Category: UN/WHO

Posted on

CV #39: Forced Or Coerced Vaccination Violates Nuremberg Code

If the Nuremberg Code provides very reasonable guidelines on performing medical experiments, then what possible stretch of logic would prohibit people from refusing forced vaccines?

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

For much more on the coronavirus “pandemic”, check out this series. Know the real story about the lies, inflated death tolls, rampant lobbying, financial conflicts of interest, and other deception that the mainstream media will not report on.

2. Text Of Nuremberg Code

  1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
  2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
  3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
  4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
  5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
  6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
  7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
  8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
  9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
  10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

3. Does Forcing Vaccines Violate Code?


It stands to reason that if forcing people to participate in medical experiments is unethical, then forcing vaccines on people should be as well. Considering the lack of testing and safety mechanisms, it would be hard to argue that this is not still experimental.

Beyond actual force, making it unreasonably difficult to live one’s life without being vaccinated should also imply a lack of informed consent. Would a Government put a “boot on the neck” under the guise of public safety? Well, they are already.

What will happen should this be put in a court challenge? Guess only time will tell.

Posted on

Heritage #3: Annexation Makes UNESCO Sites World’s 2nd Largest “Country”

1. Understanding Our History

(A) https://canucklaw.ca/un-declaration-on-rights-of-indigenous-peoples-bc-and-feds/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/the-indian-act-of-canada/

2. Important Links

(1) https://whc.unesco.org/en/faq/23
(2) https://en.unesco.org/covid19/cultureresponse/monitoring-world-heritage-site-closures
(3) https://unesco.org.uk/national-value
(4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area
(5) https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/UN.new_.development.financing.2012.178pages.pdf
(7) http://www.clubdeparis.org/en/communications/page/debt-swap
(8) Debt for Nature Swaps _ UNDP (1)
(9) https://www.cov.com/en/news-and-insights/news/2004/08/covington-advises-on-debt-for-nature-swap-to-protect-unesco-world-heritage-site
(10) https://canucklaw.ca/ccs-14-uns-new-development-financing-the-bait-and-switch/

3. Who Actually Owns UNESCO Sites?

Who owns a site once it’s inscribed on the World Heritage List?
.
The site is the property of the country on whose territory it is located, but it is considered in the interest of the international community to protect the site for future generations. Its protection and preservation becomes a concern of the international World Heritage community as a whole.

An interesting explanation. So the host nation owns it, but is not allowed to do anything with it unless approved by the international community. Perhaps it’s like renting an apartment: it’s your space, but the interest of the landlord.

4. How Many UNESCO Sites Are There?

This includes the closure of natural and cultural World Heritage sites in the 167 countries they are located in. Please consider the following when reviewing the map:
The World Heritage Convention has been ratified by 193 States Parties but only 167 countries have properties on UNESCO’s World Heritage List;
The List includes a total of 1,121 natural, cultural and mixed World Heritage sites;
In some countries with federal systems there may be a different approach for certain areas within the country;
For some types of sites such as city centres, urban ensembles or agricultural landscapes access may be still possible to certain public areas of the sites, while other parts of the site may be closed, including site museums, visitor centres, religious or emblematic buildings;
For some countries, sites are being re-opened, such as in China;
While sites are closed, monitoring activities by site management may continue, especially for natural sites, including by anti-poaching units, monitoring by satellite images or drones and emergency interventions, for example in case of fires.

According to UNESCO, there are 1,121 UNESCO sites across the world. Now, it must be asked how big they are collectively.

5. How Large Are UNESCO Sites In Total?

The research demonstrates that UNESCO designations deliver the UK’s commitment to creating a more sustainable, peaceful and equitable future at a local, national and international level. It provides governments, stakeholders, communities, designations and the public an opportunity to understand the contribution a global network covering 12% of the UK, or 10 million km2 globally (equivalent to the size of Canada) makes.

According to UNESCO UK, 12% of Britain is considered a UNESCO heritage site. In total, approximately the area of Canada is formed by these different sites.

