1) Budget documents going back to 1995, they are available here: https://www.budget.gc.ca/pdfarch/index-eng.html
2) The Debt Management Reports and Fiscal Reference Tables may be useful. I am still looking to see if I can find more. You may want to try reaching out to the Bank of Canada for more information.
3. Second Email Back
Hello again ****,
After asking around, here is what I was told regarding your second question:
Government of Canada marketable debt, which includes treasury bills and marketable bonds, is distributed cost-effectively through competitive auctions to Government Securities Distributors, a group of banks and investment dealers in the domestic market. These Government Securities Distributors then resell securities bought at auctions to their wholesale and retail clients in the secondary market.
Ultimately, the majority of Government of Canada debt is held by Canadian households, institutions and governments. The participation of international investors in Government of Canada securities markets is of benefit to Canadians, as they serve to increase competition, increase the diversity of the Government’s investor base, and ultimately reduce borrowing costs for Canadian taxpayers.
For more information, you may also wish to review the Debt Management Report 2017-2018 (e.g., Chart 9) at https://www.fin.gc.ca/pub/dmr-rgd/index-eng.asp.
Hope this helps.
4. Information On Debt Summary
This chart, and the information from it is provided by the sources which the Ministry of Finance has provided here.
Snapshot of the Federal Balance Sheet, as at March 31, 2018
(marketable bonds, treasury bills, retail debt, and foreign currency debt)
Market debt value adjustments and capital lease obligations
. Other liabilities
Pensions and other liabilities
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities
. Total Liabilities $1,157.4 billion
Less financial assets
$398.6 billion (cash, reserves, loans)
Less non-financial assets
$87.5 billion (capital assets)
$671.3 billion (accumulated deficit)
The staff was helpful enough to direct me to this table, and hence, the data within it. Now, let’s see how much interest or “Public Debt Charges” we have been paying off since 1966.
Cum. Since 1966
Note: This only applies to interest payments on the NATIONAL debt. The Provinces, particularly Ontario and Quebec, have been piling on their own debt.
To be fair, we can largely exclude the payments before 1974, which is when Trudeau Sr. forced fiat banking on Canada. That would remove $14,278M. leaving Canada with $1,210,484 in interest paid as of 2018. $1.21 trillion, just in interest (or public debt charges).
Although I didn’t get names of specific bond holders, it was not a total loss. Our debt is bought an sold, just like a collections agent would do, and about 30% is sold to foreign buyers.
6. No Political Will To End Debt
Although political parties pay lip service to the idea of balancing a budget, they tap-dance around the idea of paying it off.
Why though? If merely “balancing the budget” means paying interest payments forever, why is that all that is talked about? Why is this open-ended drain on the public purse not discussed?
Anyone who has ever held a credit card knows that it is senseless to let the charges keep accumulating. Eventually, the interest and fees will exceed the cost of the initial charge.
So why DON’T politicians want to get rid of our debt? Are these “interest” payments really a form of money laundering? Are they being told (or paid off) not to get rid of the debt?
7. Reason Behind The Debt: Fiat Banking
The idea of dumping central (fiat banking) is never brought up. Even so called “deficit hawks” never address the reason of why this exists is the first place. They never talk about the Bank for International Settlements, nor do they discuss the Basel Committee.
In 1974, Pierre Trudeau changed Canada’s monetary system, and did so without a democratic mandate. Since the 1934 Bank of Canada Act, the Federal Government had effectively been borrowing money from itself. This meant that interest payments amounted to the Canadian public being paid. See PART 1 of the series for more information.
However, since 1974, Canada has been borrowing from private lenders. Quite simply, we now have to pay other parties, instead of ourselves.
The reason for doing this has never been made clear. Vague claims have been made about stability of currency and inflation control. But a cause-and-effect has never actually been demonstrated. Nor has any benefit been shown that would counter the endless repayments, and ever growing debt.
And while this article is aimed at the Federal Government, the Provinces do not get a pass. More on them in another article.
8. Who’s Pushing For Continuation Of Fiat?
Remember this quote from the Ministry of Finance. Though specific people, institutions and parties were not named, it is reasonable to assume that this is a profitable business. After all, it is buying and selling — and reselling — national debt on the open market.
Government of Canada marketable debt, which includes treasury bills and marketable bonds, is distributed cost-effectively through competitive auctions to Government Securities Distributors, a group of banks and investment dealers in the domestic market. These Government Securities Distributors then resell securities bought at auctions to their wholesale and retail clients in the secondary market.
Ultimately, the majority of Government of Canada debt is held by Canadian households, institutions and governments. The participation of international investors in Government of Canada securities markets is of benefit to Canadians, as they serve to increase competition, increase the diversity of the Government’s investor base, and ultimately reduce borrowing costs for Canadian taxpayers.
The Ministry has been contacted again asking for specific names. If they won’t release any, then perhaps a freedom of information request will be needed. However, it’s unwise to drop names without any proof.
It’s reasonable to believe that the people profiting the most from this scheme are the ones pushing to keep fiat going. If any specifics are provided, they will be added as an update.
(This is the Paris Accord, and “Conservative” Garnett Genuis’ dishonest spin in supporting it in Parliament.)
(Shiva Ayyadurai, Republican and former Senate Candidate explains how the Carbon tax really works.)
(UN supports global tax to raise $400B)
(Details of proposed global tax scheme)
(Pensions are also being eyed as a funding source)
(UN Environment Programme)
(Green finance for developing countries)
(International Chamber of Commerce)
(Addis Ababa Action Agenda)
(Global tax avoidance measures)
(Why stop at just billions?)
These are not the only examples, but should serve as an illustration for the “taxation” efforts the UN is undertaking in order to finance its various agendas. Of course its ultimate goal is world domination.
1. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for New Development Financing: Carbon Tax $250B/year CLICK HERE, for UN “Int’l Tax” To Raise $400B. CLICK HERE, for Paris Accord “Financial Flows”. CLICK HERE, for Addis Ababa, Financing Devel’t. CLICK HERE, for Int’l Chamber of Commerce, Tax, SDA Goals. CLICK HERE, for ICC Position on Tax, SDA Goals. CLICK HERE, for Green Financing, Sustainable Development. CLICK HERE, for Development Financing, “Cooperation” To Combat Tax Avoidance. CLICK HERE, for Leveraging African Pension Plans. CLICK HERE, for Finance 2030 SDG, $5-7T Needed. CLICK HERE, for UN Tax Treaties Changes. CLICK HERE, for: From Billions To Trillions CLICK HERE, for Sustainable Financing Report. CLICK HERE, for UN Enviro Program, Finance Initiative. CLICK HERE, for Capital Development Finance. CLICK HERE, for UN Join Staff Pension Fund. CLICK HERE, for the UN Credit Union
CLICK HERE, for earlier review of Paris Accord. CLICK HERE, for previous article debunking Paris Accord CLICK HERE, for review New Development Financing. CLICK HERE, for New Development Financing, the bait-and-switch.
CLICK HERE, for a recent article by Uppity Peasants on the UN Environment Programme. Also, go check out the site. CLICK HERE, for a guest post by: BOLD Like a Leopard. This covered the “Green New Deal”, the US proposal.
2. Paris Accord Is All About Taxation
This is not an exaggeration, or hyperbole. The entire point of the agreement is to generate an enormous slush fund. The UN IPCC and select partners can then put that money into the commodities market and make trillions from it.
If you have any doubts about that, read Article 9 from the Paris Agreement. It spells out the “financial flow” in no uncertain terms.
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 stock take 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.
These are quotes directly from the Paris Accord. In particular, Article 9 makes it abundantly clear that this is all about “financial flow” and a transfer of wealth from the developed world to the developing world.
Actual environmental changes seem almost to be an afterthought. This is a giant wealth transfer scheme.
3. New Development Finance, Bait-and-Switch
Okay, what are these “revenue sources”?
SDR (or special drawing rights), from IMF $150B-$270B
Carbon taxes, $240B
Leveraging SDR, $90B
Financial transaction tax, $10B-70B
Billionaire tax, $90B
Currency trading tax, $30B
EU emissions trading scheme, $5B
Air passenger levy, $10B
Certified emission reduction tax, $2B
Current ODA Flow, $120B
If these numbers are accurate, then the US is viewed as a cash cow somewhere to the tune of $627 billion to $807 billion. Yes, this only refers to revenue potential from the United States. I believe this is annually.
What does the report say about SDAs?
These include taxes on financial and currency transactions and on greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the creation of new international liquidity through issuance of special drawing rights (SDRs) by the International Monetary Fund IMF), to be allocated with a bias favouring developing countries or leveraged as development financing. Though their potential may be high, these proposals are subject to political controversy. For instance, many countries are not willing to support international forms of taxation, as these are said to undermine national sovereignty.
No kidding. There is a lot of political opposition to taxes which are deemed to undermine national sovereignty. Could that be because these taxes AREN’T being used to support the well being of the citizenry? Instead the money is being funnelled out of the country in the name of some global good project.
This is how bait-and-switch works:
(1) Raise money using cause A.
(2) Actually spend the money on cause B.
An array of other options with large fundraising potential have been proposed (see figure O.1 and table O.1), but have not been agreed upon internationally thus far. These include taxes on financial and currency transactions and on greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the creation of new international liquidity through issuance of special drawing rights (SDRs) by the International Monetary Fund IMF), to be allocated with a bias favouring developing countries or leveraged as development financing. Though their potential may be high, these proposals are subject to political controversy. For instance, many countries are not willing to support international forms of taxation, as these are said to undermine national sovereignty.
(Page 86) Debt-conversion mechanisms Debt conversion entails the cancellation by one or more creditors of part of a country’s debt in order to enable the release of funds which would otherwise have been used for debt-servicing, for use instead in social or environmental projects. Where debt is converted at a discount with respect to its face value, only part of the proceeds fund the projects, the remainder reducing the external debt burden, typically as part of a broader debt restructuring.
Debt to developing nations can be “forgiven”, at least partly, if certain conditions are met. However, the obvious question must be asked:
Can nations be loaned money they could never realistically pay back, in order to ensure their compliance in UN or other global agenda, by agreeing to “forgive” part of it?
(Page 86) Debt conversion first emerged, in the guise of debt-for-nature swaps, during the 1980s debt crisis, following an opinion article by Thomas Lovejoy, then Executive Vice-President of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), in the New York Times in 1984. Lovejoy argued that a developing country’s external debt could be reduced (also providing tax relief to participating creditor banks) in exchange for the country’s taking measures to address environmental challenges. Estimates based on Sheikh (2010) and Buckley, ed. (2011) suggest that between $1.1 billion and $1.5 billion of debt has been exchanged through debt-for-nature swaps since the mid–1980s, although it is not possible to assess how much of this constitutes IDF, for the reasons discussed in box III.1.
