Category: UN/WHO

Posted on

CV #28(C): Manitoba’s “Conservative” Premier, Brian Pallister, Considering Curfew

Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister: will this become Canada’s version of Dan Andrews?

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here.

2. Pallister Proposes “Temporary” Curfew


https://twitter.com/BrianPallister/status/1323638895586779136

Why is it always the conservatives (at least in Canada), who turn out to be the biggest tyrants? Is it ideological, or are they being bribed or threatened?

Yes, we’re stepping up enforcement.
Yes, we need to be proactive.
Yes, we need to be preventative in our decision making.
And so, I also want Manitobans perspective on an initiative that’s been taken in other jurisdictions around the world. It’s actually been taken in Manitoba as well, and we are giving serious consideration to it.
As with all of our plans, we make them available to Manitobans before they’re implemented, and I want to do the same with this one.
.
We’re giving serious consideration to implementing a curfew, a curfew that would be designed to restrict travel between key hours, when gathering sizes tend to be dangerously in excess of the rules, (late night hours, obviously).
.
These late night situations in Winnipeg have expanded out Covid cases very significantly, According to Dr. Roussin, this is an action we should seriously consider, and I am seriously considering it now. I want Manitobans to tell us what they think of the idea of a limited period curfew (we hope very short time period is involved here). But, this potential measure will have to be acted upon. If Manitobans can support and encourage it. If they disagree, I want to hear from them.

It all seems so harmless and well intentioned, doesn’t it? Pallister actually comes across as a sincere person, but anyone who pays attention knows where this is heading.

3. This Is Only The Beginning

There is little doubt that Brian Pallister will “claim” there is widespread support for curfews, even if the overwhelming majority oppose it. Alternatively, he may claim that it’s the call of Public Health, and he has no say in the matter.

Calling it “temporary” or “limited” are just soft sells to deceive people into what is really going to happen. Look at Australia as a model.

Posted on

CCS #6(B): Carbon Tax Challenge Is Designed To Fail At Supreme Court Of Canada

Originally featured as the resistance, this group is going through the motions of pretending to oppose a Carbon tax, and the globalist agenda as a whole. Now the Supreme Court of Canada is about to weigh in.

1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam

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

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruling.
CLICK HERE, for Saskatchewan Courts, info for users.
CLICK HERE, for Ontario Court of Appeal ruling.
CLICK HERE, for ONCA challenge documents, pleadings.
CLICK HERE, for Alberta Court of Appeal ruling.
CLICK HERE, for ABCA challenge documents, pleadings.
CLICK HERE, for Supreme Court of Canada constitutional challenge.

SCC Attorney General Of Ontario
SCC Attorney General Of Canada
SCC Attorney General Of Saskatchewan
SCC Attorney General Of Alberta
SCC Attorney General Of New Brunswick
SCC Attorney General Of Manitoba
SCC Attorney General Of Quebec
SCC Attorney General Of British Columbia
SCC Amnesty International
SCC Canadian Labour Congress
SCC David Suzuki Foundation
SCC Intergenerational Climate Committee
SCC International Emissions Trading Association
SCC Smart Prosperity Institute
SCC Attorney General Of Ontario Reply
SCC Attorney General Of Canada Reply

Listings Of Documents Filed With Court

3. Saskatchewan Court Of Appeal (May, 2019)

II. OVERVIEW
[4] The factual record presented to the Court confirms that climate change caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions is one of the great existential issues of our time. The pressing importance of limiting such emissions is accepted by all of the participants in these proceedings.

[5] The Act seeks to ensure there is a minimum national price on GHG emissions in order to encourage their mitigation. Part 1 of the Act imposes a charge on GHG-producing fuels and combustible waste. Part 2 puts in place an output-based performance system for large industrial facilities. Such facilities are obliged to pay compensation if their GHG emissions exceed applicable limits. Significantly, the Act operates as no more than a backstop. It applies only in those provinces or areas where the Governor in Council concludes GHG emissions are not priced at an appropriate level.

[6] The sole issue before the Court is whether Parliament has the constitutional authority to enact the Act. The issue is not whether GHG pricing should or should not be adopted or whether the Act is effective or fair. Those are questions to be answered by Parliament and by provincial legislatures, not by courts.

From the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruling. All parties, including those of Scott Moe, and his “conservative” allies, all admitted that climate change was a dire threat. The case was only over very narrow technical arguments. The junk science behind the Carbon tax was never questioned.

4. Ontario Court Of Appeal (June, 2019)

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
[6] Climate change was described in the Paris Agreement of 2015 as “an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet”. It added that this “requires the widest possible cooperation by all countries, and their participation in an effective and appropriate international response”.

[7] There is no dispute that global climate change is taking place and that human activities are the primary cause. The combustion of fossil fuels, like coal, natural gas and oil and its derivatives, releases GHGs into the atmosphere. When incoming radiation from the Sun reaches Earth’s surface, it is absorbed and converted into heat. GHGs act like the glass roof of a greenhouse, trapping some of this heat as it radiates back into the atmosphere, causing surface temperatures to increase. Carbon dioxide (“CO2”) is the most prevalent GHG emitted by human activities. This is why pricing for GHG emissions is referred to as carbon pricing, and why GHG emissions are typically referred to on a CO2 equivalent basis. Other common GHGs include methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride.

[8] At appropriate levels, GHGs are beneficial. They surround the planet like a blanket, keeping temperatures within limits at which humans, animals, plants and marine life can live in balance. The level of GHGs in the atmosphere was relatively stable for several million years. However, since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the 18th century, and more particularly since the 1950s, the level of GHGs in the atmosphere has been increasing at an alarming rate. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are now more than 400 parts per million, a level not reached since the mid-Pliocene epoch, approximately 3-5 million years ago. Concentrations of other GHGs have also increased dramatically.

[29] On December 9, 2016, eight provinces, including Ontario, and the three territories adopted the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change (the “Pan-Canadian Framework”), which explicitly incorporated the Benchmark. At that time, British Columbia, Alberta and Québec already had carbon pricing mechanisms, and Ontario had announced its intention to join the Québec/California cap-and-trade system. Manitoba subsequently adopted the Pan-Canadian Framework on February 23, 2018. Saskatchewan did not adopt it. The Pan-Canadian Framework emphasized the significant risks posed by climate change to human health, security and economic growth and recognized carbon pricing as “one of the most effective, transparent, and efficient policy approaches to reduce GHG emissions”, promote innovation and encourage individuals and industries to pollute less.