Rank Country, Region Area (square km)
1 Russia 17,098,246
n/a Antarctica 14,000,000
2 Canada 9,984,670
3 China 9,596,961
4 United States 9,833,517
5 Brazil 8,515,767
6 Australia 7,692,024
7 India 3,287,263

According to Wikipedia, the national land areas are distributed as such. If UNESCO heritage sites were combined, those 10 million square kilometers would actually make it the second largest mass, after Russia. Keep in mind, that while the countries still “own” the heritage sites, they are considered to be the interest of the international community.

6. Canada’s Various UNESCO Heritage Sites

Year Site
1978 Nahanni National Park
1978 L’Anse aux Meadows National Historic Site
1979 Dinosaur Provincial Park
1979/92/94 Tatshenshini-Alsek
1981 SGang Gwaay
1981 Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump
1983 Wood Buffalo National Park
1984/1990 Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks
1985 Historic District of Old Québec
1987 Gros Morne National Park
1995 Old Town Lunenburg
1995 Waterton Glacier International Peace Park
1999 Miguasha National Park
2007 Rideau Canal
2008 Joggins Fossil Cliffs
2012 Landscape of Grand Pré
2013 Red Bay Basque Whaling Station
2016 Mistaken Point
2019 Writing-on-Stone / Áísínai’pi

Over the last 50 years Canada has piece-by-piece been giving away parts of itself to UNESCO as “heritage sites”. And again, while it’s stated that we still own the property, it’s considered to be in the interest of the so-called global community. In reality, we don’t have control over them.

7. UN Debt-Land Conversion Mechanism: Usury

UN.new.development.financing.2012.178pages

(Page 88, 56 in document)
Debt-for-nature swaps Debt conversion first emerged, in the guise of debt-for-nature swaps, during the 1980s debt crisis, following an opinion article by Thomas Lovejoy, then Executive Vice-President of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), in the New York Times in 1984. Lovejoy argued that a developing country’s external debt could be reduced (also providing tax relief to participating creditor banks) in exchange for the country’s taking measures to address environmental challenges. Estimates based on Sheikh (2010) and Buckley, ed. (2011) suggest that between $1.1 billion and $1.5 billion of debt has been exchanged through debt-for-nature swaps since the mid–1980s, although it is not possible to assess how much of this constitutes IDF, for the reasons discussed in box III.1

There have been two basic forms of debt-for-nature exchanges (Buckley and Freeland, 2011). In the first, part of a country’s external debt is purchased by an environmental non-governmental organization and offered to the debtor for cancellation in exchange for a commitment to protect a particular area of land. Such transactions occurred mainly in the late 1980s and 1990s and were generally relatively small-scale. An early example was a 1987 deal under which Conservation International, a Washington, D.C.-based environmental non-governmental organization, bought $650,000 of the commercial bank debt of Bolivia (now Plurinational State of Bolivia) in the secondary market for $100,000, and exchanged this for shares in a company established to preserve 3.7 million acres of forest and grassland surrounding the Beni Biosphere Reserve in the north-east part of the country.

In the second form, debt is exchanged for local currency (often at a discount), which is then used by local conservation groups or government agencies to fund projects in the debtor country. Swaps of this kind are generally much larger, and have predominated since the 1990s. The largest such swap came in 1991, when a group of bilateral creditors agreed to channel principal and interest payments of $473 million (in local currency) into Poland’s Ecofund set up to finance projects designed to counter environmental deterioration. The EcoFund financed 1,500 programmes between 1992 and 2007, providing grants for conservation projects relating to cross-border air pollution, climate change, biological diversity and the clean-up of the Baltic Sea (Buckley and Freeland, 2011).

This is nothing short of predatory lending and usury. Lending out large sums of money (often debt financed by donor countries), to other countries who can’t pay it back. The debts can be forgiven in return for consideration, such as rendering sections of land unavailable for use.

In short, these lands are taken away in return for debt forgiveness.
See the more sinister variation at the end.

It should be pointed out that UNESCO is not the only organization that is involved in debt swaps. There are private groups that do it too.

8. The Paris Club – Debt Swapper

The Paris Club is just one group that is involved in the debt swaps when countries can’t afford to make payments on their debts. While presented as harmless, it takes away national sovereignty. Keep in mind, that the average citizen isn’t responsible for racking up this debt.