If debt can be forgiven in return for environmental measures, then why not simply fund these environmental measures from the beginning? Is it to pressure or coerce otherwise unwilling nations into agreeing with such measures?
There have been two basic forms of debt-for-nature exchanges (Buckley and Freeland, 2011). In the first, part of a country’s external debt is purchased by an environmental non-governmental organization and offered to the debtor for cancellation in exchange for a commitment to protect a particular area of land. Such transactions occurred mainly in the late 1980s and 1990s and were generally relatively small-scale. An early example was a 1987 deal under which Conservation International, a Washington, D.C.-based environmental non-governmental organization, bought $650,000 of the commercial bank debt of Bolivia (now Plurinational State of Bolivia) in the secondary market for $100,000, and exchanged this for shares in a company established to preserve 3.7 million acres of forest and grassland surrounding the Beni Biosphere Reserve in the north-east part of the country. In the second form, debt is exchanged for local currency (often at a discount), which is then used by local conservation groups or government agencies to fund projects in the debtor country. Swaps of this kind are generally much larger, and have predominated since the 1990s. The largest such swap came in 1991, when a group of bilateral creditors agreed to channel principal and interest payments of $473 million (in local currency) into Poland’s Ecofund set up to finance projects designed to counter environmental deterioration. The EcoFund financed 1,500 programmes between 1992 and 2007, providing grants for conservation projects relating to cross-border air pollution, climate change, biological diversity and the clean-up of the Baltic Sea (Buckley and Freeland, 2011).
We will “forgive” your debt if:
(1) A portion of your land is off limits; or
(2) Debt converted to currency to fund “projects”
The entire document is 178 pages. While a tedious read, it’s worthwhile.
4. UN Wants $400B In Global Taxation
New York, 5 July 2012 –The United Nations is proposing an international tax, combined with other innovative financing mechanisms, to raise more than $400 billion annually for development and global challenges such as fighting climate change. In its annual report on global development, World Economic and Social Survey 2012: In Search of New Development Finance, (WESS 2012) launched today, the UN says, in the midst of difficult financial times, many donor countries have cut back on development assistance. In 2011, for the first time in many years, aid flows declined in real terms
The survey finds that the financial needs of developing countries have long outstripped the willingness and ability of donors to provide aid. And finding the necessary resources to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and meet other global challenges, such as addressing climate change, will be tough, especially for least developed countries.
The need for additional and more predictable financing has led to a search for new sources not as a substitute for aid, but as a complement to it. A number of innovative initiatives have been launched during the past decade, mainly to fund global health programmes aimed at providing immunizations, AIDS and tuberculosis treatments to millions of people in the developing world. The UN survey finds that while these initiatives have successfully used new methods to channel development financing to combat diseases, they have hardly yielded any additional funding on top of traditional development assistance.
This source explains it straight from the horse’s mouth. The UN is not taking in enough money for its various schemes. In fact, real contributions are shrinking. Therefore it is necessary to come up with new and innovative ways to tax developed nations.
Of course one of the most common ways is with the “climate change” scam. But it is hardly the only one. The UN views many forms of wealth simply as money to tap into.
5. UN Eyeing Up African Pensions
(Page 10) III. PENSION FUNDS DIRECT INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE
International experience At 36.6 percent of GDP, assets of the pension funds in OECD countries are relatively large. As of end-2013, pension-fund assets were even in excess of 100 percent in countries such as the Netherlands, Iceland, Switzerland, Australia, and the United Kingdom (Figure 1). In absolute terms, pension funds in OECD countries held $10.4 trillion of assets. While large pension funds (LPFs) held about $3.9 trillion of assets, assets in public and private sector and public pension reserves (PPRFs) stood at $6.5 trillion.
(Page 30) C. Policy framework for investment in infrastructure Pension funds—just like other investors, domestic and foreign—need a fair, transparent, clear, and predictable policy framework to invest in infrastructure and other assets. This is important as infrastructure assets have a number of characteristics that increase investors’ perception of risk. First, infrastructure projects typically involve economies of scale and often lead to natural monopolies with high social benefits and, at times, lower private returns. As a result, infrastructure projects may require heavy government involvement. Second, infrastructure projects are often large and long-lived with a significant initial investment but with cash flows that accrue over a long horizon.
In this regard, improving the policy framework for investment can be useful to countries seeking to develop the investor base for infrastructure. For instance, the OECD’s Policy Framework for Investment (PFI) uses self-assessments and/or an external assessment by the OECD to help a country elaborate policies for capacity building and private sector development strategies, and inform the regional dialogue (OECD, 2015b). The PFI’s investment policy refers not only to domestic laws, regulations, and policies relating to investment but also goals and expectations concerning the contribution of investment to sustainable development, such as infrastructure
(Page 31) D. Infrastructure financing instruments available to pension funds Even in well-performing pension systems where the governance, regulation, and supervision of pension funds are conducive to investment in infrastructure and there is a sound policy framework for investment, there is still a need for adequate instruments to channel pension fund assets into the infrastructure sector. Pension funds can use a number of channels to invest in infrastructure. Direct exposure is gained mainly through the unlisted equity instruments (direct investment in projects and infrastructure funds) and project bonds, while indirect exposure is normally associated with listed equity and corporate debt. More specifically, pension funds can rely on a number of options such as
The paper itself is quite long, but here is the gist of it. The UN wants to take African pension funds and use them to “invest” it UN type of schemes.
While this seems harmless enough, remember the Paris Accord. The UN thinks nothing of taxing the developed world hundreds of billions of dollars under false pretenses in order to invest in the commodities market. Nor does the UN object to giving “infrastructure loans” to nations that will likely never be able to pay it back.
It should alarm people that an organization with no inherent loyalty to the region would want to use African pension funds to finance its own agenda.
6. UN Environment Programme (UNEP)
United Nations Environment Programme – Finance Initiative (UNEP FI) is a partnership between United Nations Environment and the global financial sector created in the wake of the 1992 Earth Summit with a mission to promote sustainable finance. More than 250 financial institutions, including banks, insurers, and investors, work with UN Environment to understand today’s environmental, social and governance challenges, why they matter to finance, and how to actively participate in addressing them.
UNEP FI’s work also includes a strong focus on policy – by facilitating country-level dialogues between finance practitioners, supervisors, regulators and policy-makers, and, at the international level, by promoting financial sector involvement in processes such as the global climate negotiations.
Keep in mind the “New Development Financing” agenda discussed earlier. Money is taken and used to “invest” in 3rd World Development Programs. Countries that are unable to pay back are forced either to give up sovereignty, or comply with other arrangements.
Banks are in the business of making money. Alternatively, they are in the business of acquiring assets which can be converted into money, or otherwise make them money. What if this banking alliance has no altruistic roots, and is meant to be predatory?
Make no mistake, this is exactly what happens to these people, by the way. One cross-country comparison between microloan recipients in Bangladesh and payday loan recipients in Canada found that both ‘products’ tend to attract the same kinds of people to them from very similar backgrounds, for largely the same reasons — i.e., neither group tends to use these loans for re-investment, such as starting a business; rather, they use them to cover day-to-day expenses at exorbitant interest rates, thus entrapping themselves in a cycle of never ending debt (Islam & Simpson, 2018). If you know how bad the consequences of payday lending can be for people in the first world, imagine how bad it is for someone who’s already living in third world-levels of poverty.
Now, part of the reason why the UNEP, of all possible agencies, is so heavily invested (emotionally and literally) into fintech and other start-up technologies is because many of the “incumbent banks” — the top-players of our current system — don’t think that completely up-ending the global financial system to move the focus away from profits and toward complying with heavy-handed, UN-decided environmental regulations is a particularly attractive road to go down. In the next excerpt, the UNEP openly admit that start-ups in this area are better to invest in for the pursuit of ‘change’, specifically because their owners tend to be new to the world of business and, as such, don’t know enough about what they’re doing to avoid being manipulated — and that’s where the UNEP comes in.
Uppity Peasants argues that the UNEP is driven much more on a business model than on any kind altruistic path. Further, the circumstances which the aid recipients require the resources to cover essential expenses means they are unable to invest anything. This is similar to a payday loan type of system.
7. Green Finance For 3rd World $5-7 Trillion
(Page 13)In 2015, governments adopted three major agreements that set out their vision for the coming decades: a new set of 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs), the Paris Agreement on climate change and the ‘financing for development’ package. Finance is central to realizing all three agreements – and these now need to be translated into practical steps suited to each country’s circumstances.
Sustainable Energy for All estimates that annual global investments in energy will need to scale up from roughly US$400 billion at present to US $1-1.25 trillion. Of that, US$40-100 billion annually is needed to achieve universal access to electricity. Overall, US $5-7 trillion a year is needed to implement the SDGs globally. Developing countries are estimated to face an annual investment gap of US$2.5 trillion in areas such as infrastructure, clean energy, water and sanitation, and agriculture.
(Page 14) The challenge for financial systems is twofold: to mobilize finance for specific sustainable development priorities and to mainstream sustainable development factors across financial decision-making.
Capital needs to be mobilized for inclusion of underserved groups (e.g. small and medium enterprises), raising capital for sustainable infrastructure (e.g. energy, housing, transport, urban design) and financing critical areas of innovation (e.g. agriculture, mobility, power).
Sustainability needs to become mainstream for financial institutions. This starts with ensuring market integrity (e.g. tax, corruption, human rights) and extends to integrating environmental and social (E&S) factors into risk management (e.g. climate disruption, water stress). Sustainability also needs to be incorporated into the responsibilities and reporting of market actors to guide their decision-making. Momentum is building to align financial systems with the financing needs of an inclusive, sustainable economy. This is complementary to ‘real economy’ actions such as environmental regulations, reform of perverse subsidies and changes to resource pricing. However, while these are critical, it is increasingly recognized that changes are also needed in the financial system to ensure that it is both more stable and more connected to the real economy.
Some interesting points here:
$5 to $7 trillion (yes trillion) needed annually fulfill these goals. The billions stated before was lowballed.
The “sustainability” agenda needs mass marketing.
Finance needed for:
17 goals of Agenda 2030
Paris Climate Accord
Finance for development
3 above items to be integral part of national agendas.
Most of this has nothing to do with the environment
In fact, it reads like a global version of the US Green New Deal, proposed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In fact, her Chief of Staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, admitted it was about changing the economy, not the environment.
8. International Chamber Of Commerce
THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ICC is the world’s largest business organization with a network of over 6 million members in more than 130 countries. We work to promote international trade, responsible business conduct and a global approach to regulation through a unique mix of advocacy and standard setting activities—together with market-leading dispute resolution services. Our members include many of the world’s largest companies, SMEs, business associations and local chambers of commerce.
We are the world business organization.
That quote came from their policy guide. Pretty straightforward. They want to run business on a global level. Now, let’s get to the meat and potatoes, the tax proposals:
Interplay between tax policy making and economic growth The world’s population is predicted to increase by 2 billion people by 2050, and the population of the world’s least developed countries is projected to double by 2053, in some countries even tripling. By 2025 half of the world’s population will be living in water-stressed areas. Under such circumstances, the need for large-scale investment in economic growth and development becomes evident.
Whilst there is no panacea, it is evident that greater alignment of investment and tax policies would be essential in promoting investment, job creation and economic growth. International commerce remains a powerful mechanism to help lift people out of poverty. Tax is intrinsically linked to development as taxation provides the revenue that states need to mobilize resources and reinforce a country’s infrastructure. Taxation “provides a predictable and stable flow of revenue to finance public spending, and shapes the environment in which investment, employment and trade takes place.”
Further, it is important to have a fair, efficient, and effective revenue collection infrastructure to promote economic and social development. Domestic resource mobilization (DRM) has been proposed as a way to meet the SDGs with the development finance already available. However, DRM can be impeded by unclear and confusing tax systems. It is imperative that companies are able to move products and services into areas where they are most needed without unnecessary administrative impediments.
Having a reliable and consistent taxation policy seems reasonable enough. However, the ICC is not being clear on the reason behind the push. They want better taxation methods in order to INCREASE the amount of revenue available.
Governments often side with these groups, even when it is not in the best interests of the citizens themselves. “Investment” dollars are then shovelled into infrastructure projects.
Tax the people, so that the money can be “properly” spent, as the UN and their partners see fit.
9. Addis Ababa Action Agenda
(Page 10) DOMESTIC PUBLIC RESOURCE
For all countries, public policies and the mobilization and effective use of domestic resources, underscored by the principle of national ownership, are central to our common pursuit of sustainable development, including achieving the sustainable development goals. Building on the considerable achievements in many countries since Monterrey, we remain committed to further strengthening the mobilization and effective use of domestic resources
(Page 10) 22. We recognize that significant additional domestic public resources, supplemented by international assistance as appropriate, will be critical to realizing sustainable development and achieving the sustainable development goals. We commit to enhancing revenue administration through modernized, progressive tax systems, improved tax policy and more efficient tax collection. We will work to improve the fairness, transparency, efficiency and effectiveness of our tax systems, including by broadening the tax base and continuing efforts to integrate the informal sector into the formal economy in line with country circumstances.
23. We will redouble efforts to substantially reduce illicit financial flows by 2030, with a view to eventually eliminating them, including by combating tax evasion and corruption through strengthened national regulation and increased international cooperation. We will also reduce opportunities for tax avoidance, and consider inserting anti-abuse clauses in all tax treaties. We will enhance disclosure practices and transparency in both source and destination countries, including by seeking to ensure transparency in all financial transactions between Governments and companies to relevant tax authorities. We will make sure that all companies, including multinationals, pay taxes to the Governments of countries where economic activity occurs and value is created, in accordance with national and international laws and policies
(Page 13) 27. We commit to scaling up international tax cooperation. We encourage countries, in accordance with their national capacities and circumstances, to work together to strengthen transparency and adopt appropriate policies, including multinational enterprises reporting country-by-country to tax authorities where they operate; access to beneficial ownership information for competent authorities; and progressively advancing towards automatic exchange of tax information among tax authorities as appropriate, with assistance to developing countries, especially the least developed, as needed. Tax incentives can be an appropriate policy tool. However, to end harmful tax practices, countries can engage in voluntary discussions on tax incentives in regional and international forums.
(Page 45) 98. We affirm the importance of debt restructurings being timely, orderly, effective, fair and negotiated in good faith. We believe that a workout from a sovereign debt crisis should aim to restore public debt sustainability, while preserving access to financing resources under favourable conditions. We further acknowledge that successful debt restructurings enhance the ability of countries to achieve sustainable development and the sustainable development goals. We continue to be concerned with non-cooperative creditors who have demonstrated their ability to disrupt timely completion of the debt restructurings.
In no way does this cover the entire document. However, there are 3 themes which get repeated over and over again.
Efficient tax collection
Global tax regulations and data sharing
“Sustainable” debt and borrowing
There is very little in this document, about actually improving lives, improving infrastructure, or improving the environment. Instead, it is all about implementing a global taxation system, while eliminating “off the books”, or illicit cash.
10. Global Tax Avoidance Measures
Exchange of information for tax purposes Exchange of information has long been included as a feature of tax treaty models. By agreeing to exchange information with respect to taxpayers, countries can become more aware of the global activities taxpayers are engaging in and impose tax that should be due.
The upcoming 2017 revision of the United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention between Developed and Developing countries is expected to bring a new revised version of the exchange of information provision, following the approval of the new United Nations Code of Conduct. The Committee agreed in 2016 to a proposal for a United Nations Code of Conduct on Cooperation in Combating International Tax Evasion. This Code supports the automatic exchange of information for tax purposes as the way forward for countries generally, but recognizes that it is vital for developing countries to exchange information, even if they are not ready for automatic exchange. The Code of Conduct has been approved by the Committee of Experts in 2016, and set automatic exchange of information as the new universal standard after ECOSOC adopted the Code of Conduct in a Resolution in 2017, during the ECOSOC Special Meeting on International Cooperation on Tax Matters. .Furthermore, the OECD model convention and commentaries is expected to broaden the scope of the exchange of information article to allow triangular, or multi-party exchange of information requests.
While this certainly sounds like some well meaning way to prevent money laundering and tax fraud, there is another angle to look at.
Having a global (or at least more centralized) database of people and their taxable income will allow for more efficient and effective tax collection. This is especially true whenever a new “development project” needs funding.
Furthermore, if there is such a global system, it will be easier to determine who isn’t paying “their fair share” when it comes to contributions. Those national governments can then act accordingly. Also, who doesn’t view this as becoming a global version of Revenue Canada, or the American IRS?
11. From Billions To Trillions (SF 2.0)
Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will require an enormous increase in external financing flows to developing countries. Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) have gradually started to shift their business model towards de-risking services to crowd in long-term, low-risk private capital. However, the targeted scaling up of private investment from billions to trillions to realise the SDGs contains massive risks for stability. And good macro-policies are needed, in turn, to address such underlying risks. Countries that need the greatest amount of development finance are often those that have domestic financial resource constraints and underdeveloped markets. Financing their growth and investment opportunities makes the management of exchange rate risks, which are inherent in development finance, a critical challenge.
Merely supplying development finance is not enough. It needs to be done in socially and economically sustainable ways, where risks are allocated to those who can best manage and sustain them. Efficient use of limited public resources, through improved policies and regulatory processes, is required to achieve the SDGs and related efforts. Governments around the world must work together to offer feasible business opportunities to the private sector that are in line with domestic and international development objectives. Only with such coordinated action will we succeed in moving from billions to trillions to realise sustainable progress for all.
This article should serve as a warning to anyone who thinks that this global development system is going to be steady. Wrong. Once considered “fully operational”, the next step is to upscale it, and make it far bigger.
It is not governments who will be paying for these globalist schemes. It is the working class tax-payers who will see more and more of their wealth transferred to these projects.
Of course, once your money leaves Canadian soil, there is little to no accountability or control over what happens to it. But that it routinely downplayed.
12. What To Make From All This?
To state the obvious: these agendas and agreements are bringing nations towards a global taxation model. Countries (presumably under UN control) will be expected to share data on tax paying citizens and other people earning money. While this is touted as an anti-tax avoidance measure, the real goal is making sure the global order accounts for all money and where it goes.
Going towards a “cashless society” also helps in that regard. Hence the push for more and more electronic options, while making cash payments more difficult.
Beyond enforcement, knowing which nations have money and how much will make it easier to determine who shall pay how much as their “fair share” of future projects. We won’t have nations in the traditional sense, just shareholders.
International agreements like the Paris Accord have nothing to do with the environment. That is just the sales pitch. Instead, it an excuse to funnel huge sums of money to the UN to finance their business model. It is taking advantage of an altruistic goal.
This is about having a globalist, centralized economy and taxation. The environmental and humanitarian claims are just talking points.
(Peterson deplatforms Faith Goldy at free speech event)
(Peterson’s free speech cognitive dissonance)
(Peterson threatens to sue a critic)
(Peterson files frivolous lawsuit against Laurier University)
Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.
PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE
All personal court appearances are under “BLOG”
Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.
CLICK HERE, for a link to the document. CLICK HERE, for Jordan Peterson’s own website. CLICK HERE, for “Karma”, Peterson’s book getting banned in New Zealand.
Note: At the risk of this looking like a hit-piece, the right in Canada should be very wary about embracing this “free speech” warrior as one of their own.
And what did this work ultimately contribute to?
Raised and toughened in the frigid wastelands of Northern Alberta, Dr. Peterson has flown a hammer-head roll in a carbon-fiber stuntplane, piloted a mahogany racing sailboat around Alcatraz Island, explored an Arizona meteorite crater with a group of astronauts, built a Native American Long-House on the upper floor of his Toronto home, and been inducted into a Pacific Kwakwaka’wakw family (see charlesjoseph.ca). He’s been a dishwasher, gas jockey, bartender, short-order cook, beekeeper, oil derrick bit re-tipper, plywood mill laborer and railway line worker. He’s taught mythology to physicians, lawyers, and businessmen; worked with Jim Balsillie, former CEO of Blackberry’s Research in Motion, on Resilient People, Resilient Planet, the report of the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Global Sustainability; helped his clinical clients manage the triumphs and catastrophes of life; served as an advisor to senior partners of major Canadian law firms; penned the forward for the 50th anniversary edition of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago; lectured to more than 250,000 people across North America, Europe and Australia in one of the most-well attended book tours ever mounted; and, for The Founder Institute, identified thousands of promising entrepreneurs, in 60 different countries.
So What’s In This Report?
