CV #19: The Vaccine Confidence Project, And “Vaccine Hesitancy”

Refusing to inject yourself (and family) with chemicals created by outsiders is apparently just a relationship problem. Nothing to do with what is actually in them, or the history of destroyed lives.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

CLICK HERE, for #0: Theresa Tam; archives; articles; lobbying.
CLICK HERE, for #1: piece on Bill Gates, Pirbright, depopulation.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Coronavirus research at U of Saskatchewan.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Gates; WHO, ID2020; GAVI; Vaccines.
CLICK HERE, for #4: Gates using proxies to push vaxx agenda.
CLICK HERE, for #5: Crestview Strategy, GAVI’s lobbying firm.
CLICK HERE, for #6: people GAVI/Crestview lobbied follow Gates.
CLICK HERE, for #7: M-132, Canada financing pharma research.
CLICK HERE, for #8: Canada/WHO & “vaccine hesitancy” research.
CLICK HERE, for #9: Raj Saini, lobbied by big pharma (M-132).
CLICK HERE, for #10: pharma lobbying in Alberta legislature.
CLICK HERE, for #11: ON Pharma; Bill 160 Not Implemented.
CLICK HERE, for #12: 2006 report recommends surveillance/vaxx.
CLICK HERE, for #13: more on who Theresa Tam really is.
CLICK HERE, for #14: AbCellera gets $175.6M from Ottawa.
CLICK HERE, for #15: refusing forced medications and vaccinations.
CLICK HERE, for #16: Koch/Atlas, both sides in AB court challenge.
CLICK HERE, for #17: the CV industry emerging in Canada.
CLICK HERE, for #18: buying “vaccine bonds”; GAVI/GPEI grants.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for the Vaccine Confidence Project (VCP)
http://archive.is/szSHr
CLICK HERE, for VCP funders and partner listings.
http://archive.is/Ah9Pw
CLICK HERE, for VCP’s mission statement.
http://archive.is/saio2
CLICK HERE, for GlaxSmithKline lobbying Federally.
http://archive.is/xxQJe
CLICK HERE, for VIDO-InterVac lobbying Federally.
http://archive.is/AYdhO
CLICK HERE, for Merck lobbying Federal Government.
http://archive.is/GH1Cy

CLICK HERE, for Vaccine Confidence Project’s Twitter.

3. Context For This Article

The topic of vaccine hesitancy was introduced in Part 8 of the coronavirus series. Now will explore a more organized group, which is the Vaccine Confidence Project. As the name implies, the group is researching in ways to make vaccines an easier sell to the public.

Note: They are not researching ways to MAKE vaccines more safe. Instead they are researching ways to CONVINCE people that they are safe. The goals are really quite different.

Also worth noting that several of the groups funding this project also have lobbying and financial ties to the Canadian Government. The conflicts on interest here cannot be downplayed.

In the next section the VCP group states — in their own words — what the goals of the program are. Just know that this project is being funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and other vested interests.

Also worth pointing out: this project is not just an isolated case. There are many, MANY more groups conducting research into vaccine hesitancy. Consider this as glorified market research.

4. What Is Vaccine Confidence Project?

Vaccine confidence concerns the belief that vaccination – and by extension the providers and range of private sector and political entities behind it – serves the best health interests of the public and its constituents. The Oxford English Dictionary defines confidence as “the mental attitude of trusting in or relying on a person or thing”. In light of that, we are not examining the well-studied domain of supply and access barriers to vaccination, but rather what is typically called the “demand” side of immunisation. However, our focus on confidence takes the “demand” rubric a step further than the more traditional notion of building demand through increasing knowledge and awareness of vaccines and immunisation to understanding what else drives confidence in vaccines, and the willingness to accept a vaccine, when supply, access and information are available. In other words, understanding vaccine confidence means understanding the more difficult belief-based, emotional, ideological and contextual factors whose influences often live outside an immunisation or even health programme but affect both confidence in and acceptance of vaccines.

The purpose of the project is to monitor public confidence in immunisation programmes by building an information surveillance system for early detection of public concerns around vaccines; by applying a diagnostic tool to data collected to determine the risk level of public concerns in terms of their potential to disrupt vaccine programmes; and, finally, to provide analysis and guidance for early response and engagement with the public to ensure sustained confidence in vaccines and immunisation. This initiative also defines a Vaccine Confidence Index™ (VCI) as a tool for mapping confidence globally.

Despite the historic success of immunisation in reducing the burden of childhood illness and death, episodes of public concerns and rumours around vaccines have occurred around the world, spreading quickly and sometimes seriously eroding public confidence in immunisation and ultimately leading to vaccine refusals and disease outbreaks.

This project seeks to address these unmet needs and monitor public confidence in immunisation programs by listening for early signals of public distrust and questioning and providing risk analysis and guidance to engage the public early and pre-empting potential programme disruptions.

In their own website, CVP describes their work as “information surveillance for early detection of public concerns”. In other words, the focus isn’t on creating safe and effective vaccines, but rather on convincing people that they are. The techniques involve amount to little more than emotional and psychological manipulation.

5. Partners/Funders Of Vaxx Confidence

Funders of Vaccine Confidence Project

  • European Commission
  • European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA)
  • Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Merck
  • University College London

Partners of the Vaccine Confidence Project

  • Brighton Collaboration
  • Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)
  • Chatham House
  • European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
  • European Commission
  • European Medicines Agency
  • Gallup International
  • Imperial College London
  • International Pediatric Association
  • International Vaccine Institute
  • LVCT Kenya
  • National University of Singapore
  • ProMED
  • Public Health England (PHE)
  • Public Health Foundation of India
  • Sabin Vaccine Institute
  • World Health Organization (WHO)

Yes, we have spent considerable time recently in this registry. This is the Office of the Lobbying Commissioner. Keep in mind, this only applies to people/groups who are lobbying at the Federal level. It doesn’t cover Provincial or Municipal influence peddling.

According to registry records, Yoo-Seok Hong, President of GlaxoSmithKline, has lobbied the Federal Government 187 times since becoming registered in 1996. GSK is listed as a funder of the Vaccine Confidence Project.

Looking at the same registry, Merck Canada is listed as having lobbied the Federal Government 103 times since they became registered in 2001.

This was addressed in Part 2 of the series, but worth bringing up again. VIDO-InterVac has partnered with the International Vaccine Institute. The IVI is based in South Korea, and gets funding from the Gates Foundation and the United Nations. VIDO-InterVac and IVI have their partnership working with the University of Saskatchewan.

This was covered in Part 13 of the series, but repeated here. Theresa Tam sits on the Independent Oversight and Advisory Committee for the WHO Health Emergencies Programme. In other words, she sits on a World Health Organization Board at the same time she is the Chief of Public Health in Canada. Her colleague, Geeta Rao Gupta, previously worked for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In fact, after the United States, the Gates Foundation is the largest contributor to the World Health Organization.


efpia-health-collaboration-guide_2019_final

The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations lists many partner organizations, several of whom have lobbied governments in Canada.

This was previously covered in Part 4 and Part 5 in the coronavirus series. GAVI, the Global Vaccine Allience (funded largely by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation), lobbied the Federal Government 20 times between 2018 and 2020.

Additionally, the Center for Disease Control (CDC), located in the United States, is heavily funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It greatly influences their decision making.

To repeat from before: this project has nothing to do with MAKING vaccinations safe or effective. Instead, the effort is to CONVINCE people that vaccines are safe and effective. This has nothing to do with conducting any sort of medical research whatsoever.

6. VCP’s Twitter Page

To begin with, the account was only created in February 2020, and has an extremely low following. But let’s take a look and see who they are connected to on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/VaxPsychStrath
https://twitter.com/trevormundel
https://twitter.com/IFPMA
https://twitter.com/voice_evidence

This is just a few of them. However, there is nothing to see here, and we should all just move along.

7. Tricks To Beat “Vaccine Hesitancy”

The World Health Organization has done considerable research on the subject of “vaccine hesitancy”. This of course is the natural reaction of people to be reluctant to put needles of unknown substances into their bodies.

Improving vaccination demand and addressing hesitancy
Increasing and maintaining vaccination uptake is vital for vaccines to achieve their success. Addressing low vaccination requires an adequate understanding of the determinants of the problem, tailored evidence-based strategies to improve uptake, and monitoring and evaluation to determine the impact and sustainability of the interventions.

Hesitancy in relation to vaccination may affect motivation, causing people to reject it for themselves or their children. Hesitancy can be caused by individual, group, and contextual influences, as well as any vaccine-specific issues.

Given the potential for hesitancy to rapidly undermine vaccination coverage in specific settings, it is important that all countries take steps to understand both the extent and nature of hesitancy at a local level, on a continuing basis. Accordingly, each country should develop a strategy to increase acceptance and demand for vaccination, which should include ongoing community engagement and trust-building, active hesitancy prevention, regular national assessments of concerns, and crisis response planning

It’s fair to take from this, that the efforts to understand hesitancy do not at all seem rooted in any altruistic motivation. Rather, they seem designed to form the basis to manipulate and otherwise persuade people into taking something that could be extremely harmful to them.


Meeting participants, from left to right: Kerrie Wiley, Neetu Abad, Gilla Shapiro, Alina Lack, Wenfeng Gong, Nick Sevdalis, Julie Leask, Monica Jain, Gustavo Correa, Noel Brewer, Saad Omer, Cornelia Betsch, Charles Wiysonge, Gillian SteelFisher, Lisa Menning, Eve Dubé

In May 2019, a group of people got together to come up with ways to make mass vaccination an easier sell to the public. Read the report and decide whether this is harmless enough.

The World Health Organization has released several other papers and research findings into vaccine hesitancy. Either they are moronic, or they truly think that what they are doing is for the best of humanity.
hesitancy.research
hesitancy.research.02
hesitancy.research.strategies.for.addressing
hesitancy.conclusions.for.addressing

In addition to the above research, there are questionnaires that are available. Asking and probing for certain types of information will give the illusion that you are concerned with the person’s well being.

hesitancy.survey.questionnaires

In January 2015, this paper was released, giving insight into the various reasons people are likely to avoid taking vaccines. It also provided helpful information to convincing the subject that it was still in their best interest.

hesitancy.recommendations.to.correct

There is of course more research available on the subject. But the point is that it has been extensively studied. A cynic might wonder if the WHO spends more effort researching ways to pitch vaccines to the public than they do researching to see if they are actually safe.

8. Programs Operate In Canada

Several such programs are already in operation in Canada, and are funded. Yes, Canada already has programs to combat “vaccine hesitancy”.

9. Tip Of The Iceberg

This article just scratches the surface of what is out there. Do a simple search, or go on YouTube and look up videos under the heading “vaccine hesitancy”. It is shocking the number of hits that will come up.

Why is there so much research being done on overcoming “vaccine hesitancy”? Quite simply, it is economics. Vaccines that are used globally are worth a lot of money. Therefore, considerable money and resources must be spent in convincing potential customers that it is a worthwhile product. Think of it as a glorified marketing strategy.

In the various videos, you may notice that the marketers never address the legitimate concerns people have about the safety of vaccines. Rather, they are going through the motions of “appearing to address” the concerns. Not the same thing.

Understand that this is little more than psychological manipulation in order to push an agenda. The well being of the people involved is a secondary concern — if it is one at all.

CV #18: Ottawa Sends IFFIm Money For “Vaccine Bonds”; GAVI/GPEI Grants

(Information on what the International Finance Facility for Immunization, or IFFIm, really is and does)

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

CLICK HERE, for #0: Theresa Tam; archives; articles; lobbying.
CLICK HERE, for #1: piece on Bill Gates, Pirbright, depopulation.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Coronavirus research at U of Saskatchewan.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Gates; WHO, ID2020; GAVI; Vaccines.
CLICK HERE, for #4: Gates using proxies to push vaxx agenda.
CLICK HERE, for #5: Crestview Strategy, GAVI’s lobbying firm.
CLICK HERE, for #6: people GAVI/Crestview lobbied follow Gates.
CLICK HERE, for #7: M-132, Canada financing pharma research.
CLICK HERE, for #8: Canada/WHO & “vaccine hesitancy” research.
CLICK HERE, for #9: Raj Saini, lobbied by big pharma (M-132).
CLICK HERE, for #10: pharma lobbying in Alberta legislature.
CLICK HERE, for #11: ON Pharma; Bill 160 Not Implemented.
CLICK HERE, for #12: 2006 report recommends surveillance/vaxx.
CLICK HERE, for #13: more on who Theresa Tam really is.
CLICK HERE, for #14: AbCellera gets $175.6M from Ottawa.
CLICK HERE, for #15: refusing forced medications and vaccinations.
CLICK HERE, for #16: Koch/Atlas, both sides in AB court challenge.
CLICK HERE, for #17: the CV industry emerging in Canada.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Trudeau’s GAVI/GPEI announcements.
CLICK HERE, for CBC announcement, Karina Gould.
http://archive.is/RxcxT
CLICK HERE, for International Finance Facility for Immunization.
http://archive.is/BCjMe
CLICK HERE, for IFFIm on “Vaccine Bonds” information.
http://archive.is/lPUOc
CLICK HERE, for Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI).
http://archive.is/NTy9J (2013 archive)
http://archive.is/iEvNd (2020 archive)
CLICK HERE, for the World Bank main page.
http://archive.is/iHVTJ (2019 archive)
http://archive.is/IPLo5
CLICK HERE, for World Bank, innovative financing.
http://archive.is/Cpx4c

CLICK HERE, for previous review on climate bonds.
CLICK HERE, for Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai debunks climate bonds scam.

3. Context For This Article

Several articles in the Canuck Law series on the CV “planned-emic” have focused on the lobbying and influence peddling behind the vaccine agenda. This one covers the recent plans to hand out more money under that guise. However, there is an interesting twist here.

The Federal Government recently announced it will be giving $790 million of taxpayers’ money to 3 separate institutions. 2 of the grants (the recipients are GAVI/GPEI) are for vaccine initiatives. The other is to for so-called “vaccine bonds”, (issued by IFFIm). Of course Canada doesn’t have the money to send abroad, but that doesn’t seem to be a problem.

The specific grants:

  1. $125M for Int’l Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm)
  2. $475M for GAVI, Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI)
  3. $190M for Global Polio Eradication (GPEI)

It’s the first item on this list that is the most concerning. The $125 million to IFFIm contribution won’t be paid directly for research and development. Instead, the IFFIm will issue bonds to the World Bank, who in turn will put those bonds on the market. The World Bank will pay money back to IFFIm, less profits that the bond holders will be making on the bonds.

Obvious question: Why aren’t we giving the money targeted for the IFFIm directly to GAVI, if that’s who will use it? Why are we including at least 3 middlemen (IFFIm, World Bank, and Investors)? Why is taxpayer money — or taxpayer debt — being used to help private interests advance their stock portfolios?

We know that GAVI is heavily financed by the Gates Foundation. Also, it turns out that IFFIm has its administrative costs heavily funded by GAVI. By extension, this means that the Gates Foundation is financing the operation of IFFIm. GAVI is just being used as an intermediary here.

4. Vaccine Bonds A Growth Industry

IFFIm is a role model for socially responsible investing in global development, which faces constant funding challenges and unpredictability. Vaccine Bonds provide investors with a unique opportunity to realise an attractive and secure rate of return and diversify their portfolios while helping save young lives. It’s not a donation, it’s an investment. IFFIm has been so successful, it has changed the face of global development funding.

IFFIm’s unique financing model for global health is built upon partnerships. IFFIm receives long term, legally binding pledges from donor countries and, with the World Bank acting as Treasury Manager, turns these pledges into bonds. The money raised via Vaccine Bonds provides immediate funding for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Since, 2000 Gavi has dramatically improved access to new and underused vaccines for children living in the world’s poorest countries.

Vaccine Bonds speed the availability of flexible funds for Gavi’s immunisation programmes and other initiatives on the ground, including unexpected emergencies. This saves more lives faster. Vaccine Bonds also lead to funding that is more predictable, enabling public health officials to plan vaccination campaigns well in advance. Forward planning strengthens local health systems and translates into healthier populations overall, a crucial building block for a successful economy.

So how does this work? Let’s go through the steps:

  • Nations make binding pledges to pay IFFIm at a later date
  • The IFFIm uses those pledges to generate bonds
  • The IFFIm then sells bonds to the World Bank for cash
  • The IFFIm gives its new money to GAVI for vaccines.
  • The World Bank sells bonds to outside investors
  • Investors make profits on their bonds (presumably)
  • Nations (over time) pay their commitments to IFFIm

Something is missing from this list, correct? Investors are making money off of their bonds, or else they wouldn’t buy them. There are also salaries and administrative costs to factor in. So where is the extra money coming from?

Hypothetically, bond owners can resell the bonds to other people. That does actually happen in practice. However, that would only work for a limited time. Furthermore, the market for such bonds is fairly limited.

One option is that the IFFIm would be selling the bonds at a discount to the World Bank (but still expecting full price from the donor nations). For example, Spain might issue a pledge for $10 million, and IFFIm will sell a bond to the World Bank for $9 million. The investor(s) will get $10 million back. In this scenario, GAVI ends up with $9 million, and investors with $1 million. Of course administrative costs need to be factored in.

Another option is that the donor nations will end up footing the bill for the returns that investors get. Using Spain again, they will pledge $10 million over a period of years, but then have to pay the full bonds plus perhaps another million in interest.

Either case is horribly inefficient. By adding these middlemen, it means that nowhere near the full amount of donor money is receiving its intended target. Either money is skimmed off the initial pledge, or the pledge turns out to be far more expensive than originally thought.

This isn’t to endorse GAVI’s agenda, but giving them the money directly would have meant they actually get the full amount. This setup means that a large percentage will never be received.

Much like with the climate bonds industry, vaccine bonds don’t actually contribute to public well being. In both cases, it allows private parties to profit off of the slush funds that are generated. These bonds don’t make the weather, or vaccines, any better. The two cases have considerable overlap.

The main difference is that while the climate change industry is simply a gigantic waste of public money, the vaccines that ultimately result can do incredible harm to the people who take it.

5. A Look At IFFIm’s Financials

According to the latest financial statement, IFFIm is sitting on $1.198 billion in equity (or assets minus liabilities). That being said, it’s difficult to see how much solvent this operation is. The bulk of their “assets” are pledges from nations down the road.

Disclaimer: This is not professional accounting information, just a lay impression from reading through the reports.

IFFIm 2006 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2007 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2008 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2009 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2010 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2011 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2012 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2013 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2014 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2015 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2016 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2017 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2018 Trustees Report and Financial Statements

According to the most recent IFFIm annual report, these were the trustees of the company at the time. Below are their public profiles.

Cyrus Ardalan, Board Chair: Mr Ardalan is Chairman of Citigroup Global Markets Limited and OakNorth Bank. He is also Chairman of the Financial Services Advisory Board of Alvarez and Marsal. Previously he was a Vice Chairman of Barclays Bank and has also held senior roles at BNP Paribas and the World Bank. He has served as Chairm as a member of the board of the Dubai International Financial Centre. Mr Ardalan was appointed as a director effective 1 January 2013 and as Chair of the IFFIm board effective 1 January 2018.
Bertrand de Mazières: Mr de Mazières is the Director General for Finance at the European Investment Bank (EIB) treasury operations and its support functions for equity, lending, borrowing, and funding operations. Prior to that, he was the Chief Executive of Agence France Trésor, the division of the Ministry of Economy Management. Mr de Mazières was appointed as a director effective 18 May 2018.
Christopher Egerton-Warburton: Mr Egerton-Warburton is an expert in the structuring and execution of innovative financing solutions and was instrumental in the creation of IFFIm. He is a partner with Lion’s Head Capital Partners, a merchant bank that provides advisory, financial structuring, capital raising and asset management services. Prior to that, he was Head of the Sovereign, Supranational and Agency team within the Debt Capital Markets group at Goldman Sachs International. Mr Egerton-Warburton was appointed as a director effective 1 January 2013 and concluded his second term as a director on 31 December 2018.
Doris Herrera-Pol: Ms Herrera-Pol retired from the World Bank where she was the Global Head of Capital Markets. Her team was responsible for designing the World Bank’s funding strategy and managing its multi-currency funding programme in global money, capital and derivatives markets. From 2002 to 2007, she led the team re -vanilla debt products, including global bonds and emerging market bond issues. Ms Herrera-Pol was appointed as a director effective 13 November 2015 and she is a member of the audit committee.
Fatimatou Zahra Diop: Ms Diop is a former Secretary-General of the Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO) where she was responsible for the coordination and management of the bank in its eight member countries as well as offices in Dakar and Paris. She co-founded and currently serves as Vice President of the board of Afrivac, a public-private partnership whose mission is to work with public and private sector partners to promote the need to strengthen the budgets of African countries with a view toward becoming independent from multilateral support. Ms Diop was appointed as a director effective 10 June 2015 and she is a member of the audit committee.
Helge Weiner-Trapness: Mr Weiner-Trapness is a founding partner of Quintus Partners, an independent financial advisory firm that provides strategic and investment advisory and capital raising services to a diverse client base of corporations, private investment firms, and institutions. Prior to that, he was the Managing Director and Co-Global Head of the Financial Institutions Group at Barclays Bank in Hong Kong and previously held senior positions at Asia Pacific Land, JP Morgan Securities, and Goldman Sachs. Mr Weiner-Trapness was appointed as a director effective 17 December 2018.
Marcus Fedder, Audit Committee Chair: Mr Fedder has been involved with microfinance for the past five years after spending more than 20 years in banking. He held senior positions at several financial institutions, including as Vice Chair of TD Securities, the Toronto Dominion Bank, with responsibility for all businesses in Europe and Asia-Pacific. Prior to that he was Treasurer of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and worked at the World Bank and in derivatives, starting his career at Deutsche Bank. He is a member of the supervisory board of TCX Fund. Mr Fedder was appointed as a director effective 1 January 2013.

These aren’t doctors or any sort of scientists or medical professionals. These are bankers whose job it is to turn the slush fund into a very profitable venture.

Various nations (Canada is now one) are pledging money to the IFFIm, who then turns around and issues bonds which it sells to the World Bank. Those bonds are then sold to private investors.

The steps for this were outlined in the last section. Again, what benefit does this give to donor nations? Either the bonds are sold at a discount, or donor nations will be paying the interest as well (or perhaps both). But this does generate a nice slush fund for the banker to play around with.

According to the last financial statement, on page 18, GAVI contributed $1 million (in U.S. dollars) to the Int’l Finance Facility for Immunization for administrative costs. Essentially this means that GAVI is funding the operation of IFFIm, or rather that the Gates Foundation is.

Nation Date Years Of Bond Amount ($USD)
Australia 2011 19 $176,463,000
Australia 2016 5 $26,469,000
Brazil 2018 20 $20,000,000
France 2006 15 $426,931,000
France 2007 19 $993,072,000
France 2017 5 $171,780,000
France 2017 5 $171,780,000
Italy 2006 20 $542,195,000
Italy 2011 14 $29,203,000
Netherlands 2017 5 $91,616,000
Netherlands 2009 7 $66,667,000
Norway 2006 5 $127,000,000
Norway 2010 10 $172,829,000
South Africa 2007 20 $20,000,000
Spain 2006 5 $217,015,000
Sweden 2006 20 $30,851,000
UK 2010 19 $319,225,000

Those listings are the “legally binding” pledges that various nations have made to IFFIm over the last 15 years. Doubtful that any nation ever held a referendum.

In February 2019, the IFFIm board issued a new indicative funding confirmation to Gavi of US$ 50 million comprised of US$ 45 million to help in the funding of new and underused vaccine support programmes and US$ 5 million to help in the funding of health systems strengthening programmes.

In March 2019, the IFFIm board approved a proposal for Gavi to support the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation through the issuance of IFFIm bonds backed by a new pledge from the Kingdom of Norway to IFFIm. CEPI is a global public-private partnership whose mission is to accelerate the development of vaccines against emerging infectious diseases and enable equitable access to these vaccines for people during outbreaks. The approved arrangement will accelerate the availability of funding for programmes by drawing on capacity to raise financing on international capital markets based on long-term pledges from its Grantors.

This is from page 23 of the latest report. IFFIm approved a proposal by GAVI…. Okay, so does GAVI need to get permission from IFFIm? Bonds were issued to back a new pledge from Norway.

Considering how long this whole thing has been going on for, one has to ask if the current “pandemic” is just an excuse to upscale the existing industry.

It doesn’t get much more cliché than this: The IFFIm is using 2 (yes 2) limited liability corporations (LLCs) in the Cayman Islands to issue certificates to run IFFIm’s operations. Now, the Cayman Islands is notorious for their bank secrecy laws. If the IFFIm is a completely legitimate organization, one has to wonder why they didn’t simply set up an LLC — or a trust — in the UK, where they are based.

6. Canada To Fund Global Vaxx Agenda

Canada is pledging $600 million to a global public-private partnership that works on vaccination campaigns in the world’s poorest countries, International Development Minister Karina Gould announced today.

In addition to the funding for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, Canada is committing $47.5 million annually over four years to support the Global Polio Eradication Initiative’s strategy, Gould said.

Gould made the announcement at the launch of the Group of Friends of Solidarity for Global Health Security virtual meeting, which she co-hosted with her counterparts from Denmark, Qatar, South Korea and Sierra Leone.

Money aside, there is something else to note: Karina Gould makes it clear that it is (supposedly) Canada’s job to provide vaccinations for the entire world.

“As a global community, we must work to ensure that those most vulnerable, including women and children, have access to vaccinations to keep them healthy wherever they live,” Gould said.

“COVID-19 has demonstrated that viruses do not know borders. Our health here in Canada depends on the health of everyone, everywhere.”

How convenient for Canada that all of the parliamentary hurdles have already been cleared for this. Raj Saini introduced M-132 back in November 2017. Hearings took place in the fall of 2018. Parliament formally adopted the recommendations in March 2019. See this piece and also this piece. The timing certainly worked out well.

Now the same pharmaceutical companies that were previously pushing for the passage of M-132 will be able to reap the rewards: Government contracts to develop vaccines. In a recent move, AbCellera received a $175.6 million grant to work on a coronavirus cure.

Rest assured, many more Government contracts will be handed out soon enough.

7. GAVI Gets Funding From Gates

This is probably the most well known link in the chain. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation helped found GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance in 1999, and has made regular contributions to it. The foundation essentially runs the show.

The Global Vaccine Alliance, as the name suggests, is an organization devoted to pushing vaccinations on the public all across the world. Bill Gates has long been a proponent of mass vaccinations.

It was addressed in part 4 and part 5 how GAVI gets some of their funding, and that GAVI has been lobbying the Federal Government for 2 years. Between March 2018 and January 2020, there are 20 communications reports, according to records from the Office of the Lobbying Commissioner. Part 6 of the series shows that many of the lobbied bureaucrats follow Bill Gates.

Crestview Strategy lobbyists have ties to various political parties across the spectrum, including the Conservative Party of Canada. This lobbying seems to have paid off, as GAVI’s fees for paid influencers have resulted in a significant Government contract.

With this announcement, the Trudeau Government will be handing $475 million to GAVI. This means that it will actually be giving $475 for Gates to control. Considering that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation remains one of the biggest donors to GAVI, no one can deny that Gates has significant influence over it.

8. GPEI Partners With Gates/GAVI

From its own website, it appears that the Global Polio Eradication Initiative partners with several prominent groups including:

  • World Health Oranization
  • Rotary
  • Center for Disease Control
  • UNICEF
  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • GAVI (Global Vaccine Alliance)

On paper, it looks like Canada is giving $190 million ($47.5M annually for 4 years), to a separate organization, but these groups all work together.

9. World Bank A Full Partner

From this 2018 speech, the World Bank outlined just how varied and widespread its goals really were.

As you know, UNCTAD estimates that achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGS) by 2030 will require $3.9 trillion to be invested in developing countries each year. It also notes that with annual investment of only $1.4 trillion, the annual investment gap is $2.5 trillion. Let me therefore take this opportunity thank the Group of Friends of SDG Finance for your leadership on mobilizing private finance to achieve these important goals. At the World Bank Group, we have equally strengthened our focus on mobilizing the private sector for development.

We have this dream of what the world should be like, and we only need $3.9 trillion per year to make it a reality. The article to too long to quote in its entirety, but there are some sections that need to be addressed.

Last year, the World Bank issued the world’s first global pandemic bond that will channel surge funding to developing countries facing the risk of a pandemic. It was designed to prevent another Ebola crisis, and was the first time that pandemic risk in low income countries was transferred to the financial markets. Such a facility, will enable the world to respond more promptly than it did when the 2013-2014 Ebola crisis happened, thereby minimizing the death toll and the negative impact on the economy.

To date we have provided $3.9 billion in catastrophe and weather risk transactions, of which nearly $2 billion has been executed in the last ten months. We have seen increased demand from clients as the frequency of extreme weather events has increased. Cat bonds that transfer risk to the capital markets have become an important complement to emergency funds, budget reserves, and contingent credit lines because it allows countries to leverage their budgets to offer greater protection when disasters strike.

Yes, pandemic bonds a are real thing, and they operate as a form of insurance. People are willing to buy these bonds when times are good, and returns are assured. However, when a pandemic (or multiple pandemics) occur, the funds get depleted pretty quickly. Hence the reluctance to payout initially.

New initiatives that we are also exploring include innovative mechanisms to expand financing for education, famine and World Bank seasoned loans to institutional investors. Examples are:
.
1) The Education Commission’s International Financing Facility for Immunization, IFFEd, a fund that will not only reduce the cost to developing countries of financing education projects but also increase the capacity of multilateral institutions to lend for education projects. IFFEd is supported by the World Bank and regional development banks. IFFEd has raised $2 billion for education with a goal of $10 billion. It is expected that every billion of aid will leverage $4 billion from development banks. On May 11, 2018 IFFEd was endorsed by the UN Secretary General.

Is the IFFed related to the IFFIm? Are funds just being moved around, or is this really the same group?

In this respect we partnered with Japan’s Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF) on research with respect to sustainable fixed income investing. We expect this research to promote strategies for including sustainability criteria in investment decisions. We are equally conducting research for the G20 by engaging investors to come up with concrete actions to scale up long-term sustainable investments and support the SDGs.

This is rather creepy. If anyone in Japan ever reads this article, consider pulling your money out of the pension plan.

The World Bank is buying bonds from IFFIm, and those bonds are based on pledges from donor nations. Considering the globalist nature of many World Bank Initiatives, is this an underhanded way to get nations to fund projects they otherwise couldn’t sell to the public.

10. Gov’t Is Throwing Money Away

The $125 million pledge that is going to the Int’l Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm), is essentially being used to create bonds for bankers to sell privately. Canadian taxpayer debt is being used to finance a portion of this slush fund, which doesn’t actually help improve global health.

The vaccine bonds in many ways parallel the climate bonds. Nations pledge large sums of money, and the handlers use those pledges to create bonds which are sold on the private market. Neither benefit the public at large, but they do make some people extremely wealthy.

As for the grants to GAVI and to GPEI, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation heavily finances both organizations. It is foolish to think that they are independent. Noted early, GAVI has been using the lobbying firm Crestview Strategy to push their agenda for the last 2 years. There are 20 communications reports on file.

The Federal Government has quite bluntly stated that they see providing “global health care” as critical to keeping Canadians healthy. Effectively, this is free health care for the world, paid for by Canadians. Or at least that is what Ottawa claims it believes.

Of course, mainstream outlets like the CBC won’t give you the entire story. Their job is to ensure Canadians don’t see the big picture.

Catherine McKenna: Co-Founder Of NGO, Canadian Lawyers Abroad

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for McKenna’s LPC page biography.
CLICK HERE, for 2013 posting on Canadian Lawyers Abroad.
http://archive.is/DYoQg
CLICK HERE, for Canadian Lawyers Abroad’s blog.
http://archive.is/fqUPW
CLICK HERE, for CLA search under “Catherine McKenna”.
http://archive.is/UOSKe
CLICK HERE, for Level Justice programs.
http://archive.is/zWgkW
CLICK HERE, for CLA changing its name.
http://archive.is/OlXub

Some Posts Written By McKenna
What Is Canadian Lawyers Abroad?
http://archive.is/UdqBw
Traditional Law Path A Losing Game.
http://archive.is/GbQ7q
CLICK HERE, for Should We Get Rid Of Articling?
http://archive.is/A61RA
CLICK HERE, for Becoming An International Lawyer, Part 1.
http://archive.is/zzC2I
CLICK HERE, for Becoming An International Lawyer, Part 2.
http://archive.is/FwR2w
CLICK HERE, for We’re Failing Our Children.
http://archive.is/6D4ky
CLICK HERE, for Articling, And 2011 LSUC Elections.
http://archive.is/VBZ4U
CLICK HERE, for 2011 – The Rights Of Spring.
http://archive.is/enUho

2. Context For This Article

When a person steps into public office, such as being a Member of Parliament, it is expected that they will have no other associations or obligations that will interfere with this role. They are expected to have no conflict of interest. For Ottawa MP Catherine McKenna, however, that is not the case.

She co-founded an NGO called Canadian Lawyers Abroad in 2006, which was aimed at getting Canadian law graduates to take on international matters. McKenna remained a director of this organization until the day of the 2015 election.

What does this group (whatever its name is) actually do? Looking at its profile, under the name Level Justice, it seems to focus on social justice and indoctrination for aspiring lawyers. Think of it as a sort of brainwashing movement, promoting a more globalist, or internationalist approach.

It also operates a student internship, where law students and graduates take on work abroad. This amounts to a summer or so or volunteer work abroad, working for NGOs. An interesting situation: even while running for office, Catherine McKenna was a director at an NGO, which tried to get law students to go work for other NGOs abroad. The annual reports do list where people have gone, but more information would have been nice on the work they do.

But looking at the reports issued, it seemed that this global internship was not the biggest focus. More efforts were spent on local initiatives.

3. “Candidate” McKenna Stayed On CLA Board

Today was a big week in the history of Canadian Lawyers Abroad. On Monday, Brittany Twiss came on board as our new Executive Director. The torch had officially passed from Yasmin Shaker and me, the CLA co-founders, to the next generation!

It is bittersweet to be leaving as ED of CLA (although I will still be on the board). I realize how lucky I have been to work with so many passionate and committed lawyers and law students who live up to CLA’s motto of using law to improve lives. We are lucky to count among our boosters (and my mentors) amazing leaders in the legal community including Allan Rock and Nathalie Des Rosiers (who very kindly gave us our first office at the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law), Bill Graham, Antonio Lamer, Ed Waitzer, Bob Rae, Greg Kane and Armand de Mestral. We also have thousands of law students who have come through our Student Chapter and Student Internship Programs who are now using their law degrees to build the rule of law and promote human rights in Canada and around the world.

McKenna remained on the Board of Canadian Lawyers Abroad, even though she was campaigning to become a Member of Parliament in the 2015 election. That page is from 2013, but it has to be asked: did McKenna remain on the Board after getting elected? Is she on the Board today? Is she using her position as an MP to push CLA’s agenda?

4. McKenna’s Posts On CLA Blog

About Catherine
I am a Co-Founder, former Executive Director and current Board Member of Canadian Lawyers Abroad. I am Executive Director of the Banff Forum and a lecturer at the Munk School of Global Affairs in Toronto.

Here, Catherine McKenna describes in broad strokes what her organization is, and what it’s goals are. Again, she remained a board member while running for public office, which is a huge conflict of interest.

How? In two ways. First, we run a Student Program that brings together law students from across the country who are passionate about using their law degree to make positive changes around the world. CLA provides a forum for discussion and debate and, through our Summer Internship Program, we offer students the possibility of gaining practical experience with our amazing partners in developing countries and Canada’s north.

Second, we develop innovative projects with our partners that will lead to positive, long-term changes in their communities. For example, we’re helping the KNUST Faculty of Law in Ghana set up a university legal clinic. University legal clinics have been a very successful model in Canada and Canadian lawyers and law students are well-placed to provide assistance. This project will give KNUST law students practical, real-life training and provide marginalized groups, in particular women and youth, access to desperately needed legal information and services. In the long-term, by promoting the rule of law and protecting human rights, this project will help reduce poverty and promote economic development in Ghana. We plan on replicating this pilot project with other partners around the world.

This all sounds great, but when you are an elected MP in Ottawa (or any riding) your allegiance is to the people of that riding. Remaining part of this organization makes McKenna look compromised.

In another article, McKenna outlines how law school is becoming a losing game, as there are more graduates than positions in articling available. She actually has a valid point, and the situation in the United States is much worse. Could this be a way of swaying more lawyers to her cause?

5. CDN Lawyers Abroad A.K.A. Level Justice

In September 2015, Canadian Lawyers Abroad underwent a name change and overhauled its website. However, its indoctrination agenda seems to be pretty much the same, so the changes are more cosmetic.


Level.Justice.Change.Of.Name
Level.Justice.2.Certificate.Of.Continuance.
Level.Justice.3.Bylaws.For.Organization
Level.Justice.4.Director.List.In.2014
Level.Justice.5.Change.Of.Corporate.Address
Level.Justice.6.Director.Change.October.2015.McKenna.Out

Looking at the corporate documents, it seems that Canadian Lawyers Abroad was renamed to LEVEL. CHANGING LIVES THROUGH LAW. It also looks like Catherine McKenna remained a Director at the organization until October 19, 2015. This was the day of the election which put her into office. Since there is no time listed, she may have only resigned after having won her seat.

6. CLA/Level Is Registered Charity

This is a bit confusing. McKenna stepped down as Executive Director in 2013. So, was she not considered a Director (according to the CRA) until this happened?

For Period Ending December 31, 2015
Receipted donations $82,191.00 (48.34%)
Non-receipted donations $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities $81,039.00 (47.66%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $6,788.00 (3.99%)
Total revenue: $170,018.00

Charitable programs $97,086.00 (79.87%)
Management and administration $0.00 (0.00%)
Fundraising $8,868.00 (7.30%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $15,597.00 (12.83%)
Total expenses: $121,551.00

Professional and consulting fees
$61,966.00

Note: There is no compensation listed for employees

For Period Ending December 31, 2016
Receipted donations $10,600.00 (7.54%)
Non-receipted donations $78,864.00 (56.07%)
Gifts from other registered charities $43,000.00 (30.57%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $8,200.00 (5.83%)
Total revenue: $140,664.00

Charitable programs $116,887.00 (90.23%)
Management and administration $12,652.00 (9.77%)
Fundraising $0.00 (0.00%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $129,539.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$72,746.00

Full-time employees (1)
Part-time employees (4)

Professional and consulting fees
$8,633.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$40,000 to $79,999 (1)

For Period Ending August 31, 2017
Receipted donations $0.00 (0.00%)
Non-receipted donations $110,300.00 (85.31%)
Gifts from other registered charities $18,992.00 (14.69%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $0.00 (0.00%)
Total revenue: $129,292.00

Expenses are listed as $163,006

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$96,529.00

Full-time employees (3)

Professional and consulting fees
$5,861.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$1 to $39,999 (2)
$40,000 to $79,999 (1)

For Period Ending August 31, 2018
Receipted donations $6,790.00 (1.71%)
Non-receipted donations $260,938.00 (65.58%)
Gifts from other registered charities $130,131.00 (32.71%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $28.00 (0.01%)
Total revenue: $397,887.00

Charitable programs $288,133.00 (91.80%)
Management and administration $25,747.00 (8.20%)
Fundraising $0.00 (0.00%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $313,880.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$220,568.00

Full-time employees (3)

Professional and consulting fees
$12,006.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$40,000 to $79,999 (1)
$80,000 to $119,999 (2)

For Period Ending August 31, 2019
Receipted donations $10,000.00 (2.96%)
Non-receipted donations $156,492.00 (46.30%)
Gifts from other registered charities $171,448.00 (50.73%)
Government funding $0.00 (0.00%)
All other revenue $25.00 (0.01%)
Total revenue: $337,965.00

Charitable programs $220,726.00 (89.76%)
Management and administration $25,171.00 (10.24%)
Fundraising $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $245,897.00

Compensation
Total compensation for all positions
$168,747.00

Full-time employees (3)

Professional and consulting fees
$13,524.00

Compensated full-time positions:
$40,000 to $79,999 (3)

7. Little Info On Elections Canada Site

A quick search into the financing section of Elections Canada shows very little. In fact, as of the time of writing this, there are 21 donations total with McKenna’s name on them. Most are for a few hundred dollars. So McKenna hasn’t been getting large donations from various groups.

8. Global Internship Program

In summer 2016, Level placed 20 student interns with NGOs in Canada, the US, Ghana, Namibia, Kenya, Thailand, India and Bangladesh, where they gained practical human rights research and advocacy experience. While Level has made the difficult decision this year to shift its focus to local and remote internship opportunities, we are proud to have facilitated international internships for over 220 students since 2005. I would like to take this opportunity to thank  our amazing partners for their support of our student initiatives, and their commitment to making justice a reality for some of the world’s most vulnerable populations.

Focused on an annual theme, Level’s Chapters organize community events, host conferences and panel discussions, and contribute research papers to an annual human rights journal. In 2016-17, our Chapters advanced awareness of women’s human rights both in Canada and abroad, and encouraged their peers to think critically about how they can use their budding legal skills to make a positive impact in their communities.

Through our Global Internship Program, 20 passionate and talented JD/LLB students spent the summer working for NGOs in Canada or overseas supporting grassroots efforts to increase access to justice and combat poverty, inequality and exploitation. Since 2005, over 220 students have advanced the mission of 45 organizations in 15 countries, while at the same time developing practical skills to advance their careers.

The quotes are from the annual 2016 report.
LJ.2014.annual.report
LJ.2015.annual.report
LJ.2016.annual.report
LJ.2018.annual.report

2014 through 2018 are available currently on the website.
On a serious note: one has to wonder how effective these students and new graduates would actually be. Not only would they have little to no experience in Canada, how could they contribute in countries where the culture and language are very different? How would they be able to operate in areas that might be highly suspicious of Westerners?

9. What This Group Does

From the looks of things, Canadian Lawyers Abroad, now called “Level Changing Lives Through The law”, or as “Level Justice”, runs a bunch of advocacy programs in Canada. The focus is on a social justice approach on crime, law, and access to representation.

The group has a “global internship program” which encourages law students and/or law school graduates to go abroad working for NGOs of other organizations. While the places are listed, it would be nice to know more about what these aspiring lawyers are in fact doing.

However, it appears that the bulk of the work has to do with domestic initiatives within Canada. That may explain the name change, as “Canadian Lawyers Abroad” left the impression that it was the bulk of their work.

Within Canada, it does seem to be focused on pitching the notion that poverty, racism and intolerance is what keeps people from getting access to justice. On the surface, this group seems to be noble and benevolent, though it views everything through the social justice lens.

CV #13: More On Who Theresa Tam Really Is

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

CLICK HERE, for #0: Theresa Tam; archives; articles; lobbying.
CLICK HERE, for #1: piece on Bill Gates, Pirbright, depopulation.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Coronavirus research at U of Saskatchewan.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Gates; WHO, ID2020; GAVI; Vaccines.
CLICK HERE, for #4: Gates using proxies to push vaxx agenda.
CLICK HERE, for #5: Crestview Strategy, GAVI’s lobbying firm.
CLICK HERE, for #6: people GAVI/Crestview lobbied follow Gates.
CLICK HERE, for #7: M-132, Canada financing pharma research.
CLICK HERE, for #8: Canada/WHO & “vaccine hesitancy” research.
CLICK HERE, for #9: Raj Saini, lobbied by big pharma (M-132).
CLICK HERE, for #10: pharma lobbying in Alberta legislature.
CLICK HERE, for #11: ON Pharma; Bill 160 Not Implemented.
CLICK HERE, for #12: 2006 report recommends surveillance/vaxx.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Tam’s bio: Chief Public Health Officer.
http://archive.is/Zk6X5
CLICK HERE, for Tam search on Royal College of Physicians
http://archive.is/8rBVY
CLICK HERE, for ON College of Physicians & Surgeons.
http://archive.is/0lvYA
CLICK HERE, for Theresa Tam, CPSO Practice Info.
https://archive.is/U1RSg
CLICK HERE, for Canada Public Health.
https://archive.is/C5r5z
CLICK HERE, for Tam’s World Health Org. profile.
https://archive.is/BFM3k
CLICK HERE, for WHO Committee Tam serves on.
https://archive.is/Qdi7Y

CLICK HERE, for Walid Ammar’s WHO profile.
https://archive.is/0Mo2x
CLICK HERE, for Hiroyoshi Endo’s WHO profile.
https://archive.is/sckoV
CLICK HERE, for Geeta Rao Gupta’s WHO profile.
https://archive.is/9Z6R3
CLICK HERE, for Jeremey Konyndyk’s WHO profile.
https://archive.is/o2zTK
CLICK HERE, for Malebona Precious Matsoso’s WHO profile.
https://archive.is/WItki
CLICK HERE, for Felicity Harvey’s WHO profile.
https://archive.is/cmouH

3. Constructing A Timeline

Unfortunately, there is very little information available on her. No date of birth, or place of birth beyond “growing up in Hong Kong”. Even at the schools she claims to have completed, there is no searchable information. One would think they would happy to boast about the accomplishments of their alumnus.

The following credential dates are from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, but it doesn’t look like Tam has actually practiced medicine at all. There are publications with her name on it, but the rest of her past is a mystery.

1965 – Tam is born in HK (source: Wikipedia)
1989 – U of Nottingham medical degree (CPSO profile)
1996 – U of Alberta pediatric residency completed (CPSO profile)
1997 – UBC fellowship in infectious diseases (CPSO profile)
1999 – Independent Practice Certificate issues (CPSO profile)

In her CPSO profile, Tam claims not to have used any other names, which would contradict speculation that she once went by the name “Tan Yongshi”.

4. Tam’s CPSO Profile Page

The information here can be found at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, (CPSO), the board which licenses doctors. The profile lists “EDUCATION” as coming from the University of Nottingham (in the UK) in 1989. Yes, it was followed up with the College of Physicians and Surgeons that it referred to a medical degree. However, no undergraduate degree is listed.

It also lists finishing a University of Alberta pediatric residency in June 1996. Severn years? That seems to be a particularly long time to finish, so what was she doing in the meantime?

The fellowship in the University of British Columbia in pediatric infectious diseases was finished in September 1997.

What’s interesting though is that in researching these schools: Nottingham, UAlberta and UBC, there is no mention of Theresa Tam at all. Once would think that a graduate who is not “Canada’s top doctor” would warrant special attention and adoration. But there isn’t any mention of her at all.

It also states:

First certificate of registration issued: Independent Practice Certificate

However, Tam was getting into government around that time. It doesn’t look like she ever practiced — ANYWHERE. Yet she has become “Canada’s Top Doctor”. She graduated medical school in 1989 and never got a license to practice until a decade later?

5. No Practice Information In Profile

Dr. Theresa Tam was named Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer on June 26, 2017. She is a physician with expertise in immunization, infectious disease, emergency preparedness and global health security.

Dr. Tam obtained her medical degree from the University of Nottingham in the U.K. She completed her paediatric residency at the University of Alberta and her fellowship in paediatric infectious diseases at the University of British Columbia. She is a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and has over 55 peer-reviewed journal publications in public health. She is also a graduate of the Canadian Field Epidemiology Program.

Dr. Tam has held several senior leadership positions at the Public Health Agency of Canada, including as the Deputy Chief Public Health Officer and the Assistant Deputy Minister for Infectious Disease Prevention and Control. During her 20 years in public health, she provided technical expertise and leadership on new initiatives to improve communicable disease surveillance, enhance immunization programs, strengthen health emergency management and laboratory biosafety and biosecurity. She has played a leadership role in Canada’s response to public health emergencies including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), pandemic influenza H1N1 and Ebola.

Dr. Tam has served as an international expert on a number of World Health Organization committees and has participated in multiple international missions related to SARS, pandemic influenza and polio eradication.

Again, it doesn’t appear from this that Theresa Tam has ever actually practiced medicine. Her first authorization for independent practice was issued in 1999, and she has been in various Government roles for 20 years now.

To get even stranger, it appears that the profile provided here is a cut and paste equivalent of the World Health Organization profile for Tam.

6. Identical Photo/Profile With WHO

Dr. Theresa Tam was named Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer on June 26, 2017. She is a physician with expertise in immunization, infectious disease, emergency preparedness and global health security.

Dr. Tam obtained her medical degree from the University of Nottingham in the U.K. She completed her paediatric residency at the University of Alberta and her fellowship in paediatric infectious diseases at the University of British Columbia. She is a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and has over 55 peer-reviewed journal publications in public health. She is also a graduate of the Canadian Field Epidemiology Program.

Dr. Tam has held several senior leadership positions at the Public Health Agency of Canada, including as the Deputy Chief Public Health Officer and the Assistant Deputy Minister for Infectious Disease Prevention and Control. During her 20 years in public health, she provided technical expertise and leadership on new initiatives to improve communicable disease surveillance, enhance immunization programs, strengthen health emergency management and laboratory biosafety and biosecurity. She has played a leadership role in Canada’s response to public health emergencies including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), pandemic influenza H1N1 and Ebola.

Dr. Tam has served as an international expert on a number of World Health Organization committees and has participated in multiple international missions related to SARS, pandemic influenza and polio eradication.

Sound familiar? It is a cut-and-paste equivalent of what is listed in the Canadian profile. Lazy writing, or is she just serving 2 masters?

7. WHO Committee Tam Serves On

PURPOSE 1. The purpose of the Independent Oversight and Advisory Committee (the Committee”), for the WHO Health Emergencies Programme (“the Programme”), established by the Director-General, is to provide oversight and monitoring of the development and performance of the Programme, guide the Programme’s activities, and report its findings through the Executive Board to the Health Assembly. The Committee will advise the Director-General on issues within its mandate. Reports of the Committee will be shared with the Secretary General of the United Nations and with the United Nations’ InterAgency Standing Committee.

WHO.independent.advisory.committee

Tam is in the obvious conflict of interest in both being:
(a) Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer;
(b) serving on this WHO Committee

So does she serve Canada, or the World Health Organization?

Dr Geeta Rao Gupta has over 20 years of experience in international development programming, advocacy and research with UNICEF.

Prior to her appointment as Deputy Executive Director (Programmes), Dr Rao Gupta served as a senior fellow at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation from 2010 to 2011. She acted as the senior adviser to the Global Development Programme on the strategic direction and management of a cross-cutting range of issues and projects.

One of the WHO Committee Members that Tam works with was previously a senior fellow at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Would be interesting to ask her take on mass vaccinations. Now, let’s see who else is on the Committee.

Prior to his appointment, Mr Konyndyk worked for Mercy Corps, a global relief and development organization, as its Director of Policy and Advocacy. From 2008 to 2013, he led high-level strategic outreach to governments, donors, the UN, and other partners with a focus on resilience and humanitarian responses to Sudan, Syria, and the Horn of Africa. From 2003 to 2008, he served as the American Refugee Committee’s Country Director in South Sudan, Uganda, and Guinea, designing and leading humanitarian responses in conflict and post-conflict settings. Mr Konyndyk earlier served as a Refugee Officer with the US Department of State’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration where he managed the Bureau’s portfolio for the Balkans. In addition, he led non-governmental organization relief programmes in Kosovo and Albania following the Kosovo refugee crisis.

For those not familiar, Mercy Corps is an NGO who aims to flood the West with migrants and refugees from Africa and the Middle East.

8. Pharma Funding World Health Org., 2017

WHO.Contributions2017Listings

Note: this is by no means an exhaustive list. However, it should provide some insight as to who is funding the World Health Organization, and give a hint as to what the agenda is.

From Schedule 2:

Institution Amount of Money
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation $324,654,317
World Bank $145,568,331
GAVI Alliance $133,365,051
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) $18,251,940
Vital Strategies $10,647,550
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) $7,365,666
Hoffmann-La Roche and Co $6,628,090
Gilead Sciences Inc. $3,124,450
Merck Sharp and Dohme Chibret $1,652,226
Bayer AG $1,158,060
Rockefeller Foundation $748,945
Merck $510,000
Novartis $500,000
International Organization for Migration (IOM) $332,290
Kitasato Daiichi Sankyo Vaccine Co., Ltd(PVS) $220,155
Path Vaccine Solutions(PVS) $294,582
Fluart Innovative Vaccines Ltd. $73,645
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of PH $88,069
Path Vaccine Solutions (PVS) $73,385
Open Society Institute Budapest Foundation $55,000
Int’l Fed. of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Ass’n $50,000

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the biggest individual donor (excluding nations). Geeta Rao Gupta is a former Senior Fellow at the Gates Foundation. She is also one of the people on the World Health Org. Committee that Theresa Tam works on.

While Tam is “supposed” to be representing the interests of Canadians, her other employer, the World Health Organization, receives large funding from:

  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • World Bank
  • GAVI Alliance (Gates funded
  • The Pharma lobby

Side note: The UN Development Program is helping to fund the International Vaccine Institution (which partners with VIDO-InterVac at the University of Saskatchewan). Gates and GAVI help fund that too.

Can it be any surprise that Tam sees mass vaccination as the solution to this so-called “pandemic” in Canada? After all, it’s what her employers want to see happen. And this is hardly the only time this has happened. Certainly individual countries do make significant contributions to the WHO, but the pharma lobbying can’t be ignored.

9. Pharma Funding World Health Org., 2018

Also worth a look is the 2018 statement of contributions.
WHO.Contributions.Statement.2018

From Schedule 2:

Institution Amount of Money
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation $228,970,196
GAVI Alliance $158,545,964
World Bank $20,556,661
UNITAID $19,688,301
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, Malaria $14,769,596
Hoffmann-La Roche and Co., Ltd $6,624,600
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) $6,504,848
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) $5,482,827
Medimmune $2,086,169
KNCV Tuberculosis Foundation $2,045,388
Merck & Co., Inc $1,184,398
Novartis $500,000
Kitasato Daiichi Sankyo Vaccine Co., Ltd $294,427
Islamic Development Bank $200,000
World Hepatitis Alliance $200,000
SK Bioscience $122,678
Fluart Innovative Vaccines Ltd. $73,607
Int’l Fed. of Anthroposophic Medical Ass’s $50,000
Takeda Pharmaceuticals International GmbH $19,702

Again, this is nowhere near everyone who contributes to the World Health Organization. However, these are some of the parties who fund it. And Theresa Tam sits on this committee, at the same time she claims to be acting in the best interests of Canadians.

10. Tam A WHO Veteran

How international health emergencies are handled holds lessons for Canadian public health on a range of fronts, from infectious diseases to opioid misuse. That’s the view of Dr. Theresa Tam, who became Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer on an interim basis when Dr. Gregory Taylor retired in December 2016. A competition now underway will determine who will eventually fill the spot, but neither the Privy Council Office, which appoints the position, nor the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) has provided a timeline.

Tam has served on three World Health Organization (WHO) emergency committees: Ebola, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and poliovirus. Emergency committees are convened under the International Health Regulations (IHR) to decide whether disease outbreaks constitute “public health emergencies of international concern” and what measures should be taken to deal with them. Canada has had members on all six of the emergency committees established since the IHR came into force in 2007.

Tam served on several WHO Committees in the 2000’s, and was already “considered a veteran” when appointed to the current role. A Google Scholar search will come up with publications in her name, but they are in the last 20 years or so.

Still it doesn’t help determine what she was doing prior to 2000. Very little information available for the early years.

11. Who Is Theresa Tam Really?

It’s difficult to say. Beyond some very limited information available online, there is next to nothing on her past and early years. Her profile states “growing up in Hong Kong”, and “born in 1965”, yet provides no details.

The schools Tam graduated from don’t have any searchable information on her, which is extremely odd, given her high profile. She graduated medical school in 1989 but doesn’t appear to have obtained a license until 1999. Tam then spent the next 20 years in various Government public health roles, and it seems not to have practiced medicine at all.

Tam did co-author a 2006 report (see CV #12) recommending that vaccination be available to the entire population, and that surveillance apparatus be in place. In fact, she co-authored many research papers in the 2000s. She also participated in the 2010 film “Outbreak” and talked about putting tracking bracelets on, and forced quarantine. Tam spend years in various World Health Organization roles, which is a serious conflict of interest.

While acting as Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer, she sits a World Health Organization Committee. She is part of that Committee along with an ex-Gates Foundation operative. The WHO gets a substantial amount of funding from:

  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • World Bank
  • GAVI Alliance (Gates funded
  • The Pharma lobby

In fact, if you read through the previous articles in the series, you will see that a lot of the parties funding WHO (GAVI, GlaxoSmithKline, etc…) are the same ones lobbying the Provinces and Federal Government in Canada. In some sense it “isn’t” a conflict of interest, as Tam’s employers are funded by same special interest groups.

Is Theresa Tam even a Canadian citizen? When did she arrive? There’s no specific information available to the public. She’s like a ghost.

CV #12: Pandemic Report From 2006 Recommends Surveillance And Total Vaccinations

As of late January, 2020, Theresa Tam saw very little risk to Canadians, and that human to human transmission was not a threat

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

CLICK HERE, for #0: Theresa Tam; archives; articles; lobbying.
CLICK HERE, for #1: piece on Bill Gates, Pirbright, depopulation.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Coronavirus research at U of Saskatchewan.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Gates; WHO, ID2020; GAVI; Vaccines.
CLICK HERE, for #4: Gates using proxies to push vaxx agenda.
CLICK HERE, for #5: Crestview Strategy, GAVI’s lobbying firm.
CLICK HERE, for #6: people GAVI/Crestview lobbied follow Gates.
CLICK HERE, for #7: M-132, Canada financing pharma research.
CLICK HERE, for #8: Canada/WHO & “vaccine hesitancy” research.
CLICK HERE, for #9: Raj Saini, lobbied by big pharma (M-132).
CLICK HERE, for #10: pharma lobbying in Alberta legislature.
CLICK HERE, for #11: ON Pharma; Bill 160 Not Implemented.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for January 26, 2020 tweet from Tam.
CLICK HERE, for Theresa Tam’s Wikipedia page.
http://archive.is/e9jwT
CLICK HERE, for translation of article on “Theresa Tam”.

CLICK HERE, for 2006 Canadian Pandemic Influenza Plan.
Tam.Canada_Pandemic_Influenza.2006.report
CLICK HERE, for Globe & Mail article on Tam.
http://archive.is/oBxhf

3. Is Theresa Tam Really Tan Yongshi?

Also check out this link, from an article that identifies Tam as “Tan Yongshi”. Credit is due to Christina Forbes for catching this is the first place.

As the chief health officer, what are the negligent duties that Ms. Tan Yongshi should step down from? In general, there are five aspects. First of all: she should be vigilant about the lack of the new crown epidemic. Wuhan was closed on January 23, and the first patient appeared in Canada on January 25. On January 30, WHO declared the new coronary pneumonia as a public health emergency, and the United States announced the closure of China the next day. At that time, the Chinese community understood the seriousness of the virus and appealed to the government to be vigilant, but Tan was indifferent to it and repeatedly emphasized that Canada’s risk was very low, thus missing the best time for prevention and control. After the closure of the United States, because Canada did not take measures, many travelers detoured to Canada to the United States. During their stay in Canada, they planted hidden dangers for the spread of the virus.

Second: Due to the contempt of Tan Yongshi and the government, the Canadian border epidemic prevention and isolation measures are useless. Among the countries in the world, Canada is the only country that has no airport temperature measurement since the outbreak. In the early stage of the epidemic, all entrants were only verbally asked whether they came from the epidemic area, and there was no requirement for isolation. Nevertheless, most Chinese are consciously isolated for 14 days. In the middle of the outbreak, although the government made a 14-day quarantine request, there was no compulsory follow-up measure. Now that the epidemic has almost peaked, the government has proposed coercive measures, but there is no guarantee of law enforcement, because the RCMP responsible for law enforcement has not issued a ticket. If it is said that Trudeau did this based on Ms. Tan ’s opinion, then Tan did not warn against the strengthening of airport detection and isolation, which is her negligence.

There appear to be translation issues, as it switches names several times. Nonetheless, it does refer to Theresa Tam as Tan Yongshi.

It would be nice to nail this down for certain. Should any reader come across this and have more information, please share. Personally, it would be nice to have more material than: (1) a Wikipedia page; and (2) an article from Google Translate.

To play some devil’s advocate, even if this is the case, it may be attempt to simply adopt a more English sounding name. Many people have done it before.

4. Critique Of 2006 Epidemic Plan

A 2006 report co-written by Dr. Theresa Tam – now the face of Canada’s COVID-19 response – predicted our current situation, and the steps needed to get out of it, with eerie accuracy. But the actual response has been very different

A pandemic sweeps across Canada in one or two months. It is spread not only by the sick, but by people who show no symptoms. There are shortages of medical supplies and the health system struggles to keep up. The peak won’t come for months, and it will be accompanied by a surge in deaths. Soon after, the country will brace for a second wave.

All of this is now true for the COVID-19 crisis, but the aforementioned scenario – a warning – comes from a 2006 federal report on pandemic preparedness. Fourteen years later, its words are eerily accurate.

Despite the prescience of such warnings, Canada and many other governments around the world significantly underestimated the severity of the coronavirus.

As recently as late January, federal officials, including Dr. Tam, said the threat of a major outbreak in Canada was very low, that measures such as travel restrictions weren’t needed, and that the risk of the virus being spread by people without symptoms was highly unlikely.

The article goes on to criticize the Federal Government’s lack of preparedness in many different ways, and in great detail. To their credit, the Globe & Mail is pretty thorough in many ways.

But what they missed in their critique is the propaganda elements within the 2006 report. They may be subtle, but they are there.

5. Contents Of 2006 Report

For vaccine program planning purposes, it is important to be prepared to immunize 100% of the population; however, the actual proportion of the population that will voluntarily seek vaccination will depend on public perception of the risk and the severity of the disease. Therefore, the demand, which will manifest as clinic attendance, will likely vary among jurisdictions and within each jurisdiction as the pandemic evolves. Previous experience with outbreak-related immunization clinics indicates that it would be prudent to prepare for an initial demand of 75% of the target population. It is recommended that planning activities also focus on delivering a two dose program to ensure that the public health response is ready to deal with this possibility.

Tam.Canada_Pandemic_Influenza.2006.report
If you go to section 2.2 (page 60 in the 550 page pdf file), it does point out an interesting fact: that the amount of people who will voluntarily take a vaccination depends on the public perception of risk.

Therefore: one can reasonably conclude from this, if the goal is mass vaccination of the public, it is necessary to get them afraid, and keep them afraid.

The Canadian Pandemic Influenza Plan for the Health Sector (the Plan) consists of an introduction and a background section, followed by the preparedness, response and recovery sections, which are consistent with the general principals of emergency response. Each section aims to assist and facilitate appropriate planning for the health sector at all levels of government for the next influenza pandemic. The Plan and the annexed guidelines, checklists and other documents were developed to assist all jurisdictions with the main components of health sector planning, including surveillance, vaccine programs, use of antivirals, health services, public health measures and communications. The most effective public health intervention to mitigate the impact of a pandemic is through immunization with an effective vaccine against the novel virus, and, to a lesser extent, through the use of antiviral drugs. In addition, comprehensive planning requires that appropriate surveillance capacity is in place, and that the health sector, emergency services and communities as a whole are informed and equipped to deal with a pandemic.

This is from the PREFACE (page 21 in 550 page pdf file). It states that the best solution is a vaccine against the novel virus, and that antivirals are a lesser option. Okay, so every time there is a “novel” virus, we need to break out the vaccine testing?

The preface also states that an appropriate surveillance capacity is needed. Perhaps it could be forcing people to wear bracelets, as Theresa Tam/Tan Yongshi suggests.

The components of the 2004 edition of the Plan included surveillance, vaccine programs, antivirals, health services, emergency services, public health measures and communications. In this edition of the Plan, the emergency services component has been removed; it is now addressed as part of the preparedness for overall emergency management and coordination.

Federal, provincial, territorial and local planners are encouraged to consider the psychosocial implications of pandemic influenza when developing their plans for preparedness and response activities. It is anticipated that a component focusing on psychosocial issues will be added to future versions of the Plan.

Section 2.0 (page 54 of the 550 page pdf) openly states that surveillance and vaccine programs are to be prominent portions of this plan. It seems nothing has changed.

Jurisdictions need to be prepared to rapidly implement or modify enhanced surveillance activities. For the purpose of informing public health risk assessment and response activities, a coordinated and rapid epidemiological investigation that includes the collection, collation and analysis of detailed epidemiological, laboratory and clinical data is required. Further, rapid sharing of data and efficient communication at all levels of government are critical for facilitating a coordinated response.

At the federal level, regular environmental scanning for the detection of potentially significant ILI is conducted using official information sources for influenza surveillance (e.g. World Health Organization [WHO] and government influenza surveillance programs from other countries) and unconfirmed reports from early warning systems (e.g. ProMed and other media scanning software, such as the Global Public Health Intelligence Network).

On an ongoing basis, the newly created national expert Working Group for Vaccine Preventable and Respiratory Infections Surveillance (VPRIS-N) will be assessing surveillance systems and making recommendations for enhancements and improvements for the Interpandemic, Pandemic Alert and Pandemic Periods. Recommendations from this group are being refined on an ongoing basis; current recommendations are included in Annex N, Pandemic Influenza Surveillance Guidelines.

The report in this focuses on the need for new surveillance methods (page 56 of 550 page pdf). While avoiding specifics, it acknowledges that expanding it would be greatly beneficial.

Because surveillance data will drive the pandemic response, it is important that physicians and other health care workers are educated and updated on an ongoing basis about the importance of ILI surveillance as well as their roles in the system. Surveillance systems must be established in advance of a pandemic because there will be little time to augment capacity at the time of a pandemic. At the time of a pandemic, surveillance and laboratory-testing capacity will be reduced (e.g. due to staff absenteeism and potential supply shortages) compared with pre-pandemic periods; only streamlined, resource-efficient systems will continue to function. Special study protocols if required (e.g. to determine epidemiology or to investigate reported adverse events following immunization) at the time of a pandemic must be developed and pretested during the pre-pandemic period, recognizing that refinements may be necessary at the time of a pandemic.

However, on the next page, the report suggests that surveillance systems must be established well in advance, as it may not be possible later. Again, avoiding specifics about what that surveillance would be about?

Vaccination of susceptible individuals is the primary means to prevent disease and death from influenza during an epidemic or pandemic. The National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) produces annual recommendations on the use of influenza vaccine in persons who are most at risk for influenza or those who could spread influenza to persons at greatest risk. These interpandemic recommendations are published annually in the Canada Communicable Disease Report. In the event of a pandemic, PIC, which includes representation from NACI, will provide recommendations to F/P/T immunization programs on the development, production and use of the pandemic vaccine, and priority groups for immunization. Efforts should be made to encourage all jurisdictions to adopt the national recommendations on priority groups at the time of a pandemic in order to facilitate equitable access and consistent messaging.

That’s from page 57. “Consistent messaging”??? Does that mean that government officials should keep their talking points consistent in order to prevent the public from picking out contradictions?

From page 59 of the report. In case you were wondering “recombinant vaccines” are ones that are made up of combined genetic material. Think of it as a Franken-vaxx.

Vaccines, when available, will be the primary public health intervention during a pandemic. However at the start of the pandemic, vaccines may not be available as soon as required and two doses of vaccine may be necessary to achieve an adequate immune response. Antivirals (anti-influenza drugs) are effective for both treatment and prophylaxis of annual influenza. These drugs were not available during past pandemics, but are expected to be effective against pandemic strains of the influenza virus. Antivirals will likely be the only virus-specific intervention during the initial pandemic response. Protection afforded by antivirals is virtually immediate and does not interfere with the response to inactivated influenza vaccines.

From page 61. Vaccines are to be the primary defence against an outbreak.

During a pandemic, antiviral strategies should use all the types of effective anti-influenza drugs that are available to Canadians, and should be adaptable to changing disease epidemiology and vaccine availability. If the novel virus is found to be susceptible to amantadine, which is not currently part of the National Antiviral Stockpile, it is recommended that amantadine be used for prophylaxis (not treatment) only. Oseltamivir could be used for both treatment of cases and prophylaxis. The efficacy of oseltamivir and amantadine are approximately equal for the treatment of cases infected with sensitive strains; however, amantadine is recommended exclusively for prophylaxis to minimize the development of amantadine resistance (which would render the drug ineffective) during the pandemic. The timing of the use of antivirals during a pandemic should be guided by local surveillance data.

From page 63. We think antivirals are okay, but only as long as they don’t interfere with vaccines at some point in the future.

This 550 page report is too long to go through in a single article. However, it’s morbid how much: (a) surveillance; and (b) vaccines are woven into the entire report. It reads as if the entire research was to set up a police state and drug everyone.

The Globe & Mail article referenced in the last section complained that the Federal Government was grossly unprepared considering this 2006 report. While true in some sense, the G&M authors apparently didn’t bother to actually read this report before publishing their article.

6. Vaxx/Surveillance Planned From 2004?

How long exactly has this been going on for? How long has this plan been in the works for? It can’t just be a series of random and unrelated events. Has it been going on for much longer that 16 years?

  • In 2004, this research begins.
  • In 2006, it is released. It recommends heavy surveillance, and vaccinations for everyone.
  • In 2010, Theresa Tam/Tan Yongshi participated in the film “Outbreak Of An Epidemic”, which depicted a fictional simulation of the Federal Government responding to a pandemic.
  • In 2017, Raj Saini (who is pharma lobbied), introduced M-132, to fund drug research and get drugs out to Canadians, and to the world at large.
  • In October 2019. Event 201 took place. This was the Gates-involved simulation which would see tens of millions of people die in a computer model of an outbreak.

Again, credit to Civilian Intelligence Network for digging up the 2010 film. The whole thing reads like a giant dress rehearsal for the actual shut down.

An interesting observation in the report: voluntary vaccinations will happen in much larger numbers if people feel the threat is real and imminent. That may explain all the dire warnings coming from the government.

As for Theresa Tam, is that her real name? To be fair, even if true, it could be to adopt a more “Anglo” sounding name. Still, it would be nice to know.

CV #8: Canada’s Vaccine Strategy; Overcoming “Vaccine Hesitancy”; Gates; GAVI; WHO

The Government of Canada has information about vaccines posted online. Lots of it.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

CLICK HERE, for #0: Theresa Tam; archives; articles; lobbying.
CLICK HERE, for #1: piece on Bill Gates, Pirbright, depopulation.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Coronavirus research at U of Saskatchewan.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Gates; WHO, ID2020; GAVI; Vaccines.
CLICK HERE, for #4: Gates using proxies to push vaxx agenda.
CLICK HERE, for #5: Crestview Strategy, GAVI’s lobbying firm.
CLICK HERE, for #6: people GAVI/Crestview lobbied follow Gates.
CLICK HERE, for #7: M-132, Canada financing pharma research.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Canada’s National Immunization Strategy.
http://archive.is/TBv94
CLICK HERE, for Pan-Canadian Public Health Network.
http://archive.is/DbTAe
CLICK HERE, for National Immunization Strategy, 2016-2021.
http://archive.is/m3eBE
CLICK HERE, for Canada Immunization Partnership Fund.
http://archive.is/wrdrI
CLICK HERE, for WHO and facing “vaccine hesitancy”.
http://archive.is/M2VR8
CLICK HERE, for CANimmunize Mobile App.
http://archive.is/2IsV6
CLICK HERE, for Canada’s national vaxx targets 2025.
http://archive.is/CxhM0
CLICK HERE, for WHO’S Global Vaccine Action Plan.
http://archive.is/6uTwK
CLICK HERE, for text of WHO 2011-2021 vaccine agenda.