[55] Ontario agrees that climate change is real, is caused by human activities producing GHG emissions, is having serious effects, particularly in the north, and requires proactive measures to address it. Ontario does not agree, however, that what it labels a “carbon tax” is the right way to do so. It says that Ontario will continue to take its own approach to meet the challenge of reducing GHG emissions.

[56] Ontario points to the success of its own efforts to reduce GHG emissions, the most significant of which has been the closure of all five of Ontario’s coal-fired electricity generation plants, which has reduced Ontario’s annual GHG emissions by approximately 22 percent below 2005 levels as of 2016.

[57] Ontario’s environmental plan (“Preserving and Protecting our Environment for Future Generations: A Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan”), released in November 2018, proposes to find ways to “slow down climate change and build more resilient communities to prepare for its effects”, but it will do this in a “balanced and responsible” way, without placing additional burdens on Ontario families and businesses.

[58] Ontario has committed to reducing its emissions by 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, which aligns with Canada’s target under the Paris Agreement. It will do so, for example, by updating its Building Code, O. Reg. 332/12, increasing the renewable content of gasoline, establishing emissions standards for large emitters, and reducing food waste and organic waste.

From the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling. The Ford Government does not question the climate change agenda in any way, shape or form. Nor do his partners. In fact, there is a lot of bragging that Ontario is already doing a great job combatting climate change.

5. Alberta Court Of Appeal (February, 2020)

I. Introduction
[1] Calls to action to save the planet we all share evoke strong emotions. And properly so. The dangers of climate change are undoubted as are the risks flowing from failure to meet the essential challenge. Equally, it is undisputed that greenhouse gas emissions caused by people (GHG emissions) are a cause of climate change. None of these forces have passed judges by. The question the Lieutenant Governor in Council referred to this Court though – is the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, SC 2018, c 12 (Act) unconstitutional in whole or in part – is not a referendum on the phenomenon of climate change.[1] Nor is it about the undisputed need for governments throughout the world to move quickly to reduce GHG emissions, including through changes in societal behaviour. The federal government is not the only government in this country committed to immediate action to meet this compelling need. Without exception, every provincial government is too.[2]

[2] Nor is this Reference about which level of government might be better suited to address climate change or GHG emissions. Or whether a uniform approach is desirable. Or who has the best policies. Or what are the best policies. Or who could do more to reduce GHG emissions in the world. This Court cannot compare causes with causes, means with means, provinces with provinces or nations with nations in the global struggle against climate change. But what it can do is offer our opinion on the constitutionality of the Act under Canada’s federal state.

[460] Alberta, according to Robert Savage, who has worked primarily in the climate change field for Alberta since 2004 and is now Alberta’s assistant deputy minister of the Climate Change Division of Alberta Environmental and Parks, “has long accepted the scientific consensus that human activity, in particular the production of … [greenhouse gases is] … a significant contributory factor to climate change, and that if action is not taken to reduce global … [greenhouse gas] emissions, the potential impacts of climate change will be more severe”.[346]

[461] Mr. Savage, with justification, asserts that “Alberta has been a pioneer in Canada and North America with respect to climate change initiatives, with a long history of innovative policies, regulatory schemes, and investments in technology targeted at reducing GHGs”.[347]

[462] He also claims that Alberta was one of the first Canadian jurisdictions to adopt “a comprehensive action plan to reduce GHG emissions”.[348]

[463] The 2002 Albertans & Climate Change: Taking Action plan dealt with better emissions management, enhanced technology to control industrial emissions, enhanced energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy sources.[349]

[464] The 2002 climate change plan contained ambitious components. It targeted a fifty percent reduction of 2002 emissions by 2020 per unit of gross domestic product. It directed large emitters to measure and report to government emissions data. It emphasized the need to manage carbon dioxide emissions and develop biological sinks. It encouraged Albertans to consume less energy.

From the Alberta Court of Appeal ruling. Once again, none of these “conservative” parties oppose the climate change agenda in any way. Instead, they argue for the right to implement their own programs. Now it may be poor wording, but this doesn’t exclude PROVINCIAL Carbon taxes at some point.

6. Federal Conservatives Support Climate Hoax

This interview clip with Alberta MP Garnett Genuis is from 2017. Then Leader Andrew Scheer whipped his caucus into voting for a motion to support the Paris Accord. Now Genuis tries to defend it, and fails.

However, the CPC would likely have still supported it if they were in power. Stephen Harper signed Agenda 2030 in September 2015, and there’s no reason to indicate he wouldn’t have signed the Paris Accord as well. Either Conservatives are unaware of the deeper globalist agenda, or they don’t care.

7. Supreme Court Of Canada: Ontario (Appellant)

PART I – OVERVIEW AND FACTS
1. This case is not about whether action needs to be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or the relative effectiveness of particular policy alternatives. It is about (1) whether the federal Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (the “Act”) can be supported under the national concern branch of the POGG power; and (2) whether the “charges” imposed by the Act are valid as regulatory charges or as taxes. The answer to both questions should be no.

2. The provinces are fully capable of regulating greenhouse gas emissions themselves, have already done so, and continue to do so. Ontario has already decreased its greenhouse gas emissions by 22% below 2005 levels and has committed to a 30% reduction below 2005 levels by 2030 – the same target to which Canada has committed itself in the Paris Agreement.

14. Internationally, while there is broad consensus about the importance of urgently addressing climate change, parties to the Paris Agreement are not required to implement carbon pricing as part of their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Article 6.8 of the Paris Agreement specifies that the Parties “recognize the importance of integrated, holistic and balanced non-market approaches being available to the Parties.” The Act therefore imposes standards that are more stringent than the requirements of the Paris Agreement.

C. Ontario Has Taken and Will Continue to Take Strong Actions Across Its Economy and Society to Address Greenhouse Gas Emissions
.
15. Ontario agrees with Canada that climate change is real and needs to be addressed. That is why Ontario has taken steps to implement a made-in-Ontario plan to protect the environment, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and fight climate change. Ontario has set itself the goal of reducing Ontario’s emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.