Disclaimer: The members of the panel endorse the report and generally agree with its findings. The members think that the message of this report is very important. The recommendations and the vision represent the consensus the panel members reached, but not every view expressed in this report reflects the views of all individual panel members. panel members naturally have different perspectives on some issues. if each panel member had individually attempted to write this report, she or he might have used different terms to express similar points. The panel members look forward to the report stimulating wide public dialogue and strengthening the common endeavour to promote global sustainable development.
Let’s set this straight. The members, by and large, support the content of the report. Althought there may be small discrepancies, on the whole they agree with the content.
The panel also wishes to thank the civil society organizations that shared their valuable ideas and views during a series of consultations coordinated by the United Nations Non-Governmental liaison service. The full list of contributors from civil society is available from www.un-ngls.org/gsp. furthermore, the panel interacted at various meetings with senior representatives of the following organizations: civicUs: World alliance for citizen participation, eTc Group, the Global campaign for climate action, the huairou commission, oxfam international, stakeholder forum, sustainUs and the World resources institute.
Interesting list of “organizations” that shared their views.
Priority Areas For action Include:
• delivering on the fundamentals of development: international commitments to eradicate poverty, promote human rights and human security and advance gender equality
• advancing education for sustainable development, including secondary and vocational education, and building of skills to help ensure that all of society can contribute to solutions that address today’s challenges and capitalize on opportunities
• creating employment opportunities, especially for women and youth, to drive green and sustainable growth
• enabling consumers to make sustainable choices and advance responsible behaviour individually and collectively
• Managing resources and enabling a twenty-first-century green revolution: agriculture, oceans and coastal systems, energy and technology, international cooperation
• building resilience through sound safety nets, disaster risk reduction and adaptation planning
1/ As with all UN causes, a virtue signal towards human rights and gender equality.
2/ Advancing education? Propaganda in the classrooms?
3/ Make work projects with age and gender quotas. Okay.
4/ Advance responsible behaviour? Will there be some sort of “social credit system”?
5/ Environmental systems to be managed globally
6/ Disaster reduction, as in climate change I assume
Policy Action Needed On
• incorporating social and environmental costs in regulating and pricing of goods and services, as well as addressing market failures
• creating an incentive road map that increasingly values long-term sustainable development in investment and financial transactions
• increasing finance for sustainable development, including public and private funding and partnerships to mobilize large volumes of new financing
• expanding how we measure progress in sustainable development by creating a sustainable development index or set of indicators
This is going to be a globalist money pit, with cash flooding from all over the world to achieve some vague goals. And regulating the costs of goods and services? How very Communistic of you.
(Page 50, Box 13): The Growing Use of Emissions Trading
“cap and trade” emissions trading systems allow environmental damage to be reflected in market prices. by capping emissions, they guarantee that the desired level of emission reduction is achieved; and by allowing trading, they give business the flexibility to find the cheapest solutions, while rewarding investment in low-carbon technologies and innovation.
This is the climate change scam on steroids. Carbon dioxide is not pollution, despite what the UN says. Under this scheme, “pollution” can be offset by buying credits, which of course does nothing to actually reduce emissions.
(Page 64): Institutionalised Governance
The present section examines aspects of governance and coherence for sustainable development at the national and global levels. it also pays special attention to holding all actors accountable for achieving sustainable development, and many of the recommendations put forward are designed to strengthen accountability at all decision making levels
This is taking the actual decision making ability away from the people who are elected by and accountable to their citizens.
(Page 30) Education
67. investing in education and training provides a direct channel to advancing the sustainable development agenda. it is widely recognized as a tremendously efficient means to promote individual empowerment and lift generations out of poverty, and it yields important development benefits for young people, particularly women.
68. primary education for all, in particular, is a precondition for sustainable development. despite real progress, we are still not on track to achieving Millennium development Goal 2 by ensuring that all children, boys and girls alike, achieve a full course of primary schooling by 2015. instead, 67 million children of primary school age remain out of school and are still not receiving a primary education. The gap is especially critical for girls, who as of 2008 still made up more than 53 per cent of the out-of-school population. basic education is essential to overcoming barriers to their future employment and political participation, as women presently constitute roughly two thirds of the 793 million adult illiterates worldwide.
69. The Millennium development Goal on universal primary education has not yet been met, owing in part to insufficient funds, although other barriers exist. international means to supplement funds and support local and national efforts could help to overcome challenges such as teacher shortages and lack of infrastructure. The World bank’s Global partnership for education provides one model to help countries develop and implement sound education strategies.
70. While primary education is the foundation of development, post-primary and secondary education and vocational training are as crucial in building a sustainable future. every added year of education in developing countries increases an individual’s income by 10 per cent or more on average. studies also show that women in developing countries who complete secondary school have on average one child fewer than women who complete only primary school, leading to more economic wealth within families and decreased intergenerational poverty. Moreover, post-primary education based on a curriculum designed to develop key competencies for a twenty-first-century economy — such as ecosystem management, science, technology and engineering — can encourage innovation and accelerate technology transfer, as well as provide skills vital for new green jobs. yet today it is estimated that fewer than a quarter of children complete secondary school.
I can’t be the only one thinking that this “global” education push will just lead to propaganda to be used against children. Rather than teaching the basics, kids will be indoctrinated about how to be good global citizens.
Also worth noting, wherever this education takes root, it leads to young children being exposed to highly sexual content.
4. (Page 54) Innovative Sources of Financing
158. other innovative sources of financing can be used at the global, regional or national level as a way of pricing externalities, as well as of generating revenue that can be used to finance other aspects of sustainability. The reform of tax systems to shift taxation away from employment and towards consumption and resource use can help incentivize greener, more resource-efficient growth. Tax deductions to incentivize sustainable behaviour can also be highly effective.
159. While the political acceptability of innovative sources of finance and new fiscal measures will vary by country, as past efforts have shown, recent years have seen particular attention paid to the potential for this kind of approach to be used at the global level. The panel discussed and agreed on the need to further explore new areas of innovative sources of finance. This could build on, for instance, the work of the high-level advisory Group of the secretary-General on climate change financing. in terms of sources, a number of categories were identified by the advisory Group (see box 16).
160. a number of important sectors of the global economy are currently untaxed, despite the externalities they generate; these include emissions from fossil fuel combustion in the international maritime and aviation sectors. a tax on the most important energy-related greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, would be another economically efficient means of addressing externalities.
161. governments should establish price signals that value sustainability to guide the consumption and investment decisions of households, businesses and the public sector. in particular, governments could:
a. establish natural resource and externality pricing instruments, including carbon pricing, through mechanisms such as taxation, regulation or emissions trading systems, by 2020;
b. ensure that policy development reflects the positive benefits of the inclusion of women, youth and the poor through their full participation in and contribution to the economy, and also account for the economic, environmental and social costs;
c. reform national fiscal and credit systems to provide long-term incentives for sustainable practices, as well as disincentives for unsustainable behaviour;
d. Develop and expand national and international schemes for payments for ecosystem services in such areas as water use, farming, fisheries and forestry systems;
e. Address price signals that distort the consumption and investment decisions of households, businesses and the public sector and undermine sustainability values. governments should move towards the transparent disclosure of all subsidies, and should identify and remove those subsidies which cause the greatest detriment to natural, environmental and social resources;
f. Phase out fossil fuel subsidies and reduce other perverse or trade-distorting subsidies by 2020. The reduction of subsidies must be accomplished in a manner that protects the poor and eases the transition for affected groups when the products or services concerned are essential.
This is all about finding new ways to tax people, and regulate their behaviour. Absolutely leads to complete government control. Worst of all, it wouldn’t even be our government doing the regulating.
The review will stop here, but please read through the document in its entirety. Anyone who supports it is no friend of freedom, or of sovereignty.
Political activity audits of charities suspended by Liberals
Panel report says charities should be free to engage in politics, minister suspends infamous audit program
While this “looks” like a victory for free speech and political engagement, one has to ask how tainted charities will become when their income is influenced by who gets into power.
The Liberal government is suspending the few remaining political activity audits of charities after an expert panel report recommended removing a political gag order imposed on them by the Conservatives five years ago.
As an immediate first step to respond to the panel’s recommendations, National Revenue Minister Diane Lebouthillier “has asked the CRA to suspend all action in relation to the remaining audits and objections that were part of the Political Activities Audit Program, initiated in 2012,” a release Thursday said.
The panel report, also released Thursday, and the suspension together appear to end a long chill for charities that began in 2012, when the Conservative government launched 60 political activity audits, starting with environmental groups that had criticized federal energy and pipeline policies.
This actually makes sense. When political advocacy groups cloak themselves as charities, the lines get blurred and its dangerous.
The program cost environmental, anti-poverty, human-rights and religious charities significant staff resources and legal fees, and brought an “advocacy chill” to the sector, with many groups self-censoring lest they be caught in the Canada Revenue Agency’s net or annoy their auditors.
The Liberal Party campaigned in the 2015 election to end the “political harassment” of charities, but once elected did not quite end the program. Instead, the new government cancelled six of the political activity audits that were yet to be launched, but allowed audits already underway to continue.
That left groups such as Environmental Defence and Canada Without Poverty, which were deemed too political by CRA, still under immediate threat of losing their charitable status. Thursday’s announcement lifts that threat, at least until the government responds to the panel recommendations.
The five-member panel, chaired by Marlene Deboisbriand on the board of Imagine Canada, says Canada’s charity law and regulations are too restrictive and vague. It calls for changes to the Income Tax Act to delete any reference to “political activities” with regard to charities.
For what it’s worth, it is still worthwhile to know if the charity in question is a charity, and to what degree it engages in political activities. Of course, the same could be said for religious groups.
The panel report, based on wide consultations last fall, also said there was broad consensus in the charity sector that partisan activities — endorsing particular candidates or parties — should remain forbidden.
The proposed changes would eliminate current rules that restrict a charity’s political activities to 10 per cent of their resources. Critics have argued the rules are unclear on definitions of what constitutes a political act.
No kidding, charities shouldn’t be endorsing political candidates or parties. And 10% is actually a lot. If a “charity” spends a good chunk of their money lobbying for government, shouldn’t they register as such?
The revenue minister’s decision to suspend political activity audits, as recommended by the panel report Thursday, amounts to an abrupt about-face. Last year, Lebouthillier refused to intervene, saying the “independence of the charity directorate’s oversight role is a fundamental principle that must be protected.”
To be clear, I have no issue with people getting involved in politics. However, there are considerable financial and tax advantages to being classified as a “charity”. If the groups in questions really are lobbying politically, then it puts them on an unlevel playing field.
Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.
CLICK HERE, for the Morgane Oger Foundation. CLICK HERE, for MFO information on hate crimes. CLICK HERE, for the GlobalNews article on MFO’s agenda CLICK HERE, for Federal Liberals contemplating censorship under the guise of “removing extremist content”. CLICK HERE, for Proud Boys lawsuit against SPLC. CLICK HERE, for SPLC’s so called “hate-map”
What is the Morgane Oger Foundation?
The Morgane Oger Foundation is a small volunteer-driven organization entirely run and funded by people who care about justice and inclusion, like you. We focus on opportunities to reduce prejudice-driven inequality in Canada a few projects at a time and pride ourselves with a 100% success rate to date. We are working on several initiatives where we feel we can best help change things for the better..
Sounds harmless and well meaning enough. Let’s see some details.
“An advocacy organization says it wants to map hatred and discrimination across Canada in a move that is prompting warnings of caution from one civil liberties group.
The Vancouver-based Morgane Oger Foundation has issued a call for volunteers to help build the Canadian Atlas of Populist Extremism, to be known as CAPE.
Founder Morgane Oger said the mapping tool would tie together extremist groups and people regularly associated with them, and also map incidents involving hate across Canada.
The idea is to shed light on how hatred is propagated, she said, while being mindful that allegations can’t be tossed out willy-nilly.
“We can’t say someone is a murderer unless they are in fact a murderer, but maybe it would be interesting to see it’s always the same dozen people who are doing anti-trans advocacy in the (B.C.) Interior or the white supremacy groups are working with each other,” said Oger, a former provincial NDP candidate and a member of the party’s executive.
1/ Okay, nice to know they won’t make false accusations of being a murderer unless the person actually is one. However, that is where the reasonableness seems to end.
2/ The examples cited are vague at best.
(a) So called trans activists seem to think “everything” is transphobia. Express any doubt about transgender children, or the never ending demands for accommodation, and you’re a bigot.
(b) Also what white supremacist groups? To left wing activists, anyone opposing open borders or forced multiculturalism is a white supremacist apparently.
3/Serious question: will create this “hate network” lead to innocent people being doxed for no other reason than you have different opinions? Seem very intolerant.
4/ A call for volunteers? What screening will be put in place to ensure that these people don’t have malintent and are actually capable of distinguishing what is hate?
Some Canadian Laws
264 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.
(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of
(a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;
(b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;
(c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or
(d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.
298 (1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.
Mode of expression
(2) A defamatory libel may be expressed directly or by insinuation or irony
(a) in words legibly marked on any substance; or
(b) by any object signifying a defamatory libel otherwise than by words.
Just a few laws this group might want to know if they are serious about starting up this “database”.
Here are 2 prior examples of doxxing gone wrong
(1) Southern Poverty Law Center
The Southern Poverty Law Center in the United States has a “hate map,” which lists 1,020 groups. They include 51 Ku Klux Klan chapters, 49 anti-LGBT groups, 11 radical traditional Catholic groups and a combined 412 black and white nationalist groups.
The centre doesn’t list individuals, only organizations, and uses a similar definition to the FBI for them. The law centre defines a hate group as “an organization that – based on its official statements or principles, the statements of its leaders, or its activities – has beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.”
(2) Candice Owens and “Social Autopsy”
Prior to getting a media makeover and coming out as a conservative, Candice Owens launched a website called “social autopsy”. This was billed as an anti-bullying database. But it relied on people making personal complaints and sending personal information on others. See above videos.
Does Morgane Oger Foundation Want To Be Like That?
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and Social Autopsy are just 2 of the more well known examples of attempts to dox people they disagree with.
Bad ideas should be countered with good ideas. They shouldn’t be doxxed, threatened, or otherwise bullied.
CLICK HERE, for the UN’s response to repatriating terrorists. CLICK HERE, for Border Security Report.
As a bit of a side note: Morocco is also where the UN Global Migration Compact was signed on December 10, 2018.
Also, I cannot be the only one who thinks such an organization is creepy as hell. Why is there a “global border management”? What happened to countries making their own decisions?
Who Are These People? “The annual gathering of the international border management and protection community will take place in Casablanca, Morocco on 19th-21st March 2019.
Co-hosted by the Ministry of Interior and General Secretariat for Migration and Border Surveillance of Morocco (Directeur de la Migration at de la Surveillance des Frontieres), the World Border Security Congress is delighted to be welcomed back to the North African country and economic hub of the region.
The 2019 World Border Security Congress will see the largest international gathering of border security and management policymakers and practitioners from more than 50 countries gather for the 3 day meeting for some great discussions, meetings, workshops and networking with colleagues and peers from the global border security community.”
Okay, this seems to be a globalist love-fest.
From Their Main Page
Current Border Security Challenges:
– Migration Crisis Tests European Consensus and Governance (1)
– Migrants and refugees streaming into Europe from Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia (2)
– Big Business of Smuggling Enables Mass Movement of People for Enormous Profits (3)
– Climate Change and Natural Disasters Displace Millions, Affect Migration Flows (4)
– Europe and the United States Confront Significant Flows of Unaccompanied Child Migrants (5)
– Tackling Southeast Asia’s Migration Challenge (6)
– ISIS threatens to send 500,000 migrants to Europe (7)
– Border Skirmishes Resonate in National Domestic Politics (8)
– Women’s Labour Migration from Asia and the Pacific (9)
As we see the continued escalation of the global migration crisis, with mass movements of people fleeing the war zones of the Middle East as well as illegal economic immigration from Africa and elsewhere, international terrorism(10) shows every sign of increasing, posing real threats to the free movement of people.
The world is expected to see a continuation of the migration challenges for the border management and security community, as little sign of peace and security in the Middle East is apparent and porous borders in Africa continue to provide challenges.
International organised criminal gangs and human and drug trafficking groups exploit opportunities and increasingly use the internet and technology to enhance their activities.
Controlling and managing international borders in the 21st Century continues to challenge the border control and immigration agencies around the world. It is generally agreed that in a globalised world borders should be as open as possible, but threats continue to remain in ever evolving circumstances and situations.
Advancements in technology are assisting in the battle to maintain safe and secure international travel. The border security professional still remains the front line against these threats.
This reads like it was brought to you by the same people who pushed the UN Global Migration Compact. But let’s go through this list a bit. Starting with your points list:
1/ Testing European consensus and governance? There “is” no European consensus, unless one argues that Europeans are unhappy with what their governments have brought them
2/ Yes migrants ARE streaming into Europe from Africa, the Middle East and Asia. But you promote open borders, which makes this problem all that much worse.
3/ True, smuggling people IS big business. However, you fail to mention that mass migration, and promoting mass migration is also big business, and it has much the same effect (legal or not).
4/ Climate change: everyone’s favourite boogeyman. Mass migration has nothing to do with welfare and handouts that economic migrants can get by moving to the West and pretending to be refugees.
5/ Regarding all of these “unaccompanied child migrants”, it would be interesting to know just how many of them are actually children. This seems to be a widespread scam.
6/ Yes, Southeast Asia has a migrant crisis as well. However, mass migration to the west is not the solution. All it will do is drain Western nations and cause their collapse.
7/ ISIS threaten to sends 100,000 fighters to Europe, but globalist organizations like the UN say that we must be compassionate. They also don’t want countries rejecting “citizens” who fight for ISIS.
8/ If there are border skirmishes going on, all the more reason to shut down borders and heavily restrict, if not outright ban people from certain countries.
9/ Of course, it wouldn’t be complete without the feminist card.
10/ Strengthen borders to stop this from coming here.
11/ Technological advancements? Now that sounds interesting. Seems these people don’t actually want to PREVENT bad things from happening, rather they wish to PROFIT from it happening. In fact, 2 major sponsors: FIND BIOMETRICS, and BIOMETRIC UPDATE, could see a huge surge in business caused by mass migration.
Here is a quote from the report:
“Governments around the world need to continue to invest in their border security, as a wide range of threats, such as combating terrorism, controlling the movement of goods and monitoring personnel across international borders, continue to pose challenges requiring round the clock monitoring.”
What a coincidence: the sponsors of this conference are selling just the tools that governments will need to secure their borders.
This conference is sponsored by companies that sell:
A/ Biometric services
B/ Security screening devices
C/ Digital and mobile technology
Is it much of a surprise that mass migration would be PROMOTED by a group and its sponsors who will end up PROFITTING from it? Not really.
World Border Congress Has Sympathy For ISIS Fighters
From THIS REPORT: “Despite the fact that it is illegal to make an individual stateless, there is strong public opinion in most countries that supports the idea of leaving them to fend for themselves, and it easy to understand why. Whatever prison sentences they receive and deradicalisation they undergo, they will have to be regarded as a potential threat for the remainder of their lives.
And of course, it is certain that at least some of them will go on to attempt to commit an atrocity sometime in the future.
So, for most people, stopping their return seems like plain common sense. But would it be the wisest choice? If you leave them stateless, what will happen to them and where will they go?
It is fairly certain that the Kurds won’t want to be responsible for them for any prolonged period. And the Turkish authorities certainly won’t want to inherit the problem. The most likely outcome is that they will gradually be quietly released or abscond and use underground trafficking routes, new documents and new identities to either return to Europe or go elsewhere to carry on the fight.”
This group glosses over legitimate security risks posed by mass migration. However, the risks that “do” exist can be managed by purchasing services from the conference’s many sponsors.
This is disturbing. Want to know what is actually worse?
UN’s Response To “Foreign Fighters”
Again, the report is available here.
3. The movement of people for the purposes of joining and supporting terrorist groups as well as their return to their countries of origin poses serious challenges to States in their efforts to prevent acts of terrorism. It is crucial that States adopt comprehensive long-term responses that deal with this threat and manage the return of fighters, and that in doing so they comply with their obligations under international human rights law. States have an obligation to protect the lives of individuals subject to their jurisdiction, and this includes the adoption of effective measures to counter the threat posed by foreign fighters.
In a limited set of circumstances, States may also take measures to temporarily derogate from certain international human rights law provisions. As noted by the Human Rights Committee, measures derogating from the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights must be of an exceptional and temporary nature. Two fundamental conditions must be met: the situation must amount to a public emergency which threatens the life of the nation; and the State party must have officially proclaimed a state of emergency. The obligation to limit any derogations to those strictly required by the exigencies of the situation reflects the principle of proportionality which is common to derogation and limitation powers.
International humanitarian law is also known as the law of war or the law of armed conflict and is applicable to both situations of international or non-international armed conflicts. These rules are enshrined in the four Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, as well as in customary rules of international humanitarian law. International humanitarian law is a set of rules which seek, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict. It protects persons, civilians, who are not or are no longer participating in the hostilities as well as fighters hors de combat and restricts the means and methods of warfare.
States have used different measures, whether legislative, administrative or operational, to prevent the departure of foreign fighters to conflict areas as well as to prevent their return. These could include travel bans, the seizure, retention, withdrawal and non-renewal of passports or identity cards, the stripping of citizenship, restrictions on travel or entry to territory and various types of house arrests or preventive detention. All of these measures have a serious impact on a number of fundamental human rights, including the rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement. They also raise a number of serious due process concerns if, for example, decisions are taken following secretive proceedings, in absentia or on the basis of vaguely defined criteria without adequate safeguards to prevent statelessness.
The World Borders Congress states that it believes that fighters who go abroad have rights. It implies that the safety of the host populations must be “balances” against the rights of terrorists themselves. From the above passages, the UN is clearly on board with this proposal.
The UN is totally fine with mass migration and returning terrorists for IDEOLOGICAL reasons.
Sponsors of World Borders Congress is fine with mass migration and returning terrorists for FINANCIAL reasons.
Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.
Some Interesting Canadian laws CLICK HERE, for the Privacy Act. CLICK HERE, for the Financial Administration Act. CLICK HERE, for the Federal Accountability Act. CLICK HERE, for the Access to Information Act.
StatsCan and UN SDG Data Hub CLICK HERE, for the Information Hub. CLICK HERE, for world data hub. This shows instant access to information on foreign investment. CLICK HERE, for transparency & reporting. CLICK HERE, for the UN Stats Open SDG Data Hub. CLICK HERE, for a surprisingly informative handbook on Agenda 21. CLICK HERE, for SDG Data Hub (Gender). CLICK HERE, for SDG Data Hub (Income inequality). CLICK HERE, for the SDG catalogue. CLICK HERE, for the SDG “indicators” list.
Recent Scandal In Canada
Remember this one? CLICK HERE, for StatsCan wanting to seize bank records of Canadians as “research tools”. CLICK HERE, for the Privacy Commissioner throwing StatsCan under the bus.
Not only did the Liberal Government oppose a 2010 initiative to make the long-form census “VOLUNTARY”, but they were actually okay with StatsCan raiding bank accounts for information on customers. 500,000 per year.
This data was supposed to be “anonymised”, meaning that once the entire personal profile is complete, the identifiers will be stripped away and it will only used for research purposes.
Under very public backlash, the Federal Government halted. And due to complaints filed with the Privacy Commissioner, the matter had to be suspended. According to the Canadian Banker’s Association (as of March 4, 2019), the plan is still halted. Here is that message from a follow-up with CBA rep, Aaron Boles:
“At this point, the project is on hold, per the letter StatsCan sent to affected banks on November 16, 2018, where StatsCan said, “Statistics Canada is not expecting any personal data from your institution in January 2019.” The CBA and its members are also encouraged that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has launched an investigation into Statistics Canada’s data request, which we understand will be underway until this spring. The banking sector continues to emphasize the central importance of protecting the privacy and security of customer financial data and personal information.
Not only does the Canadian Government not value Canadian privacy with regards to banking and financial information, but there is a legitimate question of whether this information is shared globally.
A more cynical person (or black pilled person), would think this bank data seizure is being done in order to find innovative ways to tax citizens, to finance the One-World Agenda. Nope, couldn’t be that.
Countries Listed in World Statistics Hub
6/ Hong Kong
14/ South Korea
17/ United Kingdom
18/ United States
** Note: This list comes from the StatsCan website.
CLICK HERE, for a page on reporting and disclosure by the Canadian Government. This page may actually prove very useful.
WILL UN USE THIS DATA?
Certainly appears to be that way.
The SDG API
An API to retrieve information and metadata on the Sustainable Development Goals
The Sustainable Development Goals indicators database provides transparency on the data used for global reporting. The database contains data on the global Sustainable Development Goal indicators used in the Sustainable Development Goals Report 2018, and includes country-level data as well as regional and global aggregates.
The global Sustainable Development Goal indicators API gives programmatic access to the global indicators database using the OpenAPI specification.
The database, maintained by the Statistics Division, released on 20 June 2018 contains over 1 million observations. However, this is not the number of unique observations, as several indicators and their data are repeated. For the complete list of the indicators that are repeated in the indicator framework please see https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/indicators-list/ .
The following global indicator framework was developed by the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators (IAEG-SDGs) and agreed upon, including refinements on several indicators, at the 48th session of the United Nations Statistical Commission held in March 2017.
The global indicator framework was later adopted by the General Assembly on 6 July 2017 and is contained in the Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/71/313), Annex. Annual refinements of indicators will be included in the indicator list as they occur. The official indicator list below includes the global indicator framework as contained in A/RES/71/313 and refinements agreed by the Statistical Commission at its 49th session in March 2018 (E/CN.3/2018/2, Annex II).
The list includes 232 indicators on which general agreement has been reached. Please note that the total number of indicators listed in the global indicator framework of SDG indicators is 244. However, since nine indicators repeat under two or three different targets (see below), the actual total number of individual indicators in the list is 232.
Indicators in the global indicator framework that repeat are the following:
So when Statistics Canada demands our personal information in census forms, where does the information go?
When employers, schools, and medical centers are forced to turn over information to StatsCan for “research purposes”, what exactly happens to our personal information? How much of it is shared? How much is shared outside of Canada?
That October 2018 scandal of StatsCan (under Liberal direction) trying to seize Canadians’ financial information is merely the tip of the iceberg. But then again, we are not Canadians, but rather “global citizens”, living in a post-national world.
(1) Challenge to UN Global Migration Compact dismissed in Calgary, however Court rules that it is not intended to be a legally binding contract.
(2) Challenge launched to close loophole in Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement
Here is the list on what exactly the UN gets its tentacles into. Read through the list, and make your own decisions.
(1) UN Global Migration Compact
Let’s import 258 million people into West. Forget language, culture, religion, customs, security or health and safety. And of course, taxpayers should foot the bill CLICK HERE, for the Globalist Compact. CLICK HERE, for 1 of the reviews.
(2) UN Paris Accord
Never mind that carbon dioxide is caused by breathing. Let’s bankrupt our nation to fight “global warming”. Or is it climate change? CLICK HERE, for the Paris Accord itself. CLICK HERE, for a review of the Accord. In particular, review Articles 2, 4, 9. CLICK HERE, for more info on the scam.
(3) UN Parliamentary Assembly
Yes, the UN actually wants to create a world government. Imagine your nation’s interests being “democratically” outvoted. Death of nations. CLICK HERE, for the proposed global gov’t CLICK HERE, for “Mein Kampf” 2.0 CLICK HERE, for review of the proposal.
(4) Repatriating Terrorists
It doesn’t matter if a group wants to decapitate non-believers, and cause death and destruction. Remember: A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. CLICK HERE, for the UN supporting repatriation. CLICK HERE, for citizenship for terrorists.
(5) UN Global Blasphemy Ban (2008)
If you value free speech, then a global ban on “Islamophobia”, also referred to a “religious defamation” ban, should be very concerning CLICK HERE, for a non-binding global ban. CLICK HERE, for a review of the idea. CLICK HERE, for dishonest propaganda about “World Hijab Day”.
(6) Agenda 21 (June 1992)
Signed by “Conservative” Brian Mulroney, to funnel money into a vague open ended global development plan CLICK HERE, for Agenda 21 plan. CLICK HERE, for a brief review, although it doesn’t really do the 351 page document justice.
(7) Agenda 2030 (September 2015)
Signed by “Conservative” Stephen Harper, to keep funnelling money into a vague and open ended global development plan. CLICK HERE, for Agenda 2030 text. CLICK HERE, for the review.
(8) UN Global Citizenship Agenda
Get ready to have your children brainwashed and indoctrinated on a global scale. There are no nations, no values, cultures that are worth preserving. Remember students, we are all global citizens. CLICK HERE, for global citizenship education CLICK HERE, for opinion on the “education”
(9) UN Internet Governance
They call it “digital cooperation”, but this is a UN scheme to have global regulation over internet content. Not that it will ever be abused. CLICK HERE, for so-called “digital cooperation”. CLICK HERE, for response to this nonsense. CLICK HERE, for Liberal Party of Canada endorsement of UN internet governance.
(9) UN Forum On Forests
Does your nation have plenty of forest areas? Don’t worry, the UN will take control of that too CLICK HERE, for the forum on forests. CLICK HERE, for the review.
(10) UN Urban Development Agenda
UN wants to regulate city development as well. CLICK HERE, for UN Urban Development Agenda.
(11) UN Declaration On Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Ready for some virtue signalling about Indigenous rights? Want to have the UN promote the idea of parallel societies, and prevent any actual development? Check this out. CLICK HERE, for the UN DRIP. CLICK HERE, for virtue signalling from John Horgan, BC’s communist premier. CLICK HERE, for a review of the declaration.
(12) UN Covenant Of Right To Life
UN believes that everyone has the right to life, except of course to unborn babies. Serial killers and rapists have rights, but the most vulnerable do not. CLICK HERE, for the Covenant. See Paragraph 9 in particular. CLICK HERE, for abortion for children.
(13) UN Gender Language Agenda
UN considers “language” to be very important, biological realities notwithstanding. Apparently misgendering someone is as horrific as honour killings or FGM. CLICK HERE, for gender inclusive language. CLICK HERE, for a review of the agenda.
(14) UN Democratic Agenda
UN decides that democracy is important. And just to show it, the UN also wants “its” version of democracy to be implemented. CLICK HERE, for UN democracy agenda. CLICK HERE, for review of the agenda.
(15) UN, MasterCard & “Financial Inclusion”
Every globalist plan needs a set system of financing. Also worth noting, globalism itself can be the means of “financing” an agenda, such as what Mastercard is pushing. CLICK HERE, for the UN and Mastercard. CLICK HERE, for “Mastercard is the final boss”.
(16) UN & Lawyers Without Borders
If lawyers (insert lawyer joke here) weren’t bad enough, the UN sends them to other countries around the world. Keep in mind, they don’t represent or defend clients. Instead, they act as consultants, mainly for the UN and other globalist organizations. CLICK HERE, for Lawyers Without Borders site. CLICK HERE, for a review of the organization.
(17) UN and Sexual Exploitation
This writes itself. The UN takes sexual abuse and sexual exploitation seriously, especially in the case of children. Sounds lovely, if not so hypocritical. CLICK HERE, for the UN discussing the issue. CLICK HERE, for more information.
