 to 29
Covid In Canada August 30 to Sept 6
Covid In Canada September 7 to September 13
Covid In Canada October 4 to October 10
Covid In Canada October 11 to October 17
Covid In Canada October 25 to October 31

PCR TESTS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVkkqjnTlWc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKeMiAZ8Zu4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je3xO8e-MvQ

3. Reminder: StatsCan Raided Credit Data

In late 2018, there was a scandal because Statistics Canada had been accessing people’s credit reports. They also wanted to look into the private bank accounts of Canadians. While StatsCan frequently touts the defense that “we don’t share it with anyone”, that completely misses the point. People don’t want their bank records broken into at all.

And now, StatsCan is rolling out a major DNA sampling.

4. StatsCan Explains The DNA Kits Sent Out

As COVID-19 continues to disrupt daily life, we must manage the impacts of the pandemic, while preparing for future waves. This includes taking steps to ensure Canadians can access future treatment and vaccines. To do this, it is important that we learn as much as possible about the virus, how it affects overall health, how it spreads, and whether we are developing antibodies against it.

This unique survey will collect information in two parts. The first part is an electronic questionnaire about general health and exposure to COVID-19. The second part is an at-home finger-prick blood test, which is sent to a lab to determine the presence of COVID-19 antibodies.

Even if you do not think you have been exposed to COVID-19, your information will provide valuable answers about the virus. You will also receive a copy of your lab report, providing you with valuable information about your own health.

Your information may also be used by Statistics Canada for other statistical and research purposes.

Pretty strange how the Government will be able to tell what antibodies the body has, and if they are the correct ones, when the PCR test itself it bogus and completely inaccurate. Remember Barbara Yaffe, and her admission of 50% false positives?

How exactly will your genetic information help if there has been no exposure to the virus? What else is going on behind the scenes?

5. StatsCan Data Sharing Agreements

Data sharing agreements
For all respondents:
.
To avoid duplication of surveys, Statistics Canada may enter into agreements to share the data from this survey, including name, address, telephone number and health card number, with provincial and territorial ministries of health, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada. For Quebec residents, Statistics Canada may also enter into an agreement with the “Institut de la Statistique du Québec” to share the same information.
.
The “Institut de la Statistique du Québec” and provincial ministries of health may make this data available to local health authorities. Local health authorities will not receive any identifiers, only the postal code.
.
For respondents aged 15 years and older:
.
To reduce the number of questions in this questionnaire, Statistics Canada will use information from your tax forms submitted to the Canada Revenue Agency. With your consent Statistics Canada will share this information from your tax forms with your provincial and territorial ministries of health, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada.
.
Quebec residents will also have their tax form information shared with the “Institut de la statistique du Québec”.
.
These organizations have agreed to keep the information confidential and to use it only for statistical and research purposes.
.
Record linkage
To enhance the data from this survey and to minimize the reporting burden for respondents, Statistics Canada will combine your responses with information from the tax data of all members of your household. Statistics Canada and the ministry of health for your home province or territory may also add information from other surveys or administrative sources.
.
For Quebec residents, the “Institut de la Statistique du Québec” may add information from other surveys or administrative sources.

What all this means, is that information from your taxes may be shared with the Ministries of Health (Provincial and Federal), and the Public Health Agency of Canada. It also says that information from other surveys or administrative sources may be added, but doesn’t specify which ones.

In short, this is combining data sets to form universal profiles on people. These will include: tax information, DNA, health information, and data collected elsewhere. That doesn’t sound Orwellian in the slightest.

6. Information Sent To Advocacy Groups?

How will the data be used? Who will use it?
Objective statistical information is vital to researchers, analysts and decision makers across Canada. Results of the Canadian COVID-19 Antibody and Health Survey could be used by:
.
-Parliament and other policy makers, to track major initiatives, set priorities for prevention and research programs, and evaluate policy and program outcomes
-epidemiologists, biomedical and health service researchers, to understand trends in diseases and the relationship of observed risk factors to diseases
-public health professionals, to track preventable illnesses and evaluate the impact of prevention and intervention programs
–advocacy groups, to raise awareness and assist in their surveillance of health issues and health disparities.

The information will shared with advocacy groups in complaining of disparities in health? Why does this seem like a way to funnel money under the guise of “equity”?

It’s also rather confusing. Supposedly 48,000 people are just assigned a number, and no personal information will be connected to it. How then will it be connected to tax information, and other sources?

7. Tests Are Already Being Distributed

https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/289529513

https://www.facebook.com/100032513712949/posts/357421085351679/

8. Truth About Death Statistics In Canada

What’s most infuriating is that the truth is known that this “pandemic” is a hoax, but leaders and the media intentionally deceive us. The most recent report available, or see the archived version.

Even by the Government’s methods of screwing around with the numbers, the vast majority of people will recover on their own. At the time of writing this, Health Canada reports 218,000 recoveries nationwide. The site https://corona-scanner.com/ reports over 35 million recoveries globally. Why is any sort of vaccine needed then? What will be in it?

On Table 6, it’s reported that, as of October 31, 2020, a total 7,238 out of 7,623 deaths has been in long term care and retirement residences. That is 94.9%, or 19 out of every 20. Of course, this raises the obvious questions such as the underlying health issues many or most would have had, or the average age.

FORECASTING
Canada’s approach to modelling:
Models cannot predict the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, but can help us understand all possible scenarios, support decisions on public health measures and help the health care sector plan for these scenarios.
.
Forecasting models use data to estimate how many new cases can be expected in the coming weeks. Figure 17 below shows the projected number of cases and deaths in Canada, with a 95% prediction interval calculated to 8 November, using available data by 24 October.

The Government explicitly states that modelling cannot be used to predict the course. Then it immediately contradicts itself by saying models are used to estimate cases. Fact is: models are just guesses. They are not proof of anything.

9. PCR Tests Long Used For DNA Amplification

For some background, consider that PCR tests (polymerase chain reaction tests), have long been used for DNA amplification. This makes testing easier even when there are very small samples. Videos with extensive detail are freely available. These are just a few of them.

Note: Canuck Law owns none of these videos. Please post positive feedback on their respective YouTube accounts. They explain quite well how this process works.

10. Other Info On Silicon Valley/Theranos

Elizabeth Holmes was famous for several years as the result of her startup “Theranos”. The company was developing technology that would allow for hundreds (or even thousands) of tests to be done from a single drop of blood.

Problem is: the technology didn’t work, and never got any better. Holmes had been outright lying to investors and prospective clients for many years. The company is now dissolved. Strangely, its Twitter account is still up.

But sure, the Government is going to be able to get all kinds of results from a single drop of blood Well, they can get a DNA profile from that. And on the topic of Silicon Valley:

Anne Wojcicki is the CEO and co-founder of 23andMe. It uses home kits for DNA testing for genetic mapping. Her sister, Susan Wojcicki is the CEO of YouTube, co-founded Google, and is head of DuckDuckGo.

Also, Ancestry.com will hand over your DNA to law enforcement if they are ordered to.

Yes, this topic is a bit of a tangent, but it’s worth at least mentioning where this may go. Privacy of genetic information seems to be almost non-existent.

Statistics Canada is now mailing DNA kits to individual households. One can only guess where your data will eventually end up. Use at your own risk.

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress