Ontario Premier Doug Ford recently became infamous for ordering a restaurant owner to shut down. This of course is while places like Walmart, Costco and Amazon remain open. And Ford is hardly the only one to do this. But why is this the trend? Perhaps influence peddling is the reason.
The above video specifically refers to Adam Skelly, who was arrested when he ignored Ford’s dictates to close down.
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. SNC Corruption Behind The Scenes
For more on the SNC Lavalin corruption, check out this series. A lot of details go on behind closed doors that were never reported in the media. Turns out that it’s a small world.
Bruce Hartley worked in the Prime Minister’s Office, under Jean Chretien (Liberal), from 1993 to 2003. He spent a decade in the Government, according to the Public Office disclosure.
5. Walmart/SNC Lobbyist William Pristanski
William (Bill) Pristanski worked in the Government of Brian Mulroney (Conservative), from 1984 until 1991. He also worked for the Office of the Official Opposition when the Liberals were in office.
After he departed from public office, Pristanski has been a Principle at Prospectus Associates and Government Relations Consultant. In short, he’s been a professional lobbyist for nearly 30 years.
6. Walmart Lobbying Ottawa In 2020
Subject Matter Details
Policies or Program
-Advisories by Public Health Agency (Consumer Products Division) and the development of policies and programs as it relates to the safety of toys and food imported from foreign countries.
-Increase awareness of Walmart’s commitment to ethical sourcing, and more specifically global supply chains that empower the people who work in them, and the families that are supported by them.
-Monitor development of legislation to regulate the payments industry in Canada including C-236, An Act to amend the Payment Card Networks Act
-Monitor implementation of Payment Card Networks Act with regard to debit and credit cards.
Policy and programs related to the Environmental objectives of Wal-Mart. In particular, bringing to the attention of government officials the most environmentally-friendly food distribution centre in North America that has just been built in Balzac Alberta
-The Finance Canada federal budget process as it relates to policies of Sales Tax Harmonization with the provinces.
While most of these “lockdown” measures have been implemented Provincially, it’s worth pointing out that the Federal Government has also been lobbied by Walmart. Moreover, it’s Bruce Hartley, and William Pristanski, the same lobbyists who advocated on behalf of SNC Lavalin. And they have ties to the Liberal and Conservative Parties of Canada.
7. Walmart Lobbying Ontario Government
Walmart lobbied the Ontario Government several times in 2020. Here are quotes from their Provincial registration.
What is the subject-matter of your lobbying activity?
Agriculture, Conservation, Consumer services, COVID-19/Pandemic response, Economic development and trade, Education, Energy, Environment, Food safety, Health, Industry, Infrastructure, International trade, Labour, Liquor control and alcohol, Northern development, Research and innovation, Science and technology, Small business, Taxation and finance, Tourism, Training and skills development, Transportation, Womens’ issues,
Other: Budget, Privacy
Describe your lobbying goal(s) in detail. What are you attempting to influence or accomplish as a result of your communications with Ontario public office holders?
. Profiling Walmart to policy makers and decision makers in government. Our objective is to make public policy makers aware of many initiatives taken by Walmart that matches the government’s objectives. By profiling such programs, government will better understand how to adjust regulatory environments and how the private sector can help. Walmart drives responsible sourcing and purchases a variety of Canadian products and services. Walmart recently announced its Charter on Plastics, a milestone commitment to reduce plastic waste across its operations. In addition, Walmart’s objective is also to engage with the government on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as it pertains to supply chain management, health & safety requirements, economic stimulus and opportunities to help.
Why is Doug Ford ordering small businesses to close, while simultaneously allowing places like Walmart to operate with very few restrictions? There could be a very simple reason, beyond just incompetence.
8. Ford Staffers Now Walmart Lobbyists
Both Melissa Lantsman and David Tarrant were staffers for Doug Ford before becoming Walmart lobbyists. It’s worth noting that they have ties to other political parties. iPolitics did an interesting article on the conflicts on interest that were obvious.
Jharna Bajaj was a political staff volunteer in the Ontario Legislature before moving onto the private sector.
The William Pristanski is, of course, the same lobbyist who lobbied Federally for Walmart, and who lobbied on behalf of SNC Lavalin, to get them their deferred prosecution agreement (DPA).
9. Amazon Lobbying Ottawa In 2020
Subject Matter Details
Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution, Policies or Program
–Work with government to promote and support Canada’s digital economy, including ensuring the availability of a high-skilled tech workforce.
Policies or Program
–Seeking government contract with multiple government departments and institutions with regards to Amazon Cloud based solutions and related support services.
-Seeking to influence policy direction related to cloud based services.
Amazon lobbied Ottawa this year, partly to obtain government contracts, partly to get laws passed to push the digital economy. Nicole Foster also worked in the Government of Jean Chretien.
10. Amazon Lobbying Ontario In 2020
Amazon has also been busy lobbying the Ontario Government. If no one can open out for “safety” reasons, then it leaves a huge void to fill. Side note: Crestview Strategy is the firm that was founded by Rob Silver, husband of Katie Telford, Trudeau’s Chief of Staff. Crestview also lobbied Ottawa on behalf of GAVI, funded by the Gates Foundation.
11. Lobbyists Control All Parties
While this example referred to Ontario and Doug Ford, it’s likely that the same corruption and influence peddling is elsewhere.
Even though William Pristanski worked for the Mulroney (Conservative) Government, and Bruce Hartley the Chretien (Liberal) Government, they now work together as lobbyists.
Doug Ford has been lobbied recently by political insiders from Walmart, including his own former staffers. This is most likely why he applies a double standard when it comes to letting big box stores stay open, but smaller ones have to shut down. It has to do with corruption, not safety.
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. Debunking The Climate Change Scam
The entire climate change industry, (yes, it’s an industry) is a hoax perpetrated by powerful people colluding against national interests. See the other articles on the scam, the propaganda machine in action, and some of the court documents in Canada. Carbon taxes are just a small part of the picture, as the issue goes much deeper than what’s reported. Also, conservatives are intentionally sabotaging their court cases.
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.
4. UN Framework Convention On Climate Change
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.
5. 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.
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.
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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau believes that we need to restrict free speech in order to prevent people — in this case Muslims — from becoming violent and injuring or killing people. He also thinks that such people have the right to keep their Canadian citizenship. (From Canuck Politics. Although a political ad, this one is entirely truthful, and worth a mention.)
1. Islam, Terrorism, Religious Violence
Check this series for more information on the religion of peace. Tolerance of intolerance is being forced on the unwilling public. Included are efforts to crack down on free speech, under the guise of “religious tolerance”. What isn’t discussed as much are the enablers, whether they are lawyers, politicians, lobbyists, of members of the media.
2. Trudeau (Sort Of) Defends Violence
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently commented on the recent terrorist attacks by Muslim migrants in France. The brutal slayings Trudeau referenced included the slaughter of three Christians at a Catholic Church in Nice, as well as the decapitation of a fourth grade teacher earlier this month.
The attacks were a response by a Muslim who answered the call to jihad against Samuel Paty, a history teacher. In his class, Paty showed a cartoon of Islam’s central figure, Mohammad, drawn by satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo.
To its credit, the French state stood firm on one of its foundational principles enshrined in law – the concept of laïcité, or official secularism. France is officially a secular state within which, people may worship as they see fit, but no religion may impose restrictions on the population for religious reasons. It also contains a strong precept of freedom of speech.
As a result of President Macron’s refusal to submit to sharia rules on images of Mohammad after the decapitation of the history teacher, leaders from the Islamic world condemned France, resulting in an increase of security globally at all French consulates and embassies.
Yesterday, Trudeau weighed in on the issue in his typical fashion, firmly taking both sides of the issue.
And yes, he certainly did.
There are always limits. In a pluralist, diverse, and respectful society like ours, we must be aware of the impact of our words, our gestures, on others. Especially toward those communities and populations that still live in a system that continues to discriminate extensively.
This article and interview are posted on RAIR Foundation, USA. Recent terrorism attacks in France had been condemned by most, but justified by some others.
Trudeau refused to completely denounce the latest act of violence. Instead, he partially defends it, claiming that people need to be sensitive when it comes to other people’s beliefs and feelings. While true, Trudeau never really condemns the violence, and plays both sides.
Ironically, Trudeau actually has a moment of pure honesty. In pluralistic, diverse societies, free speech must be limited in order to maintain social harmony. He inadvertently makes a great argument against multiculturalism.
3. Islam Used As Weapon Against West
Some very obvious questions have to be asked.
First: Why are people of such an incompatible background brought over in such large numbers? There will never be integration, especially when many have no interest in doing so. So why is this really being done?
Second: There’s a financial drain on social services, one that isn’t addressed enough. Why isn’t it openly talked about more in the public sphere?
Third: Is cracking down on free speech one of the goals? Do politicians support mass migration of Muslims in order to create chaos, and force the need to have more control? Beyond simple replacement, is destabilization an objective in drafting these policies?
Fourth: Who’s opening the floodgates in the first place? Who’s making challenges in court, lobbying politicians, and trying to influence public opinion? Who’s really calling the shots? They can’t be oblivious to the consequences of these open borders policies.
Unfortunately, these questions won’t be answered by public officials. However, this site will try to.
Thank you to RAIR, and Sassy, for the translation.
Today is the 40th anniversary of the Hague Convention on Child Abduction. This is to focus on the civil side (such as custody issues). While this seems impressive, Canada has done much domestically and internationally to undermine and weaken the principles. Even the UN has studied the connection between illegal border crossings and smuggling, trafficking and child exploitation. Quite simply, without real borders, the Hague Convention is meaningless.
1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation
For the previous work in the TSCE series. This is the 40th anniversary of the Hague Convention of Child Abduction. However, Governments ensure that it will continue. Also, take a look at open borders movement, the abortion and organs industry, and the NGOs who are supporting it. This is information that won’t be found in the mainstream or alternative media.
CLICK HERE, for FIPA agreement Canada/China. CLICK HERE, for previous review on FIPA. CLICK HERE, for CD18.5, sanctuary for illegals in Toronto. CLICK HERE, for Toronto EC5.5, human and sex trafficking resolution. CLICK HERE, for Canadian Labour Congress on sanctuary cities.
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-6, citizenship for terrorists. CLICK HERE, for Bill C-32, lowering age of consent for anal. CLICK HERE, for Bill C-75, reduced criminal penalties. CLICK HERE, for 2nd review of Bill C-75 (child offences). CLICK HERE, for asking if Gov’t actually supports trafficking.
The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where –
a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and
b) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or
would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.
The Convention shall apply to any child who was habitually resident in a Contracting State immediately before any breach of custody or access rights. The Convention shall cease to apply when the child attains the age of 16 years.
For the purposes of this Convention –
a) “rights of custody” shall include rights relating to the care of the person of the child and, in particular, the right to determine the child’s place of residence;
b) “rights of access” shall include the right to take a child for a limited period of time to a place other than the child’s habitual residence.
Any person, institution or other body claiming that a child has been removed or retained in breach of custody rights may apply either to the Central Authority of the child’s habitual residence or to the Central Authority of any other Contracting State for assistance in securing the return of the child.
The application shall contain –
a) information concerning the identity of the applicant, of the child and of the person alleged to have removed or retained the child;
b) where available, the date of birth of the child;
c) the grounds on which the applicant’s claim for return of the child is based;
d) all available information relating to the whereabouts of the child and the identity of the person with whom the child is presumed to be.
The application may be accompanied or supplemented by –
e) an authenticated copy of any relevant decision or agreement;
f) a certificate or an affidavit emanating from a Central Authority, or other competent authority of the State of the child’s habitual residence, or from a qualified person, concerning the relevant law of that State;
g) any other relevant document.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Article, the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that –
a) the person, institution or other body having the care of the person of the child was not actually exercising the custody rights at the time of removal or retention, or had consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal or retention; or
b) there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.
The judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the
child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate
to take account of its views.
In considering the circumstances referred to in this Article, the judicial and administrative authorities shall
take into account the information relating to the social background of the child provided by the Central
Authority or other competent authority of the child’s habitual residence.
The sole fact that a decision relating to custody has been given in or is entitled to recognition in the requested State shall not be a ground for refusing to return a child under this Convention, but the judicial or administrative authorities of the requested State may take account of the reasons for that decision in applying this Convention.
In short, this is an international agreement to enforce child custody orders, or family disputes. Note: the children don’t have to be return if administrators determine there is some danger. Unfortunately, this seems entirely subjective.
4. Announcement From Global Affairs Canada
October 25, 2020 – Ottawa, Ontario – Global Affairs Canada
The Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Honourable David Lametti, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, today issued the following statement:
“Today, we mark the 40th anniversary of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
“Every year, in Canada and abroad, thousands of children are wrongfully taken across international borders by a parent or guardian in violation of rights of custody. This has devastating effects on families, and it is the children who suffer the most. Children must be at the heart of family justice, and mechanisms like the Hague Convention on child abduction are essential in order to assist them in these terrible situations.
“Canada, along with 100 contracting states, continues to support this global effort to protect children from wrongful removal or retention and return them to their country of residence. We continue to call on the global community to join us and to ratify this important convention.
“We are committed to working with our international partners to continue to protect children and to reinforce the operation of the convention.”
While this all sounds fine, it should be noted that Canada has done a lot, both domestically, and with international treaties to weaken and undermine the spirit of this agreement.
What other treaties or bills do this?
5. Canada’s Bills/Treaties Since 1980
Here are some of the major developments in Canada in the last few decades. All of these either weaken the borders and/or reduce the criminal penalties involved.
UN Agenda 21 (1992)
Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement (2002)
Sanctuary cities (First in 2013)
CANZUK: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK (2015)
UN Agenda 2030 (2015)
New York Declaration (2016)
Bill C-6 citizenship for terrorists (2016)
Bill C-32/C-75 (2018)
UN Global Migration Compact (2018)
USMCA, NAFTA 2.0 (2020)
It doesn’t matter who’s in power. They’re all globalists.
6. Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement
CONVINCED, in keeping with advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its Executive Committee, that agreements among states may enhance the international protection of refugees by promoting the orderly handling of asylum applications by the responsible party and the principle of burden-sharing;
(1) The Parties shall develop standard operating procedures to assist with the implementation of this Agreement. These procedures shall include provisions for notification, to the country of last presence, in advance of the return of any refugee status claimant pursuant to this Agreement.
(2) These procedures shall include mechanisms for resolving differences respecting the interpretation and implementation of the terms of this Agreement. Issues which cannot be resolved through these mechanisms shall be settled through diplomatic channels.
(3) The Parties agree to review this Agreement and its implementation. The first review shall take place not later than 12 months from the date of entry into force and shall be jointly conducted by representatives of each Party. The Parties shall invite the UNHCR to participate in this review. The Parties shall cooperate with UNHCR in the monitoring of this Agreement and seek input from non-governmental organizations.
Source is here. Serious question: why have Canada and the United States signed an agreement that quite clearly gives the UN a seat at the table?
The treaty was pretty ineffective anyway, given that people could still get into the country as long as they BYPASSED legal border ports. Now, thanks to the Federal Court, the agreement is effectively dead.
Of course, the tens of thousands entering Canada illegally in recent years pales in comparison to the hordes of LEGAL migrants entering under various programs.
7. FIPA Between Canada And China
FIPA largely eliminated the border between Canada and the Chinese. This means that Chinese nationals can freely enter Canada, almost without restrictions. They can also bring their own security to look after their national interests. Makes it easy to smuggle products — or people — into Canada.
8. Sanctuary Cities Forming In Canada
In 2013, Toronto became the first city in Canada to officially obtain status a sanctuary city. It was supported by “conservatives” Doug and Rob Ford. How are child custody agreements supposed to be enforced overseas when children can simply disappear in one of them?
Now list includes: Toronto, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Edmonton and others. In the 2018 Ontario election, the NDP campaigned on turning Ontario into a sanctuary province.
9. CANZUK (CDA, Australia, New Zealand, UK)
The Trans-Tasmanian Partnership is an agreement between Australia and New Zealand to let citizens work and freely travel in each other’s countries. CANZUK would essentially be an expansion of that agreement by adding both Canada and the UK. This is an actual open borders arrangement which could be further expanded.
CANZUK International was formed in 2015, and members of the CPC are some of its biggest supporters.
It’s also interesting how the justifications have changed. Previously, it was about opportunity. Now it’s about containing Chinese influence, which Conservatives allowed to grow in the first place. One obvious example is FIPA.
10. UN Agenda 2030, Sustainable Development
Agenda 2030 was signed in September 2015 by then PM Stephen Harper. It signs away more of Canada’s sovereignty to the “sustainable development agenda”, and makes mass migration across international borders even easier. So-called conservatives would be hard pressed to explain why this is okay, but why the Paris Accord and UN Global Migration Compact are so wrong. There is a lot of overlap with the content.
Worth a mention is that “Conservative” Brian Mulroney was in power in 1992 when Agenda 21 was signed in Brazil.
11. New York Declaration, UN GMC Prelude
This was signed in September 2016, just a year after Agenda 2030. The UN Global Migration Compact was largely based on this text. Both agreements are to make it easier to bring large numbers of people across borders, and to establish international standards. It’s not difficult to see how this would make child abduction and transportation easier to do.
12. Bill C-6, Citizenship For Terrorists
It cheapens Canadian citizenship when anyone can get it. This is especially true for convicted terrorists and traitors. There’s also the increased likelihood of people gaming the system to avoid being sent back, for say crimes against children.
13. Bill C-32/C-75, Reducing Criminal Penalties
If the government is concerned about the well being of children, then why would they introduce a bill to water down criminal penalties for sex crimes against children, and reduce the age of consent?
Section 58: Fraudulent use of citizenship
Section 159: Age of consent for anal sex
Section 172(1): Corrupting children
Section 173(1): Indecent acts
Section 180(1): Common nuisance
Section 182: Indecent interference or indignity to body
Section 467.11(1): Participating in organized crime
Bill C-75 “hybridized” these offences. What this means is that they were initially to be tried by indictment (felony), but now prosecutors have discretion to try them summarily (misdemeanor). Of course, there were plenty of Section 83 offences (terrorism) that were also hybridized.
14. UN Global Migration Compact
What is strange about the UNGMC is that its text explicitly undermines its stated goals. While the UN supposedly opposed smuggling, the agreement says people shall not be punished. And while condemning trafficking, the UN provides advice and guidance on how to do it more successfully.
15. USMCA, More Than Just Trade
The new USMCA (U.S., Mexico & Canada Agreement) is far more than just a trade agreement. It ensures that more “workers” will be coming across the borders, and cedes areas of labour rights to the UN.
16. How Does Any Of This Help Children?
Remember, this is the 40th anniversary on the Hague Convention on Child Abduction. Member states, (of which Canada is one), should take seriously the obligation to ensure that children are not taken across borders illegally, even if it’s by a parent, or some other guardian.
Instead, Canada signs treaties and passes bills that ensure that this will continue. Erasing borders, and reducing penalties does nothing to deter child smuggling. In fact, it only encourages it.
Sure, these changes don’t explicitly state moving children around illegally is a major goal (or even a goal at all). But as borders become less meaningful, this will certainly increase.
After serious consideration, staff at the Babylon Beaver have decided to support Eric O’Toolie for Prime Minister in the next Federal election.
Anti-free speech elements in the CPC have tried to get this parody account banned from Twitter, claiming it is misrepresentation and impersonation. The producers here at the Beaver do not support censorship or deplatforming of anyone, especially political candidates.
Parody accounts in particular need the most protection, as the truth is too painful for most people to grasp.
Eric (with the goatee), never worked as a Facebook lobbyist, or for Heenan Blaikie, or supported FIPA or CANZUK, or sold Canadians out to foreigners. Eric has also never celebrated walking around in red high heel shoes. That makes him a far more attractive choice then Erin (without the look).
Sure, there are concerns that Eric is just an internet meme, and not a real person. However, the Babylon Beaver recognizes that no one is perfect, and is willing to work with Eric.
And yes, it’s true that Eric has no platform, stands for nothing, and speaks in empty and vacuous platitudes. However, that just shows that he has the experience for the job.
Erin O’Toole was a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade in 2014. It’s clear from these quotes that he doesn’t see a problem selling out Canada’s sovereignty to China with the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA). In fact, he glosses over just how bad this arrangement really is. All of the Conservatives did.
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. Don’t believe the lies that these agreements are overwhelmingly beneficial to all.
Article 5 Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment
1. Each Contracting Party shall accord to investors of the other Contracting Party treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investors of a non-Contracting Party with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory.
2. Each Contracting Party shall accord to covered investments treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments of investors of a non-Contracting Party with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory.
3. For greater certainty, the “treatment” referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article does not encompass the dispute resolution mechanisms, such as those in Part C, in other international investment treaties and other trade agreements.
Article 6 National Treatment
1. Each Contracting Party shall accord to investors of the other Contracting Party treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the expansion, management, conduct, operation and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory.
2. Each Contracting Party shall accord to covered investments treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments of its own investors with respect to the expansion, management, conduct, operation and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory.
3. The concept of “expansion” in this Article applies only with respect to sectors not subject to a prior approval process under the relevant sectoral guidelines and applicable laws, regulations and rules in force at the time of expansion. The expansion may be subject to prescribed formalities and other information requirements.
Article 11 Compensation for Losses
Investors of one Contracting Party who suffer losses in respect of covered investments owing to war, a state of national emergency, insurrection, riot or other similar events, shall be accorded treatment by the other Contracting Party, in respect of restitution, indemnification, compensation or other settlement, no less favourable than it accords in like circumstances, to its own investors or to investors of any third State.
Local laws — environmental protection, for example — which are seen as harmful and detrimental to business interests will be considered grounds to submit a claim for compensation.
Article 23 Consent to Arbitration
Each Contracting Party consents to the submission of a claim to arbitration in accordance with the procedures set out in this Agreement. Failure to meet any of the conditions precedent provided for in Article 21 shall nullify that consent.
Disputes won’t be heard in any open or transparent way. Instead arbitration that is largely secret will be resolving disputes.
Article 35 Entry into Force and Termination
1. The Contracting Parties shall notify each other through diplomatic channels that they have completed the internal legal procedures for the entry into force of this Agreement. This Agreement shall enter into force on the first day of the following month after the second notification is received, and shall remain in force for a period of at least fifteen years.
2. After the expiration of the initial fifteen-year period, this Agreement shall continue to be in force. Either Contracting Party may at any time thereafter terminate this Agreement. The termination will be effective one year after notice of termination has been received by the other Contracting Party.
3. With respect to investments made prior to the date of termination of this Agreement, Articles 1 to 34, as well as paragraph 4 of this Article, shall continue to be effective for an additional fifteen-year period from the date of termination.
4. The Annexes and footnotes to this Agreement constitute integral parts of this Agreement.
So the agreement itself lasts for at least 15 years. Then, we are required to give a 1 year notice, at which time, Articles 1 to 34 will lapse in another 15 years. All in all, this agreement will then last a minimum of 31 years. This is an entire generation away from being able to really terminate.
5. What Is Canada Getting With FIPA?
The secrecy shrouding the much-delayed Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) with China makes it hard for experts, let alone average Canadians, to figure out what benefits this country will see from the deal.
-Canadian governments are locked in for a generation. If Canada finds the deal unsatisfactory, it cannot be cancelled completely for 31 years.
-China benefits much more than Canada, because of a clause allowing existing restrictions in each country to stay in place. Chinese companies get to play on a relatively level field in Canada, while maintaining wildly arbitrary practices and rules for Canadian companies in China.
-Chinese companies will be able to seek redress against any laws passed by any level of government in Canada which threaten their profits. Australia has decided not to enter FIPA agreements specifically because they allow powerful corporations to challenge legislation on social, environmental and economic issues. —-Chinese companies investing heavily in Canadian energy will be able seek billions in compensation if their projects are hampered by provincial laws on issues such as environmental concerns or First Nations rights, for example.
-Cases will be decided by a panel of professional arbitrators, and may be kept secret at the discretion of the sued party. This extraordinary provision reflects an aversion to transparency and public debate common to the Harper cabinet and the Chinese politburo.
–Differences between FIPA and the North American Free Trade Agreement may offer intriguing loopholes for American lawyers to argue for equal treatment under the principle of Most Favoured Nation.
The CBC covered the story and raised several legitimate concerns over this deal. Secrecy aside, it’s difficult to see what (if any) real benefits Canada gets from it.
6. China Buying Up Assets Across Canada
This is too long to do justice here, but Canadian laws make it easy for foreigners to buy property in Canada. This applies regardless of whether they live here, or even intend to. The Chinese in particular are taking full advantage of that.
7. Putting China Over Canadians
This isn’t really related to FIPA, but still good to point out: even so-called “populists” can be globalist shills. Here is no different. How does making it easier to import cheap Chinese products keep industries and jobs in Canada? However, China has more freedom and less government in recent decades.
Have to love the mental gymnastics here. CPC Leader Erin O’Toole spoke in support of CANZUK in the 2018 Policy Convention. He explicitly stated he wanted to “let more and more countries” into the agreement. Fast forward 2 years, and he wants to accelerate CANZUK to stop the growing Chinese influence ….. that he supported in 2014. Way to be consistent.
9. Can O’Toole/CPC Actually Be Trusted?
How can anyone trust Erin O’Toole?
(a) He has no qualms about selling sovereignty to China.
(b) He supports CANZUK — and expanding the zone.
(c) CANZUK is now just a way to counter China, who is still here.
(d) Heenan Blaikie was Trudeau Sr.’s and Chretien’s old law firm.
(e) He is an ex-Facebook lobbyist.
(f) He openly shills for foreign powers like Israel.
(g) He supports even more draconian measures than Trudeau.
(h) His Chief of Staff is a Director at Sick Kids Hospital.
(i) CPC supports the temp-to-PR pipeline.
10. Objection To FIPA Pushed, No Real Debate
See here, here and here for original source material. There were people who opposed the sellout by the Conservatives.
11. Conservative Politicians Are Globalists
One would think that “conserving” in the sense of trade meant protecting local industries, and protecting communities from having major employers shipped overseas.
However, that is not the case. What passes for conservatism is really just “corporatism”, putting those interests over that of the local population. There are far more important things than stock prices and overall profits.
Ask them to “conserve” the makeup, culture, language, traditions, or heritage of a country, and that’s being racist. After all, Canada is make up of abstract values (that few can agree on), not any sort of identity.