Ontario’s Factum (as the Appellant). Although other parties are joining in as Intervenors, Ontario is officially the party that is appealing.

8. Supreme Court: Manitoba (Intervenor)

PART I – OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. This appeal strikes at the heart of federalism. It provides this Court with an opportunity to further delineate the parameters of the test for the national concern branch of peace, order and good government (POGG), as set out in Crown Zellerbach over 30 years ago.

2. No one disputes that climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are of paramount importance. The issue is whether Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to impose its preferred policy choice on the provinces. Manitoba agrees with the Appellants’ submissions that reducing GHG emissions lacks the singleness, distinctiveness and indivisibility necessary to support an exercise of the POGG power. If Parliament were to have jurisdiction under POGG to impose national standards to reduce GHG emissions as a matter of national concern, there would be virtually no limit to Parliament’s ability to legislate in areas of provincial jurisdiction, given the breadth of activities that create GHG emissions. This would substantially disrupt the balance of federalism.

6. Manitoba is fully committed to reduce GHG emissions and agrees that all governments must play a role and work cooperatively to implement effective solutions to combat and mitigate climate change. Climate change is one of the main pillars of Manitoba’s Climate and Green Plan, 2017 (Climate Plan), which aims to reduce GHG emissions, invest in clean energy and adapt to the impacts of climate change.

7. When first introduced, Manitoba’s Climate Plan included carbon pricing as one among many tools to help reduce GHG emissions. It recognized that free-market forces could be used together with smart regulation to tackle climate change and make meaningful emission reductions. In addition to other measures, Manitoba proposed to introduce a flat $25 per tonne carbon tax. The proposed carbon tax would start at more than double the initial federal price of $10 per tonne, and would remain constant at $25 from 2018 to 2022.

Manitoba has decided to enter the case as an Intervenor for Ontario. The “conservative” Brian Pallister supports the climate change agenda fully, but only objects to this specific tax. Ideologically, he is fully on board.

9. Supreme Court: Saskatchewan (Intervenor)

PART I – OVERVIEW AND FACTS
A. Introduction
1. This appeal concerns whether federal legislation that regulates provincial greenhouse gas (GHG) emission sources is constitutional. What is specifically at stake is whether the federal government has jurisdiction to unilaterally impose its chosen policy to regulate sources of GHG emissions on the provinces. The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (the “GGPPA” or “Act”) functions as if the federal government is legislating in place of a province itself. It is supervisory, and its legislative machinery reveals that what the federal government is truly doing is passing provincial legislation in those provinces it feels have inadequately adopted the federal policy.

2. This appeal does not concern whether global climate change is real and concerning or if the provinces are taking sufficient action to reduce GHG emissions. All parties agree that global climate change is a significant societal problem and all provinces have and continue to take action to reduce GHG emissions. In the Courts below, many submissions, including those of the Attorney General of Canada, focused on the nature of climate change and the importance of carbon pricing as an effective method of reducing GHG emissions. However, the efficacy of carbon pricing is not relevant to the constitutionality of the GGPPA, which must be derived from whether it is within the legislative competence of the federal government.

That was from the submissions of the Attorney General of Saskatchewan, acting as an Intervenor in the Ontario appeal to the Supreme Court. Again, Scott Moe confirms that climate change is a threat to humanity, but that this particular tax is unconstitutional on technical grounds.

10. Supreme Court: Alberta (Intervenor)

A. Overview
1. In a case like this with profound implications for the division of powers, the court’s overriding concern must be maintaining the structure of our federal system of government.

2. The court cannot and should not base its decision on what it considers necessary to address a global problem such as climate change or what it believes are the best policy solutions for reducing greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, particularly in light of genuine and reasonable policy disputes as to what approaches strike the right balance in particular contexts.

3. With respect, this was lost sight of in the majority decisions of the Courts of Appeal below. The majority judges in these cases appeared to conclude that the importance of addressing climate change justified the federal government controlling how the provinces exercise their jurisdiction over the regulation of GHG emissions under the national concern branch of the Peace, Order and Good Government (“POGG”) power.

As before, Alberta doesn’t actually challenge the climate change agenda in any way. The argument (as in all cases), is that Provinces should be left alone to come up with their own solutions. With everyone saying that climate change is a serious threat, the Court will never consider just how corrupt and fraudulent it really is.

11. Supreme Court: BC (Intervenor)

PART I: OVERVIEW OF POSITION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The troubling question raised by these references is whether our system of federalism is an obstacle to addressing the existential threat of global climate change. Are we the only major emitting country in the world whose constitution renders it impossible to make national commitments to reduce greenhouse gases? Or can national targets be met using means compatible with the unity-in-diversity that characterizes Canada’s federal structure?

2. In British Columbia, the “future” of a climate transformed by human greenhouse gas emissions is here now. A major industry has already been devastated: people have already been forced out of their homes. The province has experienced an average temperature increase of 1.4°C since 1900 – the limit of what scientists tell us would destabilize biological and social systems globally. A succession of relatively warm winters in the 1990s led to the mountain pine beetle epidemic and, as a direct consequence, the loss of most of the merchantable pine volume in interior British Columbia by 2012. The worst forest fire seasons on record occurred back-to back in 2017 and 2018. The elevated risk is because of climate change. In coming decades, British Columbia can expect wildfires like California’s today. Melting permafrost will damage infrastructure in Northern British Columbia, especially for remote communities and Indigenous peoples. Sea level rise poses risk of unquantifiable flooding losses for coastal British Columbia, particularly Prince Rupert and the Fraser River delta, where 100 square kilometres of land are currently within one metre of sea level. This includes the City of Richmond, home to 220,000 people

The NDP Government of British Columbia openly supports the climate change agenda, as do so-called “conservatives”. But at least the NDP is up from about this.

That said, the part about forest fires needs to be addressed. The RCMP has stated — at least for the 2018 fires — that the bulk of them were intentionally set (arson).

Even if conservatives were in power, they seem to support the agenda.

12. Supreme Court: Quebec (Intervenor)

PARTIE III. EXPOSÉ DES ARGUMENTS
Introduction
8. La PGQ ne conteste pas que la protection de l’environnement constitue un enjeu fondamental qui nécessite une action de la part des deux ordres de gouvernement, comme la Cour l’a reconnu dans l’arrêt Hydro-Québec. La Cour a défini la protection de l’environnement comme étant une matière « diffuse », non expressément attribuée de manière exclusive à un ordre de gouvernement plutôt qu’à un autre Affirmant au premier chef la compétence de l’Assemblée
nationale de légiférer sur la protection de l’environnement, la PGQ ne remet pas en cause la compétence législative du Parlement fédéral à l’égard de cette même matière. La PGQ est d’avis que la protection de l’environnement requiert d’ailleurs une collaboration de la part de tous les acteurs concernés

PART III. STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS
Introduction
8. The PGQ does not dispute that environmental protection is an issue fundamental that requires action from both levels of government, such as the Court recognized this in the Hydro-Québec decision. The Court defined the protection of the environment as being a “diffuse” matter, not expressly attributed exclusively to an order of government rather than another. Primarily affirming the competence of the Assembly to legislate on the protection of the environment, the QMP does not call into question the legislative competence of the federal Parliament with regard to the same matter. The PGQ is of opinion that the protection of the environment requires collaboration on the part of all actors involved

Francois Legault, the Premier of Quebec, is another “conservative” that does not actually oppose the climate change agenda. In fact, Legault seems content with Premiers imposing PROVINCIAL Carbon taxes everywhere.

13. Supreme Court: New Brunswick (Intervenor)

PART I – INTRODUCTION
1. The Intervenor, Attorney General of New Brunswick (“New Brunswick”) supports the position of the Attorney General of Alberta (“Alberta”) and adopts the arguments in Alberta’s factum. New Brunswick is also in general agreement with the climate data submitted by the Attorney General of Canada (“Canada”). Consistent with the previous references of the Attorney General of Saskatchewan (“Saskatchewan”) and the Attorney General of Ontario (“Ontario”) in their respective Courts of Appeal, this should not be a platform on which to debate climate change however real the threat may be. Climate data and warnings regarding the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions (“GHG emissions”) are relevant to the extent that such information dispassionately informs the constitutional question. Objectivity is paramount.

2. Much of Canada’s record and arguments support a resolve to deal with a looming existential threat; but it also provokes an emotional response – the natural result of contemplating any dire
circumstance. When imbued with the weight and gravitas it deserves, equally weighty solutions feel appropriate. In turn, it may feel appropriate to a layperson that the regulation of GHG emissions should be controlled by Parliament. Such may seem both harmless and practical. When a central control over the matter is cast in supervisory terms and is fixated on minimum standards, the layperson could believe that a benign form of federalism has been accomplished. But those conclusions would ignore the constitutional division of powers.

New Brunswick avoids the issue of climate change in the Supreme Court filings, but had this to say elsewhere: These hearings should not be used as a forum to question the science. Similar submissions were made in Ontario as well.

14. NGOs Meddling In Court Affairs

This was covered in the last article. There are several non-government organizations who are acting as Intervenors for their own reasons. It’s not just the Provinces and Ottawa involved.

15. SCC Challenges Are Designed To Fail

It’s difficult to see the Supreme Court of Canada ruling against the Carbon tax, though it’s possible in theory. Alberta was successful, although their courts are more tilted that way. There’s no real opposition to the theft being done under the guise of environmentalism.

What is even the point of doing this? Well, it’s not about stopping the public from being fleeced. It’s about APPEARING to stop the public from being fleeced, (or at least trying to). All parties support this hoax. As such, Canadians are being deceived.

One final thought: even if this challenge is ultimately successful, who’s to say that Provinces won’t start implementing their own Carbon taxes? Or who’s to say Erin O’Toole would actually drop the Federal tax if he became Prime Minister?

Posted on

CV #28(B): Trolling Sadie Hunter’s Stream, Rigged BC Provincial Election, Puppets

This might be considered a teachable moment. If you are running as a candidate, and there is an all-party agreement to abdicate governing to BC Public Health, it shouldn’t be advertised. Therefore, sending unsolicited invitations to investigative journalists may not be the best option.

Another learning moment: There’s not much point in voting for your party if NOT governing is part of the agenda.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here.

2. BC Provincial Election Rigged In Advance

MILOBAR: BC Liberals (Monday, October 5th)

HUNTER: BC NDP (Wednesday, October 7th)

MARTIN: BC GREENS (Thursday, October 15th)

As was previously covered in this piece, the BC Liberals, BC NDP, and BC Greens all have an agreement to hand over control of the “pandemic measures” to Bonnie Henry. The BC Conservatives, whether by design, or just being disorganized, never returned multiple messages for information.

3. Sadie Hunter Won’t Answer Hard Questions

Asking difficult questions (even if done in a respectful way), is apparently grounds to boot people out of a Zoom call. Just a tip, if you want to run for public office, difficult questions are going to come up.

4. Opening BC Better Option Than Welfare

Just an opinion, but perhaps reopening BC is a good option. Certainly it’s a better long term one than simply pumping up the welfare, which is what this person suggested.

5. BCPHO Bonnie No-Science-Behind-It Henry

This was covered in Part 56. BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry admits there’s no science behind a lot of what she does. Remember, all parties support leaving the “pandemic measures” to her. BC MLA Peter Milobar refers to her as “an expert”.

6. BCPHO Bonnie Henry Lowballs True Error Rate

Bonnie Henry Previously said that there can be a 30% error rate when it comes to testing, but the truth is actually much worse than that.

Queue a partial response on an access to information request, and we are told the following information. This confirms what had previously been published on the site.