(18) ICELI Sustainability For Local Govts
Consider them globalist-in-training. Getting cities to adopt (for all practical purposes) UN agendas. Over 1500+ so far have submitted to UN agenda. CLICK HERE, for ICLEI main page. CLICK HERE, for review of ICLEI.
(19) UN Promoting Replacement Migration Across 1st World
The UN believes that falling birthrates across the developed world can be solved by importing large numbers of migrants, aka “replacement migration”. Nations like Hungary, however, would rather spend the money to boost their own populations. CLICK HERE, for the Hungarian/UN contrast CLICK HERE, for UN policy directives on “replacement migration”.
Anyone disagree with the conclusion?
(20) World Economic Forum
This Switzerland based forum endorses globalist business practices in the name of ever expanding growth and trade. To seem “righteous”, however, all sorts of SJW/NPC themes are thrown in everywhere. WEF makes its policies appear to be “moral and humane” practices CLICK HERE, for the World Economic Forum. CLICK HERE, for a brief review of WEF, and overall impressions.
(21) UN Data Hub
Think your government respects your privacy? Think your data won’t be shared globally by those seeking to create a one-world order? That’s both cute, and naïve. Data mining and contrasting is all the rage in trying to implement Agenda 2030. CLICK HERE, for UN SDG Data Hub. CLICK HERE, for response and info on data hub.
(22) UN Principles For Responsible Investment (& ESG)
Watch credit ratings agencies and major investors crawl into bed with globalist virtue signalling. Goodbye to independent and impartial investment advice and decisions. CLICK HERE, for UN PRI/ESG Agenda CLICK HERE, for review to these ideas.
(23) UN Security Council, Legalised Aggression
An elite group of 15 nations sits around the table deciding which conflicts are worth supporting, and which side to support. Permanent 5: US, Russia, China, UK, France have veto power to sabotage any resolution. CLICK HERE, for link to the UNSC website. CLICK HERE, for a review on the Security Council.
(24) CPP Being Invested In Offshore Globalist Ventures
You work hard for your pension, but do you actually think it will be there for you when you retire? Stop being so selfish and invest in risky, speculative projects overseas. CLICK HERE, for link to the UNSC website. CLICK HERE, for a review on CPP Mumbai venture.
(25) New Development Finance, Predatory Lending
The Western World is bled dry for these so-called “climate change” initiatives. Money we borrow is then transferred to the 3rd world. But in an evil bait-and-switch, the money is “loaned” to nations that have little to no prospect of ever paying it back. Debt is “forgiven” when sovereignty is transferred. CLICK HERE, for New Development Finance (178 Pages). CLICK HERE, for the New Development Financing Agenda. CLICK HERE, for the New Development Financing, the bait-and-switch.
(26) UN Convention On Preventing/Punishing Genocide
The following are illegal:
(a) Trying to wipe out a group,
(b) Waging lawfare against them,
(c) Trying to reduce their births so they go extinct.
These things are considered genocide, “except” when multiculturalism is pushed on societies. Typically these are developed, Western nations. CLICK HERE, for 1948 UN Convention Against Genocide. CLICK HERE, for multiculturalism violates convention against genocide.
(27) UN Global Taxation Efforts
We are now into global taxation. All of these so-called humanitarian or environmental efforts are just attempts to tax people for globalist causes.
See “UN Taxation” on right side bar CLICK HERE, for article on UN taxation.
WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?
See this article, from November 2018, promoting that idea.
All personal court appearances are under “BLOG”
Challenge to UN Global Migration Compact dismissed in Calgary.
CLICK HERE, for the Green New Deal FAQ. CLICK HERE, for House Resolution 109, Green New Deal. CLICK HERE, for the Forbes article referenced in the FAQ. CLICK HERE, for the Huffington Post article referenced in the FAQ.
Newly elected US Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has announced an extremely ambitious “Green New Deal”. It will not only save the world, help eco-systems, dramatically boost the US economy, phase out carbon industries, but it will provide economic security for everyone — even those not willing to work.
Of course, don’t bother asking how much this will cost. The only question that matters (apparently) is the cost if nothing is done. That will be the end of the world as we know it.
Many still question this economics graduate, just because she doesn’t know how economics work. But that is just being divisive.
Additionally, it will pander to every imaginable group who is oppressed. The world may be ending, but it doesn’t mean we have to put aside such issues as gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc….
Please don’t be selfish here. Wondering about (a) your job security; (b) your lifestyle; (c) your private property; (d) your civil rights, etc are inconsequential. All that matters is saving the world.
Some may wonder what will happen if they “refuse” to go along with this massive, sweeping, government program. Afterall, many are resistant to change. But we will have to see what the penalties will be later. Perhaps some amendments will be added. Daisy Cousens (in the above video), makes the valid point that in order to see this deal go through, government force will be required.
From The FAQ Section
“What is the Green New Deal?
The Green New Deal is a 10-year plan to create a greenhouse gas neutral society that creates unprecedented levels of prosperity and wealth for all while ensuring economic and environmental justice and security.
The Green New Deal achieves this through a World War 2 scale mobilization that focuses the robust and creative economic engine of the United States on reversing climate change by fully rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, restoring our natural ecosystems, dramatically expanding renewable power generation, overhauling our entire transportation system, upgrading all our buildings, jumpstarting US clean manufacturing, transforming US agriculture, and putting our nation’s people to work doing what they do best: making the impossible possible.”
1/ The first part says that it is to create a greenhouse gas neutral society, yet also promises unprecedented levels of wealth and prosperity.
2/ Logistical question: how do you ensure economic justice when implementing such a drastic plan? It sounds expensive.
3/ So fighting climate change is like fighting Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? Okay.
4/ To dramatically expand renewable power, wouldn’t that involve developing on those lands you want to restore?
5/ Upgrade all buildings? Does that include all homes? How is such a thing possible, and will people be put up in hotels while their homes are being upgraded?
6/ Jumpstarting US clean manufacturing? Will private or public funds be poured into that? Also, won’t you also be putting a lot of other people out of work? Look at Ontario or BC to see how those “clean initiatives” have played out.
7/ If this enviro shift will lead to unprecedented levels of prosperity, why is it no private companies have attempted anything like this (even on a small scale)? Aren’t they all greedy capitalists?
8/ About this crumbling infrastructure, will it all be demolished and new ones built, or is it geared towards massive renovations?
9/ What will happen to people who refuse to go along with it?
Any large-scale transformation of society can create the risk of some people slipping through the cracks. That’s why the Green New Deal also calls for an upgrade to the basic economic securities enjoyed by all people in the US to ensure everybody benefits from the newly created wealth. It guarantees to everyone:
-A job with family-sustaining wages, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security
-High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools
-High-quality health care
-Clean air and water
-Safe, affordable, adequate housing
-An economic environment free of monopolies
-Economic security to all who are unable or UNWILLING TO WORK
(my emphasis above). That’s right. It guarantees everyone “unwilling” to work economic security. Not those unable to work, but anyone “unwilling”. This is doomed to fail, since there will be absolutely no incentive to work.
People will figure out very quickly it makes no sense to work and pay taxes for non-workers, when they can just be one of those non-workers, and get money for free. It will kill any incentive to be productive.
“Why is such a large-scale mobilization necessary right now?
A recent IPCC report declared that global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate. This calls for global reductions of greenhouse gas emissions of 40 to 60 percent by 2030. The U.S. contributes 20% of global emissions. To hit these global targets, the US must not only get to a greenhouse gas emissions neutral society by 2030, but it must also lead this change abroad to avert climate catastrophe.”
1/ So it’s not that the world will end in 12 years, but that there “may” be a rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, (which was 1700s)
2/ IPCC has a very lengthy history of making wrong predictions. Does that matter to you?
3/ Also, if greenhouse emissions were such a critical factor, wouldn’t all this industrialization you’re calling for make the problem worse?
4/ Wouldn’t planting a lot more trees take a lot of this impact away? Just hire poor highly-indebted college students.
“How will you pay for the Green New Deal?
The Green New Deal is a massive investment program, not an expenditure. The question isn’t how will we pay for it, but what is the cost of inaction, and what will we do with our new shared prosperity created by the investments in the Green New Deal.
We will finance the investments for the Green New Deal the same way we paid for the original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for the rich, and decades of war – with public money appropriated by Congress. Further, government can take an equity stake in Green New Deal projects so the public gets a return on its investment. We already know that investments in infrastructure create huge returns on investment. The interstate highway system returned more than $6 in economic productivity for every $1 it cost. Similarly, investments in upgrading and transforming industry are a chance to grow the wealth of our nation dramatically.”
This completely dodges the question. Leftists tend to refer to all spending as “investments” in order to deflect attention. No responsible government would simply commit to open-ended spending of this sort. The US is already $22 trillion (yes, trillion) in debt. Where would this money come from? And will people be “forced” to pay for and go along with this scheme?
The Huffington Post article echoes that mentality.
“We must give up our obsession with trying to ‘pay for’ everything with new revenue or spending cuts.”
“Will this hurt communities that rely on fossil fuels jobs?
The Green New Deal will prioritize creating high-quality, family wage-supporting union jobs in communities that rely on fossil fuel industries. It will ensure that all communities have a better alternative for high-wage work before they transition away from fossil fuel industry based work.”
This is wishful thinking. Pumping almost endless amounts of money into an open-ended, and largely unquantifiable “World War II” agenda “may” lead to a job boom. But once the borrowed money runs out (hint: it will), it would lead to a regional collapse as those new jobs disappear.
“Is this an environmental plan? Why do you have things like universal health care and other social safety net measures in here?
The Green New Deal is a plan to make a full-scale transition of our economy that puts jobs and justice first. This plan will require a strong social safety net so that every U.S. person can make this transition comfortably and nobody falls through the cracks in the process. If we want to be able to mobilize our economy fully, we can’t afford to have employees stuck in their current jobs because they are afraid to lose health care or workers unable to participate because they can’t afford the education and training programs. We also need to be sure that workers currently employed in fossil fuel industries have higher-wage and better jobs available to them to be able to make this transition, and a federal jobs guarantee ensures that no worker is left behind. We believe that the economic securities and programs for justice and equity laid out in this Green New Deal resolution are a bare minimum of what we need to do to successfully execute the Green New Deal.”
1/ So, this is to dismantle the US economy altogether and replace it with a new one?
2/ We can’t afford to have people stuck in those low paying jobs, yet you are going to shut down entire industries.
3/ Your plan for a new infrastructure involves pumping money in indefinitely. Until these systems are operational, they won’t be running, or able to produce anything else.