CLICK HERE, for 2010 World Econ Forum, Vaxx Announcement.
http://archive.is/S2yjZ
CLICK HERE, for Reuters, on Gates 2010 WEF announcement.
http://archive.is/Eg2Ty

nat_imm_strat.2003.report

ANNEXES
who.methodology.stakeholder.results
who.monitoring.evaluating.results
who.GVAP.secretariat.report.2019
who.2019.report.global.vaccine.action.plan
who.immunization.scorecard.estimates.2018

3. Context For This Article

The Canadian Government has adopted significant portions of the WHO’s vaccine agenda, including expanding it to include more and more items. Parliament has approved (see last article) increased funding for research and supply of more vaccines. The Government and Gates’ people seem to be in lockstep ideologically.

Even worse than the government simply going along with this is the propaganda elements. They refer to it as “overcoming vaccine hesitancy”. In practice, this amounts to little more than psychological manipulation in order to convince people that these vaccines are safe. Both the Canadian Government and the World Health Organization engage in this very shady tactic.

For some perspective on the vaccine agenda, let’s look at a partial timeline of events that are happening in Canada and elsewhere.

TIMELINE:
2000 – GAVI (Global Vaccine Alliance) formed
2003 – Nat’l Immunization Strategy Report released
2010 – At WEF, Gates announces $10B to develop vaccines
2014 – Research done into “vaccine hesitancy”
2015 – Journal of Vaccine article on “vaccine hesitancy”
2016 – $25M Committed in 2016 budget for more immunizations
2016 – ID2020 launched by Gates
2017 – M132 passed, to get more funding for big pharma
2018 – GAVI/Crestview lobbies Canadian politicians/bureaucrats
2018 – CANimmunize app launched for smartphones
2018 – HoC Committee on Health approves M-132
2018 – Measuring Behavioural, Social Drivers of vaxx meeting
2019 – Recommendations of M-132 formally adopted
2019 – Working Group (Gates/GAVI) to promote vaxx agenda
2020 – Canada’s economy is unnecessarily crashed
2020 – PM, Premiers talk about mandatory vaxx in Canada

The following sections will cover both initiatives that the Canadian Government has undertaken, as well as the public relations efforts to combat what they refer to as “vaccine hesitancy”.

4. CANimmunize Mobile App

In 2018, the CANImmunize App was released publicly. See this original YouTube video. If putting all your records on some app is becoming more mainstream, what’s to stop there from eventually being a biological record?

The CANimmunize app is promoted on the page. So the Government of Canada sees this as a totally valid and legitimate pathway to take. But don’t worry, as bad as that is, there are worse things to be considered.

There is of course ID2020, which Bill Gates is a major supporter of. He is in favour of creating a digital ID for everyone, and even goes as far as to propose embedding immunization records into people’s skin.

5. Canada Nat’l Immunization Strategy, 2003


nat_immunization_strategy_e.003

Preamble
Over the past several years, the Advisory Committee on Population Health and Health Security (ACPHHS) has supported development of a national approach to addressing immunization issues in Canada. During this period, numerous meetings and consultations with federal, provincial, and territorial (F/P/T) public health representatives and other relevant stakeholders were undertaken to identify and develop collaborative approaches to strengthening immunization in Canada.

The value of this collaborative work was reflected in the February 2003 First Ministers’ Accord on Health Care Renewal, which included direction to Health Ministers to continue their pursuit of a national immunization strategy. The 2003 Federal Budget provided $45 million over five years to assist in the continued pursuit of a national immunization strategy, as directed by First Ministers. Specifically, Health Canada is to receive $5 million in 2003-04 and $10 million in 2004-05 and ongoing. This funding will enable strengthened collaboration with the provinces, territories and key stakeholders to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of immunization programs in Canada, but will not be used for vaccine procurement

All of this seems harmless enough, but in 2003, a report had been released about the Government’s agenda of boosting vaccinations across Canada.

6. Nat’l Immunization Objectives: 2016-2021

Our next steps: NIS objectives 2016 – 2021
While immunization coverage in Canada today is good, we are not reaching any of the coverage goals set in 2005, leaving Canadians vulnerable to preventable illness. Furthermore, while rates of vaccine preventable diseases in Canada are low, recent measles and pertussis outbreaks demonstrate that Canadians are still at risk.

In its 2016 Budget, the Government of Canada committed $25M over five years to increase immunization coverage rates. While all NIS priorities are important, given the shared responsibility for immunization in Canada, and respectful of the collaborative, ongoing work of the NIS, F/P/T partners have worked together to establish a set of short term objectives that can capitalize on this new investment, leverage momentum and build from the 2013 priorities to provide F/P/T focus for the next five years.

This page outlines in extremely broad strokes the agenda for 2016 to 2021

7. CDA Immunization Partnership Fund

Today, not enough Canadians are vaccinated. As a result, Canadians are still at risk for needless illness and death from infectious diseases that could be prevented through vaccination. Recognizing this public health challenge, the Government of Canada committed $25 million in Budget 2016 to increase vaccination coverage in Canada.

The page does however go into considerable detail about “overcoming vaccine hesitancy”. This is short amounts to efforts to CONVINCE people that vaccines are safe.

increasing demand for vaccination
addressing gaps in

  • knowledge
  • attitudes
  • beliefs

And below we will get to some specific efforts being launched.

Creation of a Canadian Immunization Resource Centre (CANVAX)
This project, led by The Canadian Public Health Association, is designed to provide ready access to the latest evidence-based products and tools via the online Canadian Vaccination Evidence Resource and Exchange Centre. The Centre primarily targets those who are responsible for the planning, development and promotion of immunization programs, and aims to increase their understanding, awareness and capacity to enhance vaccine acceptance and uptake in Canada.

Decreasing Vaccine Hesitancy: Enhancing the knowledge and skills of health care professionals
This project, led by the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS), has developed a workshop and an online education module on vaccine hesitancy. These courses will provide health care providers with a better understanding of the common causes of vaccine hesitancy and the most effective ways to counsel their patients and families to make informed decisions. Additionally, CPS has reinstated the online version of its Education Program for Immunization Competencies (EPIC), which is designed to help health care professionals provide accurate and complete information to their patients about immunization.

Examining and overcoming barriers to vaccine hesitancy in Yukon
Yukon Health and Social Services is implementing a project with the goal of understanding the factors that contribute to vaccine uptake and incomplete/non-vaccination. The data that is gathered will be used to inform evidence-based strategies aimed at improving vaccination service delivery and uptake in Yukon.

HPV Vaccination in Schools: Developing effective strategies for increasing vaccine coverage
The Institute national de santé publique du Québec, in collaboration with the ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux du Québec, will develop and evaluate different strategies designed to increase vaccination coverage rates in select elementary schools within the province. These parent-focused strategies include motivational interviewing, education, decision making tools, and reminders to submit consent forms

Immunize Nunavut: Using data to inform practice
Immunize Nunavut, led by the Department of Health in Nunavut, will improve the quality of vaccination data that will then be used to inform tailored interventions aimed at increasing vaccination coverage rates and to strengthen existing vaccination delivery programs

(COMPLETED)
Enhancing adult immunization coverage in Prince Edward Island
This project, led by the Prince Edward Island Department of Health and Wellness, has implemented a multi-faceted, province-wide initiative to increase adult vaccination rates by working with health care providers to increase their ability to identify under and unvaccinated individuals through the development and use of an Immunization Assessment Tool. As well, this project will enhance health care provider’s ability to communicate more effectively with their patients about vaccination.

(COMPLETED)
Implementation of an educational strategy to promote immunization based on motivational interviewing techniques in maternity hospitals in Québec
In collaboration with provincial partners, the Centre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et Services de l’Estrie – Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke implemented this project to increase infant vaccination coverage rates in Quebec. To do this, health care providers from the 13 largest maternity wards in Quebec received training in motivational interviewing techniques specific to infant vaccination. Motivational interviewing allows health care providers to better address the concerns of parents who are reluctant to vaccinate their children and to support them in their decision-making process regarding infant vaccination.

What is particularly disturbing here is that about half the programs seem focused on promoting and selling the vaccines. It comes across as propaganda the way they are worded.

However, it is about to get much, MUCH creepier than this. The World Health Organization has done extensive research on it. Parties including UNICEF, the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation all got together to discuss how to better pitch vaccines to the public.

8. Tricks To Beat “Vaccine Hesitancy”

The World Health Organization has done considerable research on the subject of “vaccine hesitancy”. This of course is the natural reaction of people to be reluctant to put needles of unknown substances into their bodies.

Improving vaccination demand and addressing hesitancy
Increasing and maintaining vaccination uptake is vital for vaccines to achieve their success. Addressing low vaccination requires an adequate understanding of the determinants of the problem, tailored evidence-based strategies to improve uptake, and monitoring and evaluation to determine the impact and sustainability of the interventions.

Hesitancy in relation to vaccination may affect motivation, causing people to reject it for themselves or their children. Hesitancy can be caused by individual, group, and contextual influences, as well as any vaccine-specific issues.

Given the potential for hesitancy to rapidly undermine vaccination coverage in specific settings, it is important that all countries take steps to understand both the extent and nature of hesitancy at a local level, on a continuing basis. Accordingly, each country should develop a strategy to increase acceptance and demand for vaccination, which should include ongoing community engagement and trust-building, active hesitancy prevention, regular national assessments of concerns, and crisis response planning

It’s fair to take from this, that the efforts to understand hesitancy do not at all seem rooted in any altruistic motivation. Rather, they seem designed to form the basis to manipulate and otherwise persuade people into taking something that could be extremely harmful to them.


Meeting participants, from left to right: Kerrie Wiley, Neetu Abad, Gilla Shapiro, Alina Lack, Wenfeng Gong, Nick Sevdalis, Julie Leask, Monica Jain, Gustavo Correa, Noel Brewer, Saad Omer, Cornelia Betsch, Charles Wiysonge, Gillian SteelFisher, Lisa Menning, Eve Dubé

In May 2019, a group of people got together to come up with ways to make mass vaccination an easier sell to the public. Read the report and decide whether this is harmless enough.

The World Health Organization has released several other papers and research findings into vaccine hesitancy. Either they are moronic, or they truly think that what they are doing is for the best of humanity.
hesitancy.research
hesitancy.research.02
hesitancy.research.strategies.for.addressing
hesitancy.conclusions.for.addressing

In addition to the above research, there are questionnaires that are available. Asking and probing for certain types of information will give the illusion that you are concerned with the person’s well being.

hesitancy.survey.questionnaires

In January 2015, this paper was released, giving insight into the various reasons people are likely to avoid taking vaccines. It also provided helpful information to convincing the subject that it was still in their best interest.

hesitancy.recommendations.to.correct

There is of course more research available on the subject. But the point is that it has been extensively studied. A cynic might wonder if the WHO spends more effort researching ways to pitch vaccines to the public than they do researching to see if they are actually safe.

9. Vaccine Hesitancy Parallels Climate Scam

Although this may initially seem absurd, there is a parallel between overcoming “vaccine hesitancy” as the WHO and others call it, and selling the climate change scam to the public.

Consider the reviews done of Maxwell Boykoff here, here, and here. Boykoff, in his book Creative Climate Communications, outlined an extensive array of psychological and sociological tactics used to convince people that they were in danger from climate change.

In order words, the research was done into manipulation techniques. The same thing can be seen with vaccine hesitancy research.

10. Canada/WHO Vaccine Targets Of 2025

Now that the anxiety is out of your system, let’s look a bit into Canada’s objectives and targets for mass vaccinations.

As part of the National Immunization Strategy objectives for 2016-2021, vaccination coverage goals and vaccine preventable disease reduction targets were set based on international standards and best practices. The goals and targets are consistent with Canada’s commitment to World Health Organization (WHO) disease elimination targets and Global Vaccine Action Plan, while reflecting the Canadian context.

According to this, Canada’s goals are consistent with the commitments made to the Global Vaccine Alliance Plan, and to disease reduction targets.

Vaccination Coverage Goals by 2025
Vaccination coverage goals were developed for infants, childhood, adolescent and adult vaccines that are publically funded in all provinces and territories (PT). Progress toward the national vaccination coverage goals will be reported based on the data collected using national coverage surveys. Vaccine coverage monitoring at the national level takes into account variations in PT vaccination programs.

Infants and Children
To ensure children are protected through routine vaccination, a high vaccination coverage goal of 95% has been established for all childhood vaccines by two and seven years of age.

This level of vaccination coverage is based on the level of population protection required for measles, the most easily-spread vaccine preventable disease.

Don’t worry. Once you have been cured of your vaccine hesitancy, the Government has an extensive array of pharmaceuticals and medications that you will able to get for free. Don’t worry that many of these are being developed by people who think the world is overpopulated. Nothing to see here.

11. WHO’s Global Vaccine Action Plan

who.2011-2021.vaxx.agenda.full.text.pdf

The catalyst for GVAP was the call by Bill and Melinda Gates at the 2010 World Economic Forum for the next decade to be the ‘Decade of Vaccines’.

Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, established in 2000, was making newer vaccines accessible to the poorest countries, while the Global Immunization Vision and Strategy, launched in 2006, provided a common vision and specific strategies for protecting more people against more diseases. New vaccines were being developed that held even greater promise.

PREFACE
The Global Vaccine Action Plan 2011–2020 (GVAP) was developed to help realize the vision of the Decade of Vaccines, that all individuals and communities enjoy lives free from vaccine preventable diseases. As the decade draws to a close, it is time to take stock of the progress made under GVAP and to apply the lessons learned to the global immunization strategy for the next decade. This report has been prepared for the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) by the SAGE Decade of Vaccines Working Group (Annex 1).

Development of GVAP The Decade of Vaccines Collaboration was launched in 2010 to develop a shared plan to realize this vision. The Collaboration was led by WHO, UNICEF, Gavi, the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, coordinated by the Instituto de Salud Global Barcelona, Spain, and funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. A Leadership Council, comprising executives of the lead organizations and a representative of the African Leaders Malaria Alliance, provided sponsorship and strategic guidance.

HISTORY
Ministers of health unanimously endorsed GVAP at the 2012 World Health Assembly; the monitoring and evaluation framework was endorsed a year later. In the following years, Regional Vaccine Action Plans and national multi-year plans were developed or updated to align with GVAP. African stakeholders went further to build political will for immunization, convening the Ministerial Conference on Immunization in Africa in 2016. This meeting launched the Addis Declaration on Immunization, through which heads of state and ministers of health, finance, education and social affairs as well as local leaders made ten specific commitments to promote health on the African continent through continued investment in immunization.

The global monitoring, evaluation and accountability process was the only aspect of GVAP with dedicated resources. In this effort, GVAP indicators were added to the WHO/UNICEF Joint Reporting Form and SAGE established the Decade of Vaccines Working Group to assess progress and draft recommendations for course corrections. Through the decade, countries reported annually, WHO and partner agencies compiled progress reports, and the SAGE independent assessment report and its recommendations were reviewed annually as a standing agenda item at the World Health Assembly

12. World Economic Forum: 2010 Gates

In 2000, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance was launched at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, with an initial pledge of $750 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Gavi brings together key influencers from the public and private sectors to save children’s lives and protect the population’s health by increasing the equitable use of vaccines in lower-income countries. To date, the Vaccine Alliance has contributed to the immunization of 760 million children, saving more than 13 million lives.

The World Economic Forum has completely embraced the vaccination agenda, and heralds it as some salvation for humanity. it many times provided a platform for Gates and his vaccine push.

13. Would You Trust This Man?

(Bill Gates and depopulation, from 2011, clip from video)

(Bill Gates and depopulation, from 2011, entire video)

(Bill Gates, improved health care, overpopulation)

(Bill Gates: health and population correlation)

(Bill Gates: vaccines and Ebola virus)

Gates talks about improving the health and well being of mothers in the 3rd world by use of vaccines, and that it would lead to a lower population. However, it seems illogical that improving the health would lead to less children being born. Gates counters that parents will simply choose to have less children if they knew the ones they had would be healthier.

Gates has also spoken about the world being overpopulated, and claims it is causing environmental problems. One should be extremely concerned about taking vaccinations from someone who is interested in depopulation.

The research that the World Health Organization and its partners have done into “vaccine hesitancy” is downright creepy. If the vaccines produced are what they claim to be, it shouldn’t be a hard time pitching them for others to take.

The Canadian Government seems on board with the vaccination agenda. (See previous articles on this subject in Section #1). The Prime Minister and various Premiers openly call for mass vaccines. M-132 passed in Parliament, making it easier to fund future research. The University of Saskatchewan has long conducted research with partners that are Gates and UN funded. The Government has been lobbied at least 20 times on behalf of GAVI by Crestview Strategy, and the bureaucrats themselves seem to be okay with it.

These are very dangerous times indeed.

CV#7: M-132 And International Pharma Research Grants In Canada

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

CLICK HERE, for #0: Theresa Tam; archives; articles; lobbying.
CLICK HERE, for #1: piece on Bill Gates, Pirbright, depopulation.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Coronavirus research at U of Saskatchewan.
CLICK HERE, for #3: Gates; WHO, ID2020; GAVI; Vaccines.
CLICK HERE, for #4: Gates using proxies to push vaxx agenda.
CLICK HERE, for #5: Crestview Strategy, GAVI’s lobbying firm.
CLICK HERE, for #6: people GAVI/Crestview lobbied follow Gates.

http://www.lobbycanada.gc.ca

2. HESA Submissions, Evidence, Reports

Submissions Lodged
hesa.Structural.Genomics.Consortium.submission
hesa.Medicines.Patent.Pool.2018
hesa.Doctors.Without.Borders.2018
hesa.Canadian.Institutes.Of.Health.Research.2018
hesa.Fowke.Keith.University.Manitoba.2018
hesa.University.College.London.drug.prices.2018
hesa.Drugs.For.Neglected.Diseases.Initiative.2018
hesa.Moon.Suerie.2018
hesa.Yusuf.Salim.mcmaster
hesa.FIND.tb.alliance.gates.gavi.unitaid
hesa.Vlassoff.Carol.2018
hesa.Universities.Allied.For.Essential.Medecines.2018
hesa.Bruyere.Research.Institute.2018
hesa.Molyneux.David.2018

3. Federally Funded Health Research: M-132

For a speech on passing M-132.
The text is below

Motion Text
That the Standing Committee on Health be instructed to undertake a study on ways of increasing benefits to the public resulting from federally funded health research, with the goals of lowering drugs costs and increasing access to medicines, both in Canada and globally; and that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House no later than one year from the time this motion is adopted.

4. Parliamentary Committee Meetings

Dates Of Meetings
Thursday, September 27, 2018
Hesa.2018.September.27.evidence.transcript

Tuesday, October 2, 2018
Hesa.2018.October.2.evidence.transcript

Thursday, October 4, 2018
Hesa.2018.October.4.evidence.transcript

Tuesday, October 16, 2018
Hesa.2018.October.16.evidence.transcript

Thursday, October 18, 2018
Hesa.2018.October.18th.evidence.transcript

Tuesday, October 23, 2018
Hesa.2018.October.23.evidence.transcript

Thursday, October 25, 2018
Hesa.2018.October.25.evidence.transcript

5. Reports Released To The Commons

In Canada and around the world, there is rising concern that innovative drugs produced by pharmaceutical companies are no longer affordable and are placing increasing strain on health care budgets. Policy makers have begun to examine ways that public funding for pharmaceutical research and development could address this issue. On 8 November 2017, the House of Commons adopted Private Members’ Business M-132, which requested that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health (the Committee) “undertake a study on ways of increasing benefits to the public resulting from federally funded research, with the goals of lowering drug costs and increasing access to medicines, both in Canada and globally.”

On 16 and 18 October 2018, the Committee held two meetings as part of this study and heard from a range of witnesses including health researchers, health research funding organizations, patient groups and civil society organizations. Drawing on witness testimony and written submissions, this report examines the role the federal government can play in fostering pharmaceutical research and development both in Canada and globally to ensure that pharmaceutical drugs are accessible and affordable.

Note: Recommendations can be found starting at page 20 in the 2018 report released to the House of Commons.

HOUSE OF COMMONS STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH CALLS ON THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO FOSTER PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BOTH IN CANADA AND GLOBALLY THROUGH OPEN SCIENCE
Ottawa, November 26, 2018 –

Bill Casey, Chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, presented the Committee’s twentieth report today entitled, Towards Open Science: Promoting Innovation in Pharmaceutical Research and Development and Access to Affordable Medications both in Canada and Abroad.

The Committee’s study is in response to Member of Parliament Raj Saini’s Private Members’ Motion M-132, which requested that the Committee, “undertake a study on ways of increasing benefits to the public resulting from federally funded research, with the goals of lowering drug costs and increasing access to medicines, both in Canada and globally.”

In presenting the report to the House, Chair Bill Casey highlighted that “in our testimony, we heard loud and clear that more needs to be done to strengthen research and innovation in Canada. I thank Mr. Saini for bringing forth M-132, and for his efforts in ensuring that the Health Committee can hear why Canada must continue to be a leader in this field.”

Drawing on witness testimony heard over the course of two meetings held on 16 and 18 October 2018 and on 23 written submissions, the Committee’s report examines how increased federal investment in health research, across the continuum from fundamental to clinical research, would support the development of new medicines. However, witnesses also emphasized the importance of ensuring that federal funding in pharmaceutical research and development must also result in the creation of drugs that are affordable in Canada and abroad. Witnesses suggested that this could be achieved by fostering the creation of innovative models of pharmaceutical research that prioritize open science in both the development of new drugs and the repurposing of existing drugs. Witnesses explained that the Government of Canada could lead the way by developing a framework that sets priorities for pharmaceutical research and development and promotes open science through collaboration and leveraging of funding across governments, universities, health charities and private industry.

The Committee agrees with these findings and has included in its report nine recommendations that it believes will support the transformation of pharmaceutical research and development in Canada.

The announcement of the press release is here

Recommendation 1
That the Government of Canada create a specific funding mechanism for the development of clinical trial research and infrastructure in Canada through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
.
Recommendation 2
That the Government of Canada increase its funding for clinical trial research and infrastructure in Canada to 10% of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s budget to be on par with jurisdictions leading in this area, such as the United Kingdom and the United States.
.
Recommendation 3
That the Government of Canada explore ways to incentivize clinical trial research in Canada for pharmaceutical drugs and incentivize and support the production of those drugs in Canada at an advantaged price for Canada and provide venture capital for the proponent.
.
Recommendation 4
That the Canadian Institutes of Health Research attach a Global Access Licensing requirement to recipients of its research funding that wish to commercialize their research findings.
.
Recommendation 5
That the Canadian Institutes of Health Research include in its existing research and development programs support for the development of open science models of drug discovery.
.
Recommendation 6
That the Canadian Institutes of Health Research develop a framework for open science that supports collaboration and the leveraging of research funding among different partners in pharmaceutical research and development, including health charities, universities, governments, and private industry.
.
Recommendation 7
That Health Canada develop regulatory incentives for pharmaceutical companies that commit to open access to their research data and affordable prices for their products.
.
Recommendation 8
That the Government of Canada undertake a strategic review of its health-related research funding priorities across departments and agencies to enhance coordination, including Health Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Global Affairs Canada, and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada.
.
Recommendation 9
That the Government of Canada explore the feasibility of the public manufacturing of generic medicines.

In the follow-up report, the recommendations were formally adopted.

REPORTS TO PARLIAMENT
hesa.november.2018.report.to.parliament
hesa.government.response.march.2019

6. Committee Members

As provided by the report, these are the names and ranks of the Committee.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

CHAIR

  • Bill Casey

VICE-CHAIRS

  • Marilyn Gladu (lobbied by GAVI)
  • Don Davies
  • MEMBERS

    • Ramez Ayoub
    • Doug Eyolfson
    • Raj Grewal
    • Ben Lobb
    • Ron McKinnon
    • John Oliver (Parliamentary Secretary — Non-Voting Member)
    • Sonia Sidhu
    • Len Webber

    OTHER MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT WHO PARTICIPATED

    • Randy Boissonnault
    • Terry Duguid
    • Randy Hoback
    • Tom Kmiec
    • Christine Moore
    • Raj Saini (lobbied by GAVI)
    • Dave Van Kesteren

    CLERK OF THE COMMITTEE

    • Marie-Hélène Sauvé

    Why is the list of the Committee Members here? Well, once you see who some of the connections are, it will likely make the report findings a lot more suspicious.

    7. Committee Members & Pharma Lobbying

    The above screenshots came from information provided in the Office of the Lobbying Commissioner of Canada. These are far from exhaustive, but show a snapshot at the lobbying that is going on in Canada. Members of this Parliamentary Committee are being lobbied by various drug companies. It’s not difficult to see that this is done in order to influence them.

    8. Conflict Of Interest Here

    The same committee members who are recommending that Canada undertake more research for pharmaceuticals are the same ones who are being lobbied by pharmaceutical companies. It’s not difficult to piece it together.

    CV #4: Gates Foundation Lobbied Trudeau (Using Proxies) Into Accepting Vaccine Agenda

    (Bill Gates predicts no more mass gathering until vaccine developed.

    (See 1:30 mark in this, or original video)

    1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

    CLICK HERE, for #0: Theresa Tam; archives; articles; lobbying.
    CLICK HERE, for #1: piece on Bill Gates, Pirbright, depopulation.
    CLICK HERE, for #2: Coronavirus research at U of Saskatchewan.
    CLICK HERE, for #3: Gates; WHO, ID2020; GAVI; Vaccines.

    2. Important Links

    Gates; WHO, ID2020; GAVI; Vaccines.
    CLICK HERE, for Mastercard and financial inclusion.

    CLICK HERE, for Gates Foundation helped found GAVI.
    http://archive.is/DHNXn

    CLICK HERE, for lobbying/marketing firm, Crestview Strategy.
    http://archive.is/aFSsx
    CLICK HERE, for Crestview lobbyist Zakery Blais.
    http://archive.is/q3Jzh
    CLICK HERE, for Zakery Blais’ LinkedIn page.
    CLICK HERE, for Crestview lobbyist, Jason Clark.
    http://archive.is/nkiou
    CLICK HERE, for Crestview Strategy: Government relations.
    http://archive.is/Vss4p

    3. Context For This Article

    Recently, PM Trudeau has echoed Bill Gates’ sentiments that mass vaccination of people is necessary for any sense of normalcy to return. While there has been speculation about this link, there has so far been no proof of collusion between Gates and Trudeau.

    It’s true that there has been collusion. However, Gates did not (directly) lobby the Canadian Government. The used proxies to do this. Specifically, here are the connections:

    (a) The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation helped found GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance in 1999. The foundation donated $750 million at the time, and continues to fund it regularly.

    (b) GAVI sought the services of a lobbying firm called Crestview Strategy. Crestview used 2 of their employees, Jason Clark, and Zakery Blais, for the assignment.

    (c) Clark and Blais have lobbied the Canadian Government on at least 19 occasions since 2018 on various “health” matters, on behalf of GAVI. One more was conducted by Jennifer Babcock, who appears to have left the firm. All of this can be immediately verified by looking up the records in the Office of the Lobbying Commissioner.

    (d) Clark and Blais have connections to the Liberal Party of Canada. Clark volunteered in 2015 for Ottawa area Liberal candidates, and Blais is a former assistant to the (now) Attorney General David Lametti.

    4. GAVI Funded By Gates Foundation

    This is probably the most well known link in the chain. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation helped found GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance in 1999, and has made regular contributions to it. The foundation essentially runs the show.

    The Global Vaccine Alliance, as the name suggests, is an organization devoted to pushing vaccinations on the public all across the world. Bill Gates has long been a proponent of mass vaccinations.

    5. GAVI Lobbying CDN Gov’t Since 2018

    If you go onto the Lobby Canada website, you can see what lobbyists have been talking to which government officials, who they work for, when they spoke, and what the business was. This is laid out “communications reports”

    Dates of Communications Reports
    (1) 2018 March 8
    (2) 2018 March 9
    (3) 2018 March 9
    (4) 2018 October 9
    (5) 2018 October 9
    (6) 2018 October 9
    (7) 2018 October 10
    (8) 2018 October 10
    (9) 2018 October 10
    (10) 2019 June 11
    (11) 2019 June 11
    (12) 2019 June 11
    (13) 2019 June 12
    (14) 2019 June 12
    (15) 2019 June 12
    (16) 2020 January 28
    (17) 2020 January 29
    (18) 2020 January 29
    (19) 2020 January 29
    (20) 2020 January 30

    No, these aren’t duplications. The registry indicates multiple reports on these dates.

    These are just the 20 reports that are on file with the Office of the Lobbying Commissioner. It’s fair to assume that there have been many, many more talks that aren’t documented.

    6. Crestview Strategy Lobbies For GAVI

    Crestview Annual Return (1)
    Crestview Registered office & Directors (3)
    Crestview.Certificate.Of.Amalgamation (2)
    crestview.directors.change.2019

    Crestview Strategy effectively represents the interests of corporations, not-for-profits and industry associations to achieve results with governments around the world.

    Across Canada and around the world, the rules that govern the government relations industry are changing. The new higher standard that regulates access to information and political contributions have fundamentally changed the public policy dialogue and improved how citizens, companies and associations advocate their interests to elected representatives.

    No longer is a winning outcome based on ‘who you know’ or the ‘magic meeting’. It is about contributing to the policy process, presenting a case that is supported by authentic community voices, verified impact and compelling insight. And getting in front of the right decision makers and opinion leaders to make that case.

    This is in the government relations page of Crestview Strategy. At least they are open about trying to influence governments and public policy.

    7. Crestview Lobbyist Zakery Blais

    Zakery Blais is a Consultant with Crestview Strategy. With a focus on Canada-U.S. relations and international development, Zakery services clients globally.

    His experience spans both the public and private sectors. He previously worked as a Legislative Assistant to a Canadian Member of Parliament, providing strategic political and communications advice. Prior to joining Crestview Strategy, Zakery also worked in various capacities in public affairs, including as an analyst focused on the energy and natural resources sectors.

    That is from his profile on the Crestview Strategy webpage.

    Fun fact: Blais was an assistant for David Lametti, a former Parliamentary Secretary, and currently the Attorney General of Canada. While Crestview CLAIMS it doesn’t operate on a who-you-know basis, the current lobbyist pushing this is the Attorney General’s former assistant. Not exactly arms length, is it?

    8. Crestview Lobbyist Jason Clark

    Prior to joining the Crestview Team, Jason has worked in public policy development and advocacy and engagement campaigns, most recently for Engineers Without Borders Canada. Since arriving in Ottawa he has worked work a wide range of Canadian Non-profit organizations on international development and trade issues. Previously, Jason managed one of the largest public engagement campaigns on climate change, energy and sustainability in Great Britain, working in partnership with all levels of government, business, industry and trade associations, the public sector and civil society. Jason has also worked with female entrepreneurs and social enterprises in Lesotho, Africa.

    [Jason Clark] volunteered for several Ottawa-area Liberal Party of Canada candidates during the 2015 election campaign.

    That is from his profile page with Crestview Strategy.

    8. Gates Foundation Lobbying Canadian Gov’t

    Neither Bill Gates personally, nor his Foundation may have their name on the efforts to lobby the Canadian Government, but they are behind it. GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance, is funded by the Gates Foundation, and they have the same ideological goals.

    GAVI is using Crestview Strategy to lobby on their behalf, and both main lobbyists, Jason Clark and Zakery Blais, have ties to the Liberal Party of Canada. Clark volunteered in 2015 for Ottawa region candidates, and Blais worked for the (current) Attorney General, David Lametti.

    Gates is using GAVI (and LPC operatives-turned-lobbyists) to push the vaccine agenda.

    It doesn’t get much more obvious than this.

    CV #3: Gates’ Vaccines; UN, WHO, GAVI, ID2020, US CDC All Involved

    If you go onto the United Nations main page and type “BILL GATES VACCINE” into the search engine, you will reach an astonishing 53,271 results. Bill Gates and the UN have long collaborated (or is it colluded) in the vaccination business.

    Daniel Kress, a representative for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, was a panelist on an April 10, 2015 conference with the UN Population Division.

    1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

    CLICK HERE, for #0: Theresa Tam; archives; articles; lobbying.
    CLICK HERE, for #1: piece on Bill Gates, Pirbright, depopulation.
    CLICK HERE, for #2: Coronavirus research at U of Saskatchewan.

    2. Important Links

    CLICK HERE, for (2012) polio pills in Nigeria.
    http://archive.is/sqIGu
    CLICK HERE, for (2015) Ebola testing in Guinea
    http://archive.is/sqIGu
    CLICK HERE for (2015) Population Division discussion, w/Gates Fdn.
    http://archive.is/K6YVP
    CLICK HERE, for (2016) Pentavalent released, 5-in-1 vaccine.
    http://archive.is/MBxUd
    CLICK HERE, for (2016) announcement of malaria drug coming.
    http://archive.is/sTltI
    CLICK HERE, for (2018) 500M to get measles vaccination.
    http://archive.is/11ljQ
    CLICK HERE, for (2018) Population Division Expert Meeting.
    http://archive.is/rm02e

    CLICK HERE, for Global Vaccine Alliance (GAVI)
    http://archive.is/eaiUd
    CLICK HERE, for GAVI’s partners, founding partners.
    http://archive.is/JTnyH
    CLICK HERE, for GAVI Board composition.
    http://archive.is/ZezEK
    CLICK HERE, for Gates Foundation donations to GAVI.
    http://archive.is/9p2Jj
    CLICK HERE, for ELMA vaccines and immunizations.
    http://archive.is/zYVbb
    CLICK HERE, for GAVI’s contribution statements.
    http://archive.is/7q2oO

    CLICK HERE, for WHO and Immunization Agenda 2030.
    http://archive.is/Z6e7u
    CLICK HERE, for ID2020 mainpage.
    http://archive.is/qTlBr
    https://www.who.int/workforcealliance/members_partners/member_list/gates/en/CLICK HERE, for Gates Foundation profile page on WHO site.
    http://archive.is/25Nxs

    3. Context For This Piece

    Bill Gates doesn’t believe his children should be vaccinated, yet pushes vaccines throughout the world. This should tell you what he really believes.

    However, what is truly mind boggling is the scale which his organization — the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation — has been active and financing vaccines elsewhere. The included sections are just a small sample of what he has been up to.

    It’s also chilling that the UN Population Division (yes, that is a real thing), holds regular conferences on global population. So-called “experts” are invited to participate and take it in. Representatives from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have attended such events.

    Bill Gates has many startling connections. In fact, much of the current crisis all seems to tie back to him and his foundation. Those will be outlined in more detail.

    4. April 2015 Population Control Meeting

    The Report for this conference is right here. Pretty chilling to see the Gates Foundation on the panel, considering the push vaccines to “save lives”

    During the next 15 years, the period covered by the post-2015 United Nations development agenda, demographic trends will have varied and profound implications on our ability to achieve sustainable development, suggesting the potential for large returns to investment in dedicated research on population and development aimed at informing innovative and evidence-based policies.