Good afternoon,
.
Please see the Ministry’s response below-
.
The sensitivity/specificity (false positive/false negative) of:
.
Nucleic acid amplification testing (NAT): http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Professionals-Site/Documents/COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf
.
“A statistic commonly quoted is that there is a 30% chance of a false negative result for a NAT test in a patient with COVID-19 infection (i.e., a 70% sensitivity)… Ultimately, for COVID-19 testing, there is currently no gold standard, and the overall clinical sensitivity and specificity of NAT in patients with COVID-19 infection is unknown (i.e., how well NAT results correlate with clinical infection, “true positivity” or “true negativity” rate).”
.
Antibody testing:
.
http://www.bccdc.ca/health-professionals/clinical-resources/covid-19-care/covid-19-testing/antibody-testing-(serology)
http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Professionals-Site/Documents/COVID19_SerologyTestingGuidelines.pdf
.
“Based on the published literature, commercial laboratory-based assays are about 95% sensitive at ~30 days post symptom onset and the specificity is approximately 99.5%.”
.
Please advise if these publicly available links suffice the specific portion of request discussed in the below email.
.
Thank you!

http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Professionals-Site/Documents/COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf

http://www.bccdc.ca/health-professionals/clinical-resources/covid-19-care/covid-19-testing/antibody-testing-(serology)

http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Professionals-Site/Documents/COVID19_SerologyTestingGuidelines.pdf

Despite there being quotes thrown around that there is a 30% false negative rate, the fact is that BC Health really has no idea what the error rate is.

This is a little confusing. Although the error rate for the virus tests themselves is completely unknown, the success rate for anti-body testing is supposed to be 95%? Really? Are we sure that this number isn’t just completely made up as well?

7. Bonnie’s 2015 Testimony On Vaxx/Masks

Sault Area Hospital and Ontario Nurses’ Association, 2015 CanLII 55643 (ON LA)

This came from a labour arbitration hearing in 2015. Bonnie Henry (yes, that Bonnie Henry), testified as an expert. She said there was little evidence to support either the vaccination or mask mandate that the Sault Area Hospital demanded. Her testimony also helped influence proceedings in 2016, and 2018. Now, 5 years later, she says something completely different. It seems incomprehensible that BC health care workers “wouldn’t” know about this. Unless of course, they do know, and are remaining silent for some reason.

8. WHO’s International Health Regulations

This has been addressed before. As part of its membership with the World Health Organization, Canada is forced to comply with the legally binding “International Health Regulations”.

For some perspective, IHR (and the 2005 Quarantine Act), came from the WHO. Unelected bureaucrats (Bonnie Henry, Deena Hinshaw, Barbara Yaffe, Theresa Tam, etc….), are then put in charge of implementing those supra-national dictates.

Why aren’t candidates being forthcoming about this? Why isn’t this obligation to the WHO being openly and honestly discussed by the mainstream media in Canada? Here is one theory:

9. BC NDP, HC Workers, A Bit Cozy?

Barb Nederpel, Vice President of Kamloops North NDP, President of Hospital Employees Union

This may be nothing, but it did seem rather strange that at least 3 people in the very small stream (15 people) all had ties to the health care field. Health care workers should be outraged at the lies and deception that NDP Premier John Horgan has perpetuated in the Province.

Then again, considering the NDP, Greens and Liberals have a pact to hand off everything to Bonnie Henry, there really isn’t much of a choice in voting. Sadie herself has said that she supports keeping these restrictions in place in BC until people are vaccinated. Never mind all the shoddy “science” behind it.

As for all of the “models” which predict death waves to come: predictions aren’t evidence of anything. They are guesses. And we need to address Neil Ferguson and Imperial College London.

It’s upsetting just how little people are speaking out about what is happening in BC (among other Provinces). It’s not like any of this is difficult to find.

Posted on

CV #28: The B.C. Election Just An Illusion Of Choice, All Parties Compromised

BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry wields great power in the Province. All parties are content to abdicate their duty to govern. Despite there being a Provincial election, none of them seem to have any interest in changing this. BC is run by an unelected bureaucrat. There’s no science in limiting group size to 50 people (see 1:00 in video), but she does it anyway.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here.

2. Ethical Concerns Over Recordings? Nope

Would it have been proper to let the people know ahead of time that this was being recorded, and would be posted later? Probably, but the public is best served by knowing the truth. And the truth is that the major parties play along with the “pandemic” scare, and don’t differ on these human rights violations. It is just the illusion of choice.

3. Peter Milobar: BC Liberals (Incumbent)

MILOBAR: BC Liberals

BCPHO Bonnie Henry was actually appointed when the BC Liberals were still in power. There is no intention to replace her, or even override her orders. Milobar says that the rules allow her to make orders, but who was it who wrote the rules in the first place?
https://www.bcliberals.com/clearchoice/

4. Sadie Hunter: BC NDP (Challenger)

HUNTER: BC NDP

Apparently, all parties agreed to let BC Public Health make all the decisions. However, this is an abdication of their duty to govern. Hunter says that the measures will remain in place until there is a vaccine.
NDP 2020 Platform

5. Thomas Martin: BC Greens (Challenger)

MARTIN: BC GREENS

Again, all of the parties are on board with letting Public Health (Bonnie) run the affairs of the province. The only real difference seemed to be on some of the spending details.
2020_BC_Greens_platform_(1)

6. BC Conservative Party

At the time of publication, the BC Conservatives haven’t responded to numerous attempts to talk about what their policies were regarding these “pandemic” measures. However, their platform doesn’t mention it, so it’s unlikely to be a serious concern. Also, consider what Premiers like Ford, Kenney and LeGault are currently doing. CPC Leader Erin O’Toole previously criticized Trudeau for not being authoritarian enough.

7. BC’s Dictator-In-Chief: Bonnie Henry

This is too long to address in even a single article, but Bonnie Henry lets it leak out over time that there is no real science behind anything that she does. See the link for some of the more obvious problems. This is who really runs the Province of BC.

To those saying “get out and go vote”, I would have to ask: why?

Posted on

The 2005 Quarantine Act (Bill C-12), Was Actually Written By WHO

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances many things, including, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Worth mentioning: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, and here.

2. Parliamentary Hearing Transcripts

CLICK HERE, for HESA, Bill C-12, 38th Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for HESA’s report back to Parliament.