4/ This will involve creating a whole separate economy to build up all these new energy efficient systems, and overhauling existing buildings.
5/ Where will all this money come from? Wait, not supposed to ask.
6/ What will happen to transportation when all air travel is phased out?
7/ How does any of this “reduce” carbon emissions?
8/ Can we assume that “going along” with this plan will be voluntary? Or will it be forced?
Okay, now we get to the House Resolution itself, and the introduction of incessant identity politics.
First, here comes the fear mongering, and the costs of doing nothing. Take everything will a grain of salt.
“(3) global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrialized levels will cause—
(A) mass migration from the regions most affected by climate change;
(B) more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100;
(C) wildfires that, by 2050, will annually burn at least twice as much forest area in the western United States than was typically burned by wildfires in the years preceding 2019;
(D) a loss of more than 99 percent of all coral reefs on Earth;
(E) more than 350,000,000 more people to be exposed globally to deadly heat stress by 2050; and
(F) a risk of damage to $1,000,000,000,000 of public infrastructure and coastal real estate in the United States; and
(4) global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrialized levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate, which will require—
(A) global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from human sources of 40 to 60 percent from 2010 levels by 2030; and
(B) net-zero global emissions by 2050;”
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez supports open borders and mass migration. She openly calls to abolish immigration control entirely in the US. So how will mass migration to a high-consumption society “reduce” carbon emissions?
B/ $500B in lost economic output, yet we are not supposed to ask about money when funding this new deal?
C/ A source would be nice.
D/ These are the same scientists who say the north pole would disappear.
E/ 350M more people exposed to heat stress? I thought temperatures were only going to raise 1.5 degrees Celcius?!
F/ A risk to $1 trillion worth of public infrastructure by a temperature raise of 1.5 degrees Celcius? And I thought money was no issue.
4/ “Pre-industrialised periods” means before 1800s.
A/ 40-60% cut? Yet you want to phase out carbon entirely.
B/ Plant more trees. Problem solved.
“Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as “systemic injustices”) by disproportionately affecting indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this preamble as “frontline and vulnerable communities”);”
The references to identity politics are rampant throughout the bill.
“(2) a 4-decade trend of wage stagnation, deindustrialization, and antilabor policies that has led to—
(A) hourly wages overall stagnating since the 1970s despite increased worker productivity;
(B) the third-worst level of socioeconomic mobility in the developed world before the Great Recession;
(C) the erosion of the earning and bargaining power of workers in the United States; and
(D) inadequate resources for public sector workers to confront the challenges of climate change at local, State, and Federal levels; and”
It’s an interesting double standard here. Ocasio-Cortez keeps bringing up wages, finances and economic situations when it comes to getting support for the bill. Yet she continuously avoids financial discussion when it comes for paying for this green new deal. Can’t have it both ways.
“(3) the greatest income inequality since the 1920s, with—
(A) the top 1 percent of earners accruing 91 percent of gains in the first few years of economic recovery after the Great Recession;
(B) a large racial wealth divide amounting to a difference of 20 times more wealth between the average white family and the average black family; and
(C) a gender earnings gap that results in women earning approximately 80 percent as much as men, at the median;”
A/ Having an economic disparity by itself is not evidence of injustice. People who are highly driven tend to far out earn their unproductive counterparts. But remember, you wanted to create a system which paid people a living wage for refusing to work.
B/ Is this an apples-to-oranges comparison? Would Ocasio-Cortez be comparing European living standards to African living standards? Or is she suggesting this gap is all within America?
Remember, the 1% is very small.
So, if an average black family earned $30,000/year, does it mean the average white family earned $600,00/year? That doesn’t add up
C/ The gender pay gap is simply the earnings difference between men and women overall. Women tend to earn less since they take more time off to raise children, and often choose lower paying jobs.
If you could get the same work from a woman as a man, and just pay her less, then wouldn’t there be an incentive to fire all the men and only hire women?
“(3) a Green New Deal must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses; and”
Sorry to rain on the parade, but what happens if large segments of these groups DON’T want the deal, and the burdens it imposes on them? Will their will be ignored?
Now, let’s talk about how this will be implemented. Again, the Resolution doesn’t take into account what will happen if people say no.
“(4) to achieve the Green New Deal goals and mobilization, a Green New Deal will require the following goals and projects—
(A) providing and leveraging, in a way that ensures that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investment, adequate capital (including through community grants, public banks, and other public financing), technical expertise, supporting policies, and other forms of assistance to communities, organizations, Federal, State, and local government agencies, and businesses working on the Green New Deal mobilization;
(B) ensuring that the Federal Government takes into account the complete environmental and social costs and impacts of emissions through—
(i) existing laws;
(ii) new policies and programs; and
(iii) ensuring that frontline and vulnerable communities shall not be adversely affected;
(C) providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States, with a focus on frontline and vulnerable communities, so that all people of the United States may be full and equal participants in the Green New Deal mobilization;
(D) making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries;
(E) directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry and business in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and deindustrialized communities, that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries;
(F) ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal mobilization at the local level;
(G) ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers training and advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition;
(H) guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States;
(I) strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment;
(J) strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors;
(K) enacting and enforcing trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments with strong labor and environmental protections—
(i) to stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas; and
(ii) to grow domestic manufacturing in the United States;
(L) ensuring that public lands, waters, and oceans are protected and that eminent domain is not abused;
(M) obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples for all decisions that affect indigenous peoples and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous peoples, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous peoples;
(N) ensuring a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies; and
(O) providing all people of the United States with—
(i) high-quality health care;
(ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing;
(iii) economic security; and
(iv) clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and access to nature.”
While this may be well intentioned, it is clearly not realistic
A/ Financing is important, but you need to provide “way” more detail on this.
B/ Take the societal impacts into account? Okay. What happens if your own studies say that your program is impractical?
C/ High education to everyone? Government controlled, or free market?
D/ Making investment in research? Okay, but how long will the research take to complete? Remember, this is only a 10 year plan
E/ Directing investments? Great, though again, we need more detail.
F/ Ensuring the democratic process? That “sounds” great, but this can only be achieved by “taking away” people’s rights.
G/ Guaranteed jobs and training?
H/ More guaranteed jobs.
I/ Strengthening their rights, yet this deal can only be achieved by “removing” rights and imposing it.
J/ Strengthening H&S laws? Normally I would be totally on board with this, but it context of everything else, it is chilling what the details will look like.
K/ This may be poor wording, but how does one “transfer pollution”? Also, why would you worry about borders? Don’t you want to abolish ICE?
L/ Protecting public lands? Actually a good one.
M/ Consent from Indigenous Peoples? Okay, will you still go ahead if they say no?
N/ Prevent unfair competition? But don’t you “ensure” it, with this government monopoly?
O/ Guaranteed health care, housing, jobs, necessities
While this all sounds great, the details (and lack of) are scary. Not only that, the authors seem totally unaware of how self-contradictory the GND is.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez repeatedly RELIES ON financial incentives to sell the program, yet AVOIDS any talk of how this will be paid for.
Further she talks about GIVING rights and discretions to groups and how they run their lives, yet implementing this will require TAKING rights away.
The deal mentions EQUALITY many times, but entire sections are devoted to divisive IDENTITY POLITICS and to pandering to specific groups.
The Green New Deal is to PROVIDE new opportunities and entitlements for everyone in America, yet involves SHUTTING DOWN entire sectors of the economy.
All of these promises are made that the social service needs of AMERICANS will be met. However, Ocasio-Cortez promotes OPEN BORDERS IMMIGRATION, which would see those services overrun.
For this deal to be implemented in any real form, any and all rights of citizens (to oppose) it would need to be taken away, and the deal imposed by force. Even then, it would bankrupt the USA long before it ever became reality.
This is Part III of a story involving economics Professor, Derek Pyne. Pyne published a paper studying the economic impacts of “predatory publishing” in academic journals. This led to international attention.
Predatory Journals In Essence
-Mailbox addresses (suites) given in address
-Journal no one has heard of before
-Very quick turnaround times
-Questionable, if any, peer review
-Questionable “Impact Factors Analysis”
-Real journal will provide abstract, fake will make you buy entire article, paywall
Pyne had been suspended in the fall of 2018. He cited several reasons, including this publication. In the interest of fairness, Thompson Rivers University was contacted for their side of the story.
While Professor Pyne agreed to an in person meeting, TRU answered questions by email. Due to privacy and legal concerns the answers were much more restricted than what Prof Pyne had disclosed. Here is that exchange.
1/ Professor Pyne’s paper on “Predatory Journals” must have been unexpected. What is TRU’s response to it?
It is important to understand that research is an independent activity undertaken by faculty and the university is not in the practice of monitoring the publishing activity of its faculty. Professor Pyne has the freedom to publish his research and talk about his research publicly.
2/ Does TRU believe the paper to be factually accurate, or a distortion of academic publishing?
TRU does not take a position on Professor Pyne’s research other than that it supports individual faculty member’s right to research and publish their research, and for this research to be openly debated among the academic community.
3/ Was his suspension in 2018 related to the paper he produced?
The action taken against Professor Pyne was not related to his specific research, the dissemination of his research, or the exercising of his right to academic freedom. The action was related to matters that TRU is unable to comment on due to both employment and privacy law.
4/ Have there been any changes to academic publishing as a result of this release? Reviews on how grants/tenure are awarded?
As previously indicated, research is an independent activity and subject to academic discourse. On the matter of tenure and promotion, any faculty member hired or promoted at TRU goes through a robust process, which involves a review of research activity and publishing credentials. This is a process led by peers, hence, any faculty member at TRU moving through the promotion and tenure process is doing so with the endorsement of their faculty colleagues provincially, nationally, and internationally. Additional information on promotion and tenure can be found on TRU’s website.
5/ Has any faculty research been given a “second look” as a result of the paper?
As indicated, TRU does not monitor the independent publishing activity of its faculty. However, there are processes built within the university system where such activity is reviewed. For example, at TRU, divisional peer review committees and a university committee of Senate review publishing credentials during the tenure and promotion process of faculty. In addition, each individual faculty council and department, with input from the university’s Senate, determine the criteria for tenure and promotion, which includes close scrutiny of publications. Faculty, chairs and deans are also involved in the hiring of any new faculty, and a review of publishing credentials would be part of that process.
6/ Professor Pyne told me he doesn’t believe the academic union is acting properly in the matter, and it has since gone to Labour Relations. Any comment on that?