    In order to review gaps and future priorities in demographic research to support the implementation of the post-2015 development agenda, the Population Division convened an expert group meeting on “The post-2015 era: Implications for the global research agenda on population and development” at the United Nations in New York on 10 April 2015. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss research priorities on population and development that merit global attention over the next 15 years. In identifying key knowledge gaps in future demographic trends and their implications for global sustainable development, the results of the meeting were intended to assist the international community in identifying a global, policy-relevant research agenda on population and development.

    The meeting featured a keynote address on overarching population and development research priorities, six substantive sessions on changing age structures and their implications for development (one session each on youth and ageing), population and health (one session on global health and one on reproductive health), sustainable urbanization, and international migration and development; and a concluding session. Researchers and academics, experts from Governments and international organizations, and representatives from donors and civil society reflected on the following three discussion questions in each session:

    Too long to detail here, but the Gates Foundation was a party to the meeting, and population development and demographic trends were discussed.

    Among the contributors were:
    Robert Black Professor and Director Institute for International Programs Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Baltimore, Maryland

    Prabhat Jha Director Centre for Global Health Research University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    Daniel Kress Deputy Director Integrated Delivery Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Seattle, Washington

    Lauren Sorkin Platform Director 100 Resilient Cities Rockefeller Foundation New York, New York

    Amy Tsui Professor Bill & Melinda Gates Institute for Population and Reproductive Health Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Baltimore, Maryland.

    John Wilmoth Director, Population Division United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs New York, New York

    5. Nov 2018 Population Expert Meeting

    For some context, the ReportOfTheMeeting was held on November 1/2, 2018. This was just a month before the UN Global Migration Compact was to be signed, helping to facilitate an estimated 258 million migrants to the West.

    Important progress had been achieved in reducing mortality of specific age groups and certain population groups, including children and women. While much had been achieved in curtailing the HIV/AIDS epidemic during the last 25 years, there was a need to analyse inequality in accessing health services for different population groups in order to identify appropriate responses. Universal health coverage, one of the targets of the 2030 agenda, would be instrumental in this respect.

    Participants identified the need for reducing inequalities in accessing health and allowing for different approaches within and between countries. “Standing still” was not an option: continuous efforts were required to address the challenges in health and other related fields. Participants called for greater attention to mental health and health impacts from environmental change, issues that would become important challenges in many countries. Participants raised the issue of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) as well as individual risk behaviour and health and discussed the challenges related to old-age labour force participation, such as health status and the competition between young and older workers.

    Participants
    Invited experts
    Mr. David Baxter Baxter Consulting Group San Francisco, USA
    Ms. Ann Biddlecom Guttmacher Institute New York, USA
    Mr. John Bongaarts Population Council New York, USA
    Mr. Win Brown Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Seattle, USA
    Ms. Suzana Cavenaghi Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
    Mr. Alex Ezeh Drexel University Philadelphia, USA
    Mr. Baochang Gu Renmin University of China Beijing, China
    Mr. Hongtao Hu Partners in Population and Development Beijing, China
    Mr. Prabhat Jha University of Toronto Toronto, Canada
    Mr. Benoit Kalasa United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) New York, USA
    Ms. Ellen Percy Kraly Colgate University Hamilton, New York, USA
    Ms. Nyovani Madise African Institute for Development Policy Lilongwe, Malawi
    Mr. Sikufele Mubita Central Statistical Office Lusaka, Zambia
    Mr. Fabrizio Natale Joint Research Centre, European Commission Ispra, Italy
    Ms. Holly Reed City University of New York (CUNY) New York, USA
    Ms. Rachel Snow United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) New York, USA
    Ms. Barbara Sow United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) New York, USA
    Mr. Joseph Teye University of Ghana Accra, Ghana
    Mr. Jorge Bravo United Nations New York, USA
    Mr. Bela Hovy United Nations New York, USA
    Ms. Vladimira Kantorova United Nations New York, USA
    Mr. Victor Gaigbe-Togbe United Nations New York, USA
    Mr. Patrick Gerland United Nations New York, USA
    Ms. Karoline Schmid United Nations New York, USA
    Mr. Frank Swiaczny United Nations New York, USA
    Mr. John Wilmoth United Nations New York, USA
    Mr. Guangyu Zhang United Nations New York, USA

    Getting health care for everyone? Eliminating diseases for these millions of migrants on the move? If only there was someone willing to finance vaccines and vaccine research. Oh wait, there is.

    6. Oral Polio Vaccines

    The World Health Organization (WHO) spearheads the GPEI, whose ultimate success would mark an early milestone in the Decade of Vaccines, which in turn represents a global vision to provide all children with the vaccines they need.

    “No single one of us can bring this long, hard drive over the last hurdle,” WHO Director-General Margaret Chan said. “But together we can.”

    A major GPEI donor is the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, whose co-chair, Bill Gates, also spoke of the significance eradicating polio would have for combating other diseases.

    “When we defeat polio, it will motivate us to aim for other great health and development milestones,” he said.

    It’s a bit disturbing that the photo for the article shows a child being force fed a pill. This is the 2012 push to get polio vaccines into Nigerian and Afghanistan.

    7. Ebola Testing In Guinea

    “The VSV-EBOV vaccine was selected for the planned trial based on a framework of parameters developed by the WHO Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee on Ebola Experimental interventions,” it said. “Criteria included acceptable safety profile, induction of appropriate immune responses, including neutralizing antibodies, and the timely availability of sufficient supplies of vaccine doses.

    WHO, the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and vaccine alliance GAVI are collaborating with the affected countries to develop plans and strategies for large-scale introduction, should this be needed.

    WHO said the vaccines’ manufacturers have assured that enough vaccine will be available in the coming months and that financial resources are in place to procure and make vaccines available in the affected countries.

    In 2015, an ebola vaccine was pushed onto Guinea. Apparently, initial 2014 clinical testing went well, so they released it to the general public.

    8. Pentavalent, 5-in-1 Vaccine

    The vaccine, pentavalent, protects against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, and Haemophilus influenzae type B, all of which are potentially deadly infections. The doses will be distributed to transitioning countries and those supported by Gavi, the international organization that works with public and private sectors to bring vaccinations to children living in the world’s poorest countries.

    Since 2001, a strong collaboration between the Gavi Alliance Partners, which includes UNICEF, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the World Health Organization (WHO), has generated great success.

    Pentavalent will now be available for about $0.84 a dosage, a price that is also available to governments that self-finance the procurement. The new pricing is expected to generate more than $366 million in savings for donors and governments.

    According to Shanelle Hall, Director of UNICEF’s supply and procurement headquarters, as many as 90 per cent of children under the age of five who die from vaccine-preventable diseases are currently living in countries where donors are no longer fully funding vaccination supplies. “For the most vulnerable children in the world, pricing can make a difference between life and death,” she stated in a news release.

    In 2016, Pentavalent was released on the public, which was supposed to simultaneously vaccinate against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, and Haemophilus influenzae type B.

    9. Malaria Vaccine Announced

    “The pilot deployment of this first-generation vaccine marks a milestone in the fight against malaria,” stated Dr. Pedro Alonso, Director of the WHO Global Malaria Programme, adding that these pilot projects will provide valuable evidence from real-life settings to make informed decisions on whether to deploy the vaccine on a wide scale.

    The vaccine, known as RTS,S, acts globally against the most deadly malaria parasite P. falciparum, very common in Africa. Based on the results from clinical trials, the new vaccine will provide partial protection against malaria in young children.

    The vaccine was developed through a partnership between GlaxoSmithKline and the PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative (MVI), with support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and from a network of African research centres.

    Full funding – $15 million for the malaria vaccine pilots – for the first phase of the programme, has already been received, and an additional commitment of about $37 million from partners is expected to cover the first four years.

    “WHO recognizes and commends the leadership and support of all funding agencies and partners who have made this achievement possible,” said Dr Jean-Marie Okwo-Bele, Director of the WHO Department of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals.

    In 2016 it was announced that a malaria vaccine would be released in 2018. Gates and his many partners are listed in the article. Malaria is said to be one of the biggest killers of children.

    10. 500M To Be Vaxxed Against Measles

    “Eliminating measles would avert half a million deaths, while controlling rubella and Congenital Rubella Syndrome (CRS) would promote health of pregnant woman and the infants they give life to,” said Dr. Poonam Khetrapal Singh, Regional Director for the World Health Organization (WHO) South-East Asia, referring to the ‘big six;’ Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal and Thailand.

    Immunization programme managers of the ‘big six’ countries, along with WHO, UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Vaccine Alliance (GAVI), Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Centre for Disease control are deliberating challenges, experiences and lessons learned in immunization in the Region that can be harnessed to eliminate measles and control rubella / congenital rubella syndrome (CRS).

    “This dynamism and positive exchange is at the very core of south-south and triangular cooperation,” said Dr. Khetrapal Singh, who announced measles elimination and rubella / CRS control as one of her flagship programme at the start of her tenure in 2014.

    The World Health Organization announced in 2018 that vaccinating against measles would prevent at least 500,00 deaths. The research and development is funded by the usual players, including the Gates Foundation.

    These 5 examples shown are just a sample of what the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is involved with. There are many more examples.

    11. GAVI: Global Vaccine Alliance

    GAVI’s founding partners are:

    • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
    • UNICEF
    • World Health Organization
    • World Bank

    12. Who’s Actually Funding GAVI?

    Gates Foundation Contributions To GAVI

    As a founding partner of Gavi, the Gates Foundation has brought international attention to the cause of immunisation and has made several commitments to Gavi, totalling USD 4.1 billion to-date. In 2000, the foundation made an initial USD 750 million commitment to the Vaccine Fund, which was catalytic in bringing other donors to support vaccine delivery and creating Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.

    In February 2007, the foundation committed USD 50 million to launch the first AMC to expedite the development and availability of pneumococcal vaccines. In June 2011, the Gates Foundation committed over USD 1 billion to Gavi over the period 2011–2015; of this commitment, USD 50 million was reserved for the Gavi Matching Fund. An additional, USD 250 million of challenge grant moneys were pledged to match additional funds raised earlier by other donors.

    In June 2014 the Gates Foundation committed an additional USD 241 million to Gavi towards its complementary role on polio eradication including support for IPV over the period 2015–2018. This is complementing GPEI’s work on strengthening routine immunisation and introducing inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) in Gavi-supported countries.
    At the Berlin Pledging Conference 2015, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announced USD 1.55 billion for Gavi’s next 2016–2020 strategic period.

    The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has to date poured over $4 billion into this group. But who else is involved?

    Mastercard Contributions To GAVI

    Mastercard is a technology company in the global payments industry committed to leading the way toward a World Beyond Cash™. Mastercard is also a business-to-business firm, providing franchise, technology, and advisory services to commercial, non-profit, and public sector customers that then go on to serve their clients. This approach to the last-mile experience allows for the creation of nuanced, localised solutions targeted at the end user. Mastercard has made a bold commitment to financial inclusion—to reach 500 million people previously excluded from financial services by 2020 including 40 million merchants. In making this promise, Mastercard highlighted the importance of public-private partnerships. While ambitious, this goal is not out of scope of the company’s activities. Mastercard has launched large-scale projects in more than 50 countries, bringing more than 300 million previously excluded consumers and merchants into the formal economy in just the last few years.

    Mastercard has contributed $3.8 million thus far. The are huge advocates of a cashless society, and “financial inclusion”, which would get everyone into the banking system. Also, see a previous article done on Mastercard and financial inclusion.

    ELMA Vaccines Contributions To GAVI

    Beginning its grant-investing activities in 2012, the ELMA Vaccines and Immunization Foundation’s mission is to expand vaccine and immunization coverage for children globally.

    In 2014, ELMA Vaccines and Immunization Foundation pledged USD 2 million to support urgent supply chain needs at country level to overcome barriers to delivering temperature-sensitive vaccines to remote areas. The pledge is matched by the UK Government through Gavi’s Matching Fund, bringing the total sum to USD 4 million.

    In 2018, ELMA partnered with Gavi’s INFUSE Pacesetter, Nexleaf Analytics, to scale up its innovative temperature sensing technology to support the cold chain aiming to increase coverage and vaccine introductions in Tanzania. ELMA pledged USD 1.7 million, which was matched by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation through Gavi’s Matching Fund, bringing the total sum to USD 3.4 million.

    Of course, there are other partners and donors, but that is just a few.

    Organization Or State Amount Donated
    Gates Foundation $4.1B
    Canada $435M
    European Commission $241M
    La Caixa $15.7M
    Audacious Alliance $9M
    Red Nose Da Fund $6.1M
    LDS Charities $4.2M
    Girl Effect $4.0M
    Mastercard $3.8M
    Orange Healthcare $2.7M
    Int’l Fed Pharm Wholesale $1.9M
    ELMA Vaccines $1.7M
    Al Ansari Exchange $1.1M

    Contributions-and-Proceeds-to-Gavi-as-of-30-September-2019

    This is by no means all of GAVI’s contributors. However, it is interesting to note that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is by far the biggest contributor.

    13. WHO And Immunization Agenda 2030

    Immunization is a global health and development success story, saving millions of lives every year. We now have vaccines to prevent more than 20 life-threatening diseases, helping people of all ages live longer, healthier lives. Immunization is the foundation of the primary health care system and an indisputable human right. It’s also one of the best health investments money can buy. Yet despite tremendous progress, far too many people around the world – including nearly 20 million infants each year – have insufficient access to vaccines. In some countries, progress has stalled or even reversed, and there is a real risk that complacency will undermine past achievements.

    With the support of countries and partners, WHO is leading the co-creation of a new global vision and strategy to address these challenges over the next decade, to be endorsed by the World Health Assembly. IA 2030 envisions a world where everyone, everywhere, at every age, fully benefits from vaccines to improve health and well-being.

    IA2030 has been developed through a “bottom-up” co-creation process, with close engagement of countries to ensure that the vision, strategic priorities and goals are aligned with country needs. As an adaptive and flexible strategy, the IA2030 framework is designed to be tailored by countries to their local context, and to be revised throughout the decade as new needs and challenges emerge. IA2030 strategic priorities will be further refined in the monitoring and evaluation framework and will include indicators, targets and methods for tracking progress.

    IA2030 goals are designed to inspire action for implementation. For countries, this could mean setting country-specific targets and milestones for the decade toward those goals. For regions, this could mean contextualising global goals and setting specific targets and milestones in Regional Vaccination Action Plans. For partner organisations, this could mean aligning organisational strategies and indicators to support the attainment of IA2030 goals.

    Yes, immunizing everyone is part of the Agenda 2030. Good to know.

    14. ID2020 And Vaccines

    Hmmm…. looking at those names: who is (was) the head of Microsoft until very recently? Whose foundation is the largest donor to GAVI? The answer to both, of course, is Bill Gates.

    Our Approach to Projects
    The ID2020 Alliance provides funding and other forms of material support for high-impact and high-quality digital identity projects that are privacy-protecting, user-centric, and designed for scale, impact, and replicability. Proposals are accepted on a rolling basis at various stages of development. Any individual or organization meeting the required application and evaluation criteria is welcome to submit a proposal.

    ID2020’s founding partners:

    • Accenture
    • GAVI
    • IDEO
    • Microsoft
    • Rockefeller Foundation

    This is most interesting: a group that wants to advance a digital ID for everyone is largely founded by a man who has an obsession with vaccinating the entire world. If only there was a mutual solution for both problems, such as microchipping everyone.

    15. Gates Foundation Huge Donor For W.H.O.

    Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
    Member profile
    The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (Gates) is a funding organization based in Seattle, Washington USA. Guided by the belief that every life has equal value, this innovative group works to help all people lead healthy, productive lives. In particular, this foundation focuses on improving people’s health and on giving them the chance to lift themselves out of hunger and extreme poverty. The valuable resources shared help empower people for success.
    Main activities

    The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation works with organizations around the world that are using innovative methods to improve healthcare. The main mission is to help ensure that advances in health are created and shared with those who need them most.

    The three priority areas are to:

    • Discover new insights to fight serious diseases and other health problems affecting developing countries.
    • Develop effective and affordable vaccines, medicines, and other health tools.
    • Deliver proven health solutions to those who need them most.

    The foundation’s Global Health Program that accounts for about 50 percent of total spending focuses on 20 diseases. The top five are: diarrheal diseases (including rotavirus), pneumonia, malaria—most deadly to kids—and AIDS and TB, which mostly affect adults.

    Links to the health workforce crisis
    The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation supports advocacy efforts to build awareness of global health challenges, develop new ways to finance health programs, and improve health data. Studies have shown that improved health is critical to getting a country into the positive cycle of increasing education, stability, and wealth. This is accomplished through the right investments in healthcare, training of qualified medical workers and research for science.

    The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation joined the Alliance in 2007 as a development Partner.

    The Gates Foundation has been contributing 50% of the money for 20 diseases. Must given them tremendous influence over how exactly that money is spent.

    16. Gates Is Connected To Everything

    Bill Gates is like the Kevin Bacon of the eugenics movement: he is connected to everything and everyone. Here are some of the relevant links.

    • Bill Gates openly supports reducing the population
    • Bill Gates openly supports vaccines for everyone (except his family)
    • The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation attends UN population conferences
    • The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation finances vaccine research
    • The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is one of the founders of GAVI, the global vaccine alliance
    • World Health Org largely funded by Gates Foundation
    • GAVI is a founding partner of ID2020
    • Microsoft is founding partner of ID2020

    Serious question: did Bill Gates cause this coronavirus “pandemic”? Or is he simply a shameless opportunist looking to cash in on the situation?

    TSCE #10: Does Allowing Illegal Aliens Into Canada Violate International Agreements?