Canada Quarantine Act Oct 28 Hearing
Canada Quarantine Act Nov 4 Hearing
Canada Quarantine Act Nov 18 Hearing
Canada Quarantine Act Nov 23 Hearing
Canada Quarantine Act Nov 25 Hearing
Canada Quarantine Act Dec 7 First Hearing
Canada Quarantine Act Dec 7 Second Hearing
Canada Quarantine Act Dec 8 Hearing

WHO Constitution Full Document
ihr.2005.areas.for.implementation

3. Quotes From November 4, 2004 Hearing

(11:35)
Dr. Paul Gully: During an outbreak we certainly would communicate with the countries involved. During SARS we had close collaboration with the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, for example, as required, to share intelligence.
.
In terms of utilization of their legislation, such as quarantine acts, we feel that our relationship with WHO, which is closer, and also clarification of WHO’s powers under the international health regulations will, I think, further ensure there is consistency in terms of response from individual member states as a result of that.
.
Does that answer your question?
.
Mr. Colin Carrie: Yes.
.
Are you aware of international standards for quarantine?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: The international health regulations would be the regulations that individual states would then use to design their quarantine acts. I don’t know of any other standards out there or best practices to look at quarantine acts, but the IHRs really have been used over the years as the starting point.
.
Now, with the improvement of the international health regulations, maybe, as is the case in Canada, changes will occur to quarantine acts in other countries in order to better comply with the international health regulations.

(11:55)
Mrs. Carol Skelton: When did these consultations begin, and how long do you expect they will go on?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: We had a meeting in September with the provinces and territories in Edmonton about the Quarantine Act as it stood at that time. We got input. We’re having another teleconference with the Council of Chief Medical Officers next week to talk about a number of issues that were raised and to further clarify what they would like to see as changes to the bill as it stands at the present time.
.
Mrs. Carol Skelton: Why did Health Canada proceed with a separate Quarantine Act at this time?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: Those of us who administered the Quarantine Act over the years always knew there were deficiencies in the old act, and because it was rarely used there wasn’t the inclination to update it. As a result of SARS and utilization of the act, which certainly put it under close scrutiny, and the requirement for the Government of Canada to respond to the various reports on SARS, it was felt that updating the act sooner rather than later was appropriate.
.
In addition, during discussions about the international health regulations of the World Health Organization, it was felt that it was appropriate to do it and to spend time and energy, which it obviously does require, to do it now, before other parts of legislative renewal, of which Mr. Simard is well aware, were further implemented or further discussion was carried out.

(12:05)
Ms. Ruby Dhalla: I have one question. In terms of the Quarantine Act for our country, where are we at in terms of best practices models when we look at the international spectrum?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: I don’t know the acts in other countries, but because we are updating our act right now and we’re taking into account the probable revisions to the international health regulations, I believe we would be well in the forefront in terms of having modern legislation.

Canada Quarantine Act Nov 4 Hearing

Of course, the other transcripts are worth a read, but this one explicitly states that the 2005 Quarantine Act was drafted in order to comply with International Health Regulations.

Bill C-12, the 2005 Quarantine Act, was written in anticipation of changes to the International Health Regulations that the World Health Organization would make. Let’s take a look.

4. Quarantine Facilities Discussed Dec 7

Mr. Réal Ménard: However, Mr. Thibault, you cannot behave as though this were a war measures act. You cannot take over a facility without the province giving it consent in some fashion.
.
You acknowledge that the bill says that the minister can establish quarantine stations throughout Canada. So that could be done in areas that come under provincial jurisdiction.
.
Hon. Robert Thibault: The bill will apply to people coming into the country and people leaving the country.
.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Or who are in the country.
.
Hon. Robert Thibault: When they are in the country, they will be covered by provincial legislation. If people attending a conference in Montreal become ill, this is the responsibility of the Quebec government. The Quebec Quarantine Act would apply. The bill before us will apply only when these individuals seek to leave Canada. The expert could give us more details on this matter.
.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, I would appreciate that.
.
Dr. Jean-Pierre Legault: There seems to be some confusion between a quarantine station and a quarantine facility.
.
A quarantine station is a permanent infrastructure. It is somewhat like the customs stations in airports and ports, at entry and exit points. In order to manage the program, we must locate our permanent infrastructures in the highest risk areas and manage a national program. Normally, that is done on a federal lands or at federal entry points.
.
Quarantine facilities are established when the permanent infrastructure is inadequate to meet the demand. This could be done in isolated cases. Let us say, for example, that a traveller is very ill. We must remember that the role of quarantine is to identify, intercept and take the person to the hospital according to isolation procedures. This is one of the roles of the front line authority. The federal government does not have the infrastructure required to hospitalize people.
.
Quarantining people means putting them into medical isolation in order to protect the public. Clearly, we will be working in cooperation with the provincial authorities and with the hospitals. When we bring them a sick person, the room this person goes to will become a temporary facility, while the person is there. We have to be able to act quickly. We can talk about cost recovery and all those other things later, but we have to put these people somewhere.
.
In the case of much larger groups, we have to be able to mobilize quite quickly in order to respond. If we are talking about managing a crisis involving 1,000 people, for example, we have to be able to act very quickly. Negotiations are a problem at such a time.
.
Mr. Réal Ménard: However, your officials did make a distinction. First of all, we heard from witnesses. Representatives from national carriers came in and told us that there should be permanent quarantine stations in the eight largest airports.
.
Our concern has to do with the fact that temporary quarantine stations maybe established anywhere in the country. Obviously, we understand that we are talking about people in transit, who are entering or leaving Canada. We intercept them when they are on Canadian soil. As clause 8 states, the quarantine facility can be located anywhere in the country. As a result, it is not out of the question that there may be cases where the cooperation of provincial health authorities is required. However, according to the bill in its present form, the minister could establish a temporary quarantine facility in a place that comes under provincial jurisdiction without obtaining the province’s approval.

Mass quarantine stations were discussed even back in 2004. Remember, WHO’s International Health Regulations are legally binding, and were the basis for Bill C-12.

5. WHO’s Constitution Gives Binding Authority

Article 21
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt regulations concerning:
(a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease;
(b) nomenclatures with respect to diseases, causes of death and public health practices;
(c) standards with respect to diagnostic procedures for international use;
(d) standards with respect to the safety, purity and potency of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce;
(e) advertising and labelling of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce.

Article 22
Regulations adopted pursuant to Article 21 shall come into force for all Members after due notice has been given of their adoption by the Health Assembly except for such Members as may notify the Director-General of rejection or reservations within the period stated in the notice.

Articles 21 and 22 of the World Health Organization Constitution make it pretty clear that they will have power to adopt measures over member states. And those areas specify quarantines.

6. Int’l Health Regulations Legally Binding

Article 3(2). The implementation of these Regulations shall be guided by the Charter of the United Nations and the Constitution of the World Health Organization.

Article 3(3). The implementation of these Regulations shall be guided by the goal of their universal application for the protection of all people of the world from the international spread of disease.

Article 3(4). States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to legislate and to implement legislation in pursuance of their health policies. In doing so they should uphold the purpose of these Regulations.

Article 4(1). Each State Party shall designate or establish a National IHR Focal Point and the authorities responsible within its respective jurisdiction for the implementation of health measures under these Regulations

Article 4(3). WHO shall designate IHR Contact Points, which shall be accessible at all times for communications with National IHR Focal Points. WHO IHR Contact Points shall send urgent communications concerning the implementation of these Regulations, in particular under Articles 6 to 12, to the National IHR Focal Point of the States Parties concerned. WHO IHR Contact Points may be designated by WHO at the headquarters or at the regional level of the Organization.

Article 4(4). States Parties shall provide WHO with contact details of their National IHR Focal Point and WHO shall provide States Parties with contact details of WHO IHR Contact Points. These contact details shall be continuously updated and annually confirmed. WHO shall make available to all States Parties the contact details of National IHR Focal Points it receives pursuant to this Article.

Article 12(1). The Director-General shall determine, on the basis of the information received, in particular from the State Party within whose territory an event is occurring, whether an event constitutes a public health emergency of international concern in accordance with the criteria and the procedure set out in these Regulations.

Article 18(1). Recommendations issued by WHO to States Parties with respect to persons may include the following advice:
– no specific health measures are advised;
– review travel history in affected areas;
– review proof of medical examination and any laboratory analysis;
– require medical examinations;
– review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis;
– require vaccination or other prophylaxis;
– place suspect persons under public health observation;
– implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons;
– implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons;
– implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons;
– refuse entry of suspect and affected persons;
– refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas; and
– implement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas.

Article 57(1). States Parties recognize that the IHR and other relevant international agreements should be interpreted so as to be compatible. The provisions of the IHR shall not affect the rights and obligations of any State Party deriving from other international agreements

Except as otherwise indicated, the International Health Regulations (2005) entered into force on 15 June 2007 for the following States:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Holy See, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India (8 August 2007), Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein (28 March 2012), Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro (5 February 2008), Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Niue, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan (16 April 2013), Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America (18 July 2007), Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Canada is on the list of countries who joined. And the above articles are just a small sample of what has been agreed to.

7. Again, IHR Are Legally Binding On Us All

he IHR are an instrument of international law that is legally-binding on 196 countries, including the 194 WHO Member States. The IHR grew out of the response to deadly epidemics that once overran Europe. They create rights and obligations for countries, including the requirement to report public health events. The Regulations also outline the criteria to determine whether or not a particular event constitutes a “public health emergency of international concern”.

Once more, the IHR are binding on all member states.

Sure, it was Ottawa that passed Bill C-12, the Quarantine Act in Canada. But the real authors were at the World Health Organization, who were drafting the latest version of the International Health Regulations.

Posted on

IBC #7: Debt For Nature Swaps, Usury & Exploitation Masked As Compassion

Some background information on how this process works (in theory at least). See here and here. Does it matter that many countries are unable to repay their loans? To the creditors, not really, as there is always another way.

These “swaps” involve selling a country’s debt (at a discount) to a 3rd party, but one who has its own agenda.

1. More On The International Banking Cartel

For more on the banking cartel, check this page. The Canadian Government, like so many others, has sold out the independence and sovereignty of its monetary system to foreign interests. BIS, like its central banks, exceed their agenda and try to influence other social agendas. See who is really controlling things, and the common lies that politicians and media figures tell. And check out the climate change hoax as well, as the 2 now seem intertwined.

New Development Financing, a bait-and-switch.

2. Important Links

UN New Development Finance Paper
UN.new.development.financing.2012.178pages

UNDP Explaining Debt-For-Nature Swaps

CLICK HERE, for World Economic Forum, debt swap support.
https://archive.is/LTw1r

World Bank Working Paper, March 1990

CLICK HERE, for World Wildlife Fund Climate fund page.
https://archive.is/43sHz

3. Debt Used As A Weapon Against Nations

This cannot be emphasized enough. Countries take foreign loans in times when they are desperate, and often are unable to meet the terms to pay them back. This is a form of predatory lending. What may end up happening is that those debts are sold to people and organizations who have their own agenda.

And where do these loans originate in the first place? Many are (debt financed) by countries like Canada, the U.S., and in Europe. Western nations — who use private parties to borrow money from — borrow money which is then handed over as loans to the 3rd World. Those loans are distributed to countries who can’t pay them back. They are then forced into options like debt-for-nature.

4. World Economic Forum & Climate Swaps

Debt swaps can be one solution to tackle both challenges at once. Traditionally, these instruments represent an exchange of the existing debt contract with a new one, where the previous contract is normally “written down”, or discounted. Usually, this action is associated with specific conditions for investments, agreed both by the creditor and the debtor. In the past, such instruments have also been used to achieve climate-related objectives.

The idea of a “debt-for-climate” swap was first conceived during the 1980s by the then Deputy Vice President of the World Wildlife Fund, Thomas Lovejoy, in the wake of the Latin American debt crisis. The idea was simple: an NGO would act as a donor, purchasing debt from commercial banks at its face value on the secondary market, hence providing a level of relief on the debt’s value. The title of the debt would then be transferred to the debtor country in exchange for a specific commitment to environmental or conservation goals, performed through a national environmental fund.

In 2018, the Seychelles government worked with The Nature Conservancy, Global Environment Facility (GEF), and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to develop a debt-for-nature swap for $27 million of official debt, to set up vast areas of protected marine parks for climate resilience, fishery management, biodiversity conservation and ecotourism.

This came out just the other day. The World Economic Forum, which pushed for a declaration of a pandemic also goes on about how this can be used to advance the green agenda. But don’t worry, it’s not preplanned or anything.