    (UN Office on Drugs and Crime)

    1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

    CLICK HERE, for TSCE #1: series intro and other listings.
    CLICK HERE, for TSCE #2: suing for the right to illegally enter U.S.
    CLICK HERE, for TSCE #3: the U.N.’s hypocrisy on sexual abuse.
    CLICK HERE, for TSCE #4: fake refugees gaming the system.
    CLICK HERE, for TSCE #5: various topics on subject.
    CLICK HERE, for TSCE #6: Islamic sexual violence, women/children.
    CLICK HERE, for TSCE #7: UNHCR party to S3CA, consultations req’d.
    CLICK HERE, for TSCE #8: UN blurs line smuggling/irregular.
    CLICK HERE, for TSCE #9: more UN research into smuggling.

    2. Important Links

    CLICK HERE, for UN Review On Smuggling Migrants.
    CLICK HERE, for UN Convention On Transnational Crime.
    http://archive.is/q0XqK
    CLICK HERE, for UN Protocol Against Human Trafficking.
    http://archive.is/cjnJt
    CLICK HERE, for UN Opt. Protocol On Rights Of The Child.
    http://archive.is/onmrr
    CLICK HERE, for UN Global Initiative To Fight Trafficking.
    http://archive.is/Fjuv6
    CLICK HERE, for UN Protocol To Prevent/Punish Trafficking.
    CLICK HERE, for UN Rights Of The Child, Sale, Prostitution, Porn.
    http://archive.is/onmrr
    CLICK HERE, for Eliminate Worst Forms Of Child Labour.
    http://archive.is/OZQM
    CLICK HERE, for the Rome Statute, Int’l Criminal Court.
    CLICK HERE, for Gov’t Of Canada On Trafficking.
    http://archive.is/RQVYA

    CLICK HERE, for Washington Times on child abduction for border crossings.

    3. Context For This Piece

    Canada has signed several international treaties, relevant to the prevention of trafficking, smuggling, and other exploitation of people. These agreements include:

    • “Protocol to Prevent. Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons. Especially Women and Children. supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime”, in 2000
    • “Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography”
    • “ILO Convention 182 concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst forms of Child Labor”

    The purpose, as you can imagine, is for governments around the world to cooperate in preventing these activities from happening. Also, it is to punish those responsible when it does happen. Accordingly, they must be taken seriously.

    But what happens when certain governments turn a blind eye to people illegally crossing their borders? What happens when governments enact policies that openly encourage human smuggling and trafficking to occur? Does this not help circumvent the very treaties which are designed to keep vulnerable people safe?

    This is a bit of a rhetorical question, but I believe the answers are “yes”. Should make for interesting discussion, especially if this ever gets advanced in court. As outlined in the last article, the appeal of the Prothonotary’s decision was dismissed. This is unjust, considering how big the issue of illegal crossings into Canada is.

    4. Link Between Illegal Crossings/Trafficking

    More on the research is available in this review. It details the size and scale of smuggling and trafficking, and gives much needed background information on the people who are likely to be involved. The original source is linked here, and well worth a read.

    (UN Office on Drugs and Crime)

    (There is a connection between smuggling and “irregular migration”)

    (UN abhors smuggling, but fake refugees get a pass)

    2.1 Smuggling of migrants and the concepts of irregular migration and trafficking in persons
    2.1.1 Irregular migration
    The relationship between irregular migration and smuggling of migrants has been discussed in the literature, with most authors acknowledging the crucial role of smuggling of migrants in facilitating irregular migration.

    In looking at the relationship between the two concepts, Friedrich Heckmann stresses that smuggling of migrants plays a crucial role in facilitating irregular migration, as smugglers may provide a wide range of services, from physical transportation and illegal crossing of a border to the procurement of false documents.

    Yes, this has been brought up before, but it is designed to hammer the point home. Smuggling of people across borders is directly connected to the “irregular migration” that occurs at the end. It is the end result of these actions which show no respect for national borders or sovereignty. The UN review is rather blunt on the subject.

    2.2 Conceptualization of smuggling of migrants
    2.2.1 Smuggling as an illegal migration business
    The conceptualization of smuggling as a migration business was formally developed by Salt and Stein in 1997, even if one may find reference to this theory in earlier literature. This new interpretation of the smuggling phenomenon had a great influence on academic circles, and the concept was then borrowed by many academics. In a critical analysis of this concept, Herman stresses that the focus of expert discussions then revolved around the notion of a migration industry and its professionalization, in which migrants are seen as “products” and “people who aid migrants are called ‘smugglers’, and are portrayed as illegal ‘entrepreneurs’”

    Salt and Stein suggested treating international migration as a global business that has both
    legitimate and illegitimate sides
    . The migration business is conceived as a system of institutionalized networks with complex profit and loss accounts, including a set of institutions, agents and individuals each of which stands to make a commercial gain.

    The model conceives trafficking and smuggling as an intermediary part of the global migration business facilitating movement of people between origin and destination countries. The model is divided into three stages: the mobilization and recruitment of migrants; their movement en route; and their insertion and integration into labour markets and host societies in destination countries. Salt and Stein conclude their theory by citing the need to look at immigration controls in a new way, placing sharper focus on the institutions and vested interests involved rather than on the migrants themselves.

    In some sense, this is quite obvious. Of course smuggling and trafficking are businesses, where the commodity being shipped is the people.

    5. Protocol to Prevent, Suppress/Punish Trafficking

    The full name of this treaty is the “Protocol to Prevent. Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons. Especially Women and Children. supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. New York, US November 2000”.

    Canada is a signatory to this treaty, and as such, should be expected to participate in good faith. Here is the preamble to the treaty, followed by a few Articles contained within.

    The States Parlies to this Protocol,
    .
    Declaring that effective action to prevent and combat trafficking in persons, especially women and children, requires a comprehensive international approach in the countries of origin, transit and destination that includes measures to prevent such trafficking, to punish the traffickers and to protect the victims of such trafficking. including by protecting their internationally recognized human rights,
    .
    Taking into account the fact that, despite the existence of a variety of international instruments containing rules and practical measures to combat the exploitation of persons, especially women and children, there is no universal instrument that addresses all aspects of trafficking in persons,
    .
    Concerned that, in the absence of such an instrument, persons who are vulnerable to trafficking will not be sufficiently protected,
    Recalling General Assembly resolution 53/111 of 9 December 1998, in which the Assembly decided to establish an open-ended intergovernmental ad hoc committee for the purpose of elaborating a comprehensive international convention against transnational organized crime and of discussing (he elaboration of, inter alia, an international instrument addressing trafficking in women and children,
    .
    Convinced that supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime with an international instrument for the prevention, suppression and punishment of trafficking in persons, especially women and children, will be useful in preventing and combating that crime.
    Have agreed as follows:

    The goal is pretty straightforward, to create a universal and inclusive agreement on how to combat human trafficking.

    The main difference between smuggling and trafficking is one of consent. Smuggled people are willing accomplices, while trafficked people are essentially prisoners. While this treaty specifically refers to trafficked people, the same measures should be taken considered people who are smuggled.

    First, you can’t usually tell right away if the person is willing or not.

    Second, the nations these people are entering should have some rights.

    Article 2
    Statement of purpose The purposes of this Protocol are:
    (a) To prevent and combat trafficking in persons, paying particular attention to women and children;
    (b) To protect and assist the victims of such trafficking, with full respect for their human rights: and
    (c) To promote cooperation among States Parties in order to meet those objectives.

    Article 11
    Border measures
    I. Without prejudice to international commitments in relation to the free movement of people, States Parties shall strengthen, to the extent possible, such border controls as may be necessary to prevent and detect trafficking in persons.
    2. Each State Party shall adopt legislative or other appropriate measures to prevent, to the extent possible. means of transport operated by commercial carriers from being used in the commission of offences established in accordance with article S of this Protocol.
    3. Where appropriate, and without prejudice to applicable international conventions, such measures shall include establishing the obligation of commercial carriers. including any transportation company or the owner or operator of any means of transport, to ascertain that all passengers are in possession of the travel documents required for entry into the receiving State.
    4. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures, in accordance with its domestic law, to provide for sanctions in cases of violation of the obligation set forth in paragraph 3 of this article.
    5. Each State Party shall consider taking measures that permit, in accordance with its domestic law, the denial of entry or revocation of visas of persons implicated in the commission of offences established in accordance with this Protocol.
    6. Without prejudice to article 27 of the Convention. States Parties shall consider strengthening cooperation among border control agencies by, inter alia. establishing and maintaining direct channels of communication.

    Our current process of letting the RCMP escort people across the border only to release them a few hours later does the public no good at all. Even if people are being willfully smuggled (as opposed to trafficked against their will), we should not be letting such people enter the country on these terms.

    The 2000 agreement Canada signed onto “should” mean something substantive. It shouldn’t allow people to flaunt our laws, with possibly trafficked persons in the group.

    6. Rights Of Child Not To Be Exploited

    This UN Protocol is called the “Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children,
    child prostitution and child pornography”.

    Considering also that the Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child’s education, or to be harmful to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development,
    .
    Gravely concerned at the significant and increasing international traffic in children for the purpose of the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography,
    .
    Deeply concerned at the widespread and continuing practice of sex tourism, to which children are especially vulnerable, as it directly promotes the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography,
    .
    Recognizing that a number of particularly vulnerable groups, including girl children, are at greater risk of sexual exploitation and that girl children are disproportionately represented among the sexually exploited,

    Article 9
    1. States Parties shall adopt or strengthen, implement and disseminate laws, administrative measures, social policies and programmes to prevent the offences referred to in the present Protocol. Particular attention shall be given to protect children who are especially vulnerable to such practices.
    2. States Parties shall promote awareness in the public at large, including children, through information by all appropriate means, education and training, about the preventive measures and harmful effects of the offences referred to in the present Protocol. In fulfilling their obligations under this article, States Parties shall encourage the participation of the community and, in particular, children and child victims, in such information and education and training programmes, including at the international level.
    3. States Parties shall take all feasible measures with the aim of ensuring all appropriate assistance to victims of such offences, including their full social reintegration and their full physical and psychological recovery.
    4. States Parties shall ensure that all child victims of the offences described in the present Protocol have access to adequate procedures to seek, without discrimination, compensation for damages from those legally responsible.
    5. States Parties shall take appropriate measures aimed at effectively prohibiting the production and dissemination of material advertising the offences described in the present Protocol.

    Article 10
    1. States Parties shall take all necessary steps to strengthen international cooperation by multilateral, regional and bilateral arrangements for the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution and punishment of those responsible for acts involving the sale of children, child prostitution, child pornography and child sex tourism. States Parties shall also promote international cooperation and coordination between their authorities, national and international non-governmental organizations and international organizations.
    2. States Parties shall promote international cooperation to assist child victims in their physical and psychological recovery, social reintegration and repatriation.
    3. States Parties shall promote the strengthening of international cooperation in order to address the root causes, such as poverty and underdevelopment, contributing to the vulnerability of children to the sale of children, child prostitution, child pornography and child sex tourism.
    4. States Parties in a position to do so shall provide financial, technical or other assistance through existing multilateral, regional, bilateral or other programmes.

    This protocol seems reasonable enough. Making sure that children are not being harmed or exploited is a valuable societal function.

    However, when we allow people to enter Canada illegally, and release them into the country soon afterwards, we have no way of knowing what will happen. Our system, which rewards people for deliberately bypassing official border crossings does everyone a disservice.

    No decent person wants children to be exploited, sexually or otherwise. But having laws that make it easy to do so ensures that it will happen at some point.

    7. Eliminating Worst Child Labour

    This international agreement is the “CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROHIBITION AND IMMEDIATE ACTION FOR THE ELIMINATION OF THE WORST FORMS OF CHILD LABOUR ADOPTED BY THE CONFERENCE AT ITS EIGHTY-SEVENTH SESSION, GENEVA, 17 JUNE 1999”.

    Article 2
    For the purposes of this Convention, the term “child” shall apply to all persons under the age of 18.

    Article 3
    For the purposes of this Convention, the term “the worst forms of child labour” comprises:
    (a) all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory labour, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict;
    (b) the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of pornography or for pornographic performances;
    (c) the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities, in particular for the production and trafficking of drugs as defined in the relevant international treaties;
    (d) work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children.

    Article 4
    1. The types of work referred to under Article 3(d) shall be determined by national laws or regulations or by the competent authority, after consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned, taking into consideration relevant international standards, in particular Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Worst Forms of Child Labour Recommendation, 1999.
    2. The competent authority, after consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned, shall identify where the types of work so determined exist.
    3. The list of the types of work determined under paragraph 1 of this Article shall be periodically examined and revised as necessary, in consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned.

    Article 5
    Each Member shall, after consultation with employers’ and workers’ organizations, establish or designate appropriate mechanisms to monitor the implementation of the provisions giving effect to this Convention.

    Article 6
    1. Each Member shall design and implement programmes of action to eliminate as a priority the worst forms of child labour.
    2. Such programmes of action shall be designed and implemented in consultation with relevant government institutions and employers’ and workers’ organizations, taking into consideration the views of other concerned groups as appropriate.

    All of these articles are completely reasonable, and admirable goals. However, to repeat from earlier, how do we enforce these things we have committed ourselves to doing if we aren’t willing to properly enforce a border? How can we make sure the children (and adults too) are being let in under the pretenses we are told?

    Without taking the time to check thoroughly, how can the RCMP, (and Border Services) ensure that they are not unwitting accomplices to human trafficking or human smuggling?

    8. What If People Aren’t Who They Claim?

    Canada of course has other international obligations. These listed are just 3 of them related to prevent of people being exploited.

    • “Protocol to Prevent. Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons. Especially Women and Children. supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime”, in 2000
    • “Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography”
    • “ILO Convention 182 concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst forms of Child Labor”

    Let’s take a look at what is happening across the U.S./Mexico border: people are abducting children in order to pass as a “family unit” when illegally crossing into the U.S.

    The government warned federal judges in 2016 that their attempts to create a catch-and-release policy for illegal immigrant families would lead to children being “abducted” by migrants hoping to pose as families to take advantage.

    The court brushed aside those worries and imposed catch-and-release anyway.

    Two years later, children are indeed being kidnapped or borrowed by illegal immigrants trying to pose as families, according to Homeland Security numbers, which show the U.S. is on pace for more than 400 such attempts this year. That would be a staggering 900 percent increase over 2017’s total.

    This Washington Times article details how adults wanting to illegally cross into the U.S. are actually abducting children to appear as a “family unit”. That’s right, children are being kidnapped to make it easier for others to stay in the United States illegally. An article in May 2019 suggested that 1/3 of “families” crossing were not blood related at all.

    Sure, the adults use children to cross the border. What happens to them afterwards?

    Is permitting illegal crossings a violation of international agreements? In context, many people who say yes they are.

    9. How Diligent Is IRB/CBSA?

    This evidence transcript is from a Parliamentary meeting on the illegal crossings going on. Let’s look at a few sections of the testimony.

    Spoiler, it’s not very encouraging. 16 month wait times, and it’s based largely on the honour system. Of course, we take people at their word that they, and “their” children, are who they claim to be.

    *****************************************************************

    The response team has both operational and adjudicative thrusts. I’d like to underline that this response has not diminished in any way IRB’s ongoing commitment to one of the key objectives of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which is the security of Canadian society. For example, the IRB has a publicly accessible policy that requires that the RPD not accept a refugee claim until CBSA has had a reasonable opportunity to complete its security screening. This policy remains in place for all claims, including those heard through the response team. There are other processes related to security matters that I would be happy to discuss during the question period, if they are of interest.

    Since July 1, more than 8,000 claims were referred to the RPD. Before this, we were projecting an intake of 40,000 cases for this fiscal year. The strain on the organization to handle this many people’s hearings is enormous, as our capacity to hear cases this fiscal year, following a plan of action for efficiency and internal reallocation of funds, is roughly 2,000 per month, or 24,000 per year.

    Naturally, claimants whose hearings are not brought before a decision-maker of the response team in the next two months will wait to be scheduled like other claimants. Wait times before the Lacolle arrivals were already at approximately 16 months per person. Intake in the eastern region, in the month of September alone, was equal to the eastern region’s intake for all of 2016.

    *****************************************************************

    Mr. Larry Maguire:
    What kind of lag time would we see in that?

    Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller:
    We have a 16-month wait time for our regular stream. But are you asking me about when the basis of claim form will be expected?
    That practice notice is just a temporary practice notice. We’re going to wait to see probably until the end of November before we reconsider whether or not we suspend that practice notice in which case it would go back to 15 days.

    Mr. Larry Maguire:
    How do you keep track of those people in the meantime? Where are they?

    Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller:
    If you go to our website, it says that you need to submit all the information around tombstone data, like address, and you have to keep us apprised of your changes of address and contact information. If you have counsel or if you have a consultant who is working with you, we need their contact information as well.
    We are in contact with them about the scheduling and their claim processing.

    Mr. Larry Maguire:
    Are either of you aware of any process that CBSA or others would use to make sure they know where all the illegal immigrants that come across are in Canada at all times?

    Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller:
    Do you mean by that, people who have crossed the border irregularly?

    Mr. Larry Maguire:
    Yes.

    Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller:
    You have to ask CBSA but we all keep track of the claimants relative to the information they’ve given us. They are responsible for keeping all of us up to date on their changes of address and where they are in the country, which is how my colleague was able to describe where the secondary migration to other cities has happened.

    Mr. Larry Maguire:
    When you say “they”, is that information that immigration or CBSA has given you, or is it the individuals themselves?

    Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller:
    The claimants are responsible for maintaining their files up to date. Like any court procedure, you would always be responsible to that tribunal for your information. These are very official processes with the claimants.

    Mr. Larry Maguire:
    You were saying there were 8,000 crossings since September 1, or was it July 1?

    Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller:
    That’s the number that had been referred to us since July 1, and we don’t keep the statistics about the number of people crossing. We only become seized with the matter when the referral has been by CBSA or IRCC. Our data are always about our caseload, not about the number of people who have interfaced with IRCC or CBSA.

    *****************************************************************

    Our political leaders at work….