5. UNDP Explains Risks And Consequences

Cons
.
-DNS have only resulted in relatively small amounts of debt relief, limiting their impact in reducing developing countries’ debt burden;
–Transaction costs might be high compared to other financing instruments; negotiations can be time-consuming, spanning several years and might result in limited debt reduction or discount rates. The length of the design and negotiation phase of a DNS can span one to three years, mostly depending on the willingness of the parties and the complexity of the deal.

Risks
.
-Lengthy negotiations. Disagreement between the creditor and debtor country on conservation goals or other details of the agreement can increase the costs of the operation.
–Currency exchange risks, the impact of which (and the response strategy) is dependent on the financial structure of the DNS. The currency risk can be mitigated, for example, by making payments in local currency at the spot rate on the day payments are due. In the latter case the risk is lower for the entity managing the DNS cash flow.
–Inflation risks, the value of future payments in local currencies might be highly by inflation. Mitigation strategies to inflation risks are similar to the ones for currency exchange risks.
-The DNS might prevent the possibility of negotiating a more comprehensive and favourable debt treatment (debt relief and restructuring).
-The debtor-country might not be able or willing to respect its commitments. Fiscal and liquidity crises can undermine the capacity of the debtor-government to meet its obligations.
-Management risks related to the capacity of the fund selected to administer grants from the DNS proceeds, including mismanagement, corruption and failures in the identification of good projects to be financed.
-While rarely reported, it is possible that the projects financed might create discontent in local communities (e.g. removal of access to resources by local communities).
-ODA substitution (no additionality). While a DNS is an option for increasing ODA, it might just substitute for other committed flows.
-The debtor-country may lose sovereignty in deciding about the spending of public resources. Grants may be disbursed according to donors’ preferences, which in turn might or might not better mirror local conservation needs. In most DNS the debtor-government decides in agreement with the creditor(s) about the modalities of funds’ disbursements, both participating in the boards of the trust fund responsible for grant-making.
-Debt swaps may be tied to the purchase of goods or services for the creditor(s).

There are an awful lot of drawbacks to getting involved with this sort of loan. Specifically, countries cede their sovereignty, are forced into conditions they don’t like, and it may not even result in much of a debt reduction.

6. World Bank 1990 Working Paper On Swaps

The first debt-for-nature agreement (Bolivia) was the only one in which land was set aside, and development restrictions adopted, as a result of the agreement. This deal was extremely controversial at first, as many Bolivians thought that the country had relinquished sovereignty to the international environmental group. There is, however, no transfer of land ownership, and development decisions are not based on agreements between the local environmental groups, the government, and the regional population. The Bolivian government has been slow in dispersing the local currency funds, and controversies have arisen over the development use of the buffer areas.

Finally, prior to the debt-for-nature concept, environmental groups had little or no direct contact with either commercial banks or debt countries’ finance ministers. Debt-for-nature swaps, however, have entailed intense negotiations between all three groups, leading to a network of relationships that may prove valuable to international environmental groups beyond simply debt-for-nature agreements.

Much of the interest in using official debt for debt-for-development swaps first began as a result of the 1988 Toronto Economic Summit, in which the G-7 countries established guidelines that allowed Paris Club Creditors to forgive debt to the poorest of the Sub-Saharan countries. One of three options given to Paris Club creditors was to forgive up to one-third of the debt of the developing country (with the other two being extended maturities and lower interest rates). France has generally chosen the first option, while the United States (until July 1989) has been reluctant to forgive debt.

World Bank Working Paper, March 1990

This scheme has been going back many decades. The basic principle is that countries are loaned money they cannot realistically afford to pay back. Loans are then forgiven — or reduced — but with strings attached. One such arrangement is the debt-for nature swaps.

Although the land isn’t officially ceded, for all practical purposes it is.

7. Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation, Seychelles

In 2017, the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation helped finance a debt-for-nature swap with the Republic of Seychelles to set aside some 400,000 square kilometers of water for conservation.

8. World Wildlife Fund Conservation Finance

Debt-for-Nature Swaps
WWF has worked with the U.S., French, German, Dutch, and other creditor countries to structure foreign debt-for-nature swaps, including the first one in Ecuador in 1987. Since 2001, WWF has helped design several debt-for-nature swap agreements under the Tropical Forest Conservation Act (and previously under the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative). Both mechanisms were formed to relieve the debt burden of developing countries owed to the U.S. government, while generating funds in local currency to support tropical forest conservation activities. Capital raised through debt-for-nature swaps can be applied through trust funds or foundations specifically set up to channel funding to local biodiversity conservation.

Carbon Finance
WWF believes that carbon finance, if used appropriately, will play a critical role in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to biodiversity conservation, and promoting a range of local economic and social values. WWF is developing pilot carbon projects in Peru, Brazil, Central Africa, Indonesia and Nepal to capitalize on the rapidly growing potential for carbon finance. We contribute to these efforts by securing private and public financing for carbon projects and providing technical support to implement carbon finance mechanisms.

The World Wildlife Fund is quite involved in financing the nature-for-debt swaps. Should make Canadians wonder what is the real reason Trudeau and Butts present themselves as eco-warriors.

9. Gerald Butts, Megan Leslie Head(s) of WWF

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Gerald Butts was once the President and CEO of World Wildlife Fund Canada. This conflict of interest isn’t limited to the Liberals though.

Megan Leslie used to be the Deputy NDP Leader, and was Deputy Opposition Leader for a time. Now, this Trudeau Foundation Director is also the head of the World Wildlife Fund.

It’s also worth a mention that Elizabeth May, the former Green Party Leader is also with the Trudeau Foundation. She was, at a time, Head of Sierra Club Canada. At least 3 of the major Federal parties are compromised, and in bed with the eco-lobby.

10. Mockingbird Foundation Of Canada

To see a little deeper just how many tentacles the Trudeau Foundation has, see these connections between the House of Commons, the Senate, the Courts and the media. Truly disgusting.

11. Usury Disguised As Humanitarianism

Despite what is said publicly, there is nothing compassionate about what is happening. Countries are taking loans they can’t pay back, and are forced to cede sovereignty in order to “service the debt”. Not at all what we are led to believe.