9. UN Development Program

Debt for Nature Swaps _ UNDP (1)

The UN Development Program also runs a version of the same scheme. Here is a short guide they provide on the details.

10. Argentina Debt-For-Nature Swap

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 19, 2004 – The United States Government and the Government of Panama signed a debt-for-nature swap agreement today that will reduce the sovereign debt of the Government of Panama and help conserve 579,000 hectares (over 2,200 square miles) of tropical rainforest, an area larger than the State of Delaware. The deal will fund conservation efforts in a portion of the Darién National Park, an area of dense rainforest, sandy beaches, freshwater marshes and rocky coasts that is environmentally, anthropologically and historically rich.

The park has been officially recognized by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization as a World Heritage site and as a Biosphere Reserve. It is located in an ecologically vital area that forms a land-bridge between the North and South American continents. The region is home three major indigenous groups, the Emberá, Waunaan and Kunas, who continue to live by traditional practices. The Darién coast was explored by Christopher Columbus in 1502 and visited by Spanish conquistadors. The Darién Gap region is inhabited by numerous rare animal species, including the jaguar, white-lipped peccary, giant anteater, bush dog, mantled howler monkey and harpy eagle (Panama’s national bird).

And with that, a piece of land larger than the State of Delaware has been signed over to UNESCO, in return for having some of its debt reduced. Remember, while the land officially stays in the hands of the country, it is now considered the interest of the global community.

In addition to the debt-for-nature swaps, there are also debt-for-health swaps. These can be even more nefarious.

11. UN Debt-Vaccine Conversion Mechanism

Look familiar? In Part 14 we mentioned IFFIm, the International Finance Facility for Immunization. How this works is that nations make legally binding pledges to IFFIm. IFFIm then takes those pledges and issues bonds to the World Bank, who sells them on the open market. Money then goes to World Bank, who gives it to IFFIm, who in turn provides it to GAVI. GAVI (also funded by Gates), uses it for vaccine research and development.

A reasonable person may ask why not give the money directly to GAVI. That’s because other people can’t line their pocket it that happened.

Funnelling money through “vaccine bonds” does nothing except allow others to skim from it. Now, what happens to the money that actually does arrive? It’s used in another predatory way.

(Page 89, 57 in document)
Debt2Health Since the development of debt swaps in the 1980s, there has been a diversification of their uses to encompass social projects, most recently in the area of health under the Debt2Health initiative, which was launched by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in 2007 to harness additional resources for its programmes. Under Debt2Health, a donor country agrees to reduce part of a loan ineligible for debt relief under global initiatives such as the HIPC and Multilateral Debt Reduction Initiatives, in exchange for a commitment by the debtor to invest (in local currency) half of the nominal value of the debt in programmes approved by the Global Fund. The Global Fund is committed to devoting all of the funds thus generated to financing programmes in the country rather than overhead costs (Buckley, 2011c)

This is an alternative to the debt-for-nature swap. Want your debt forgiven? Take your sterilizing and possibly paralysing vaccines.

12. Taking Advantage Of Desperate People

A lot of the loans and conditional foreign aid are not free. They come with strings attached.

Loans are handed out with terms that cannot possibly be met. What happens afterwards is an “arrangement” to cancel or reduce the debt. This can require ceding control over part of the land to outsiders, or having to play along with a certain agenda.

A variation of that is the debt-for-health swap, where debt is forgiven in return for adopting certain health measures. This includes vaccines, which can cripple or kill.

One has to wonder how UNESCO got its 1,121 heritage sites.

Posted on

The New USMCA & Its Globalist Provisions

On July 1, 2020, the United States, Mexico & Canada Agreement (USMCA) replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Some may wonder why this deal had to be replaced. However, upon reading the new treaty, it becomes clear that USMCA is far more reaching and covers areas which NAFTA didn’t. In short, this is not merely an alteration of NAFTA, but a new agreement which contains many more globalist provisions. This is far more than a trade agreement.

This review will not address all of the points of USMCA, just the more alarming or interesting ones.

1. National Treatment Provisions

Article 2.3: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord national treatment to the goods of another Party in accordance with Article III of the GATT 1994, including its interpretative notes, and to this end, Article III of the GATT 1994 and its interpretative notes are incorporated into and made part of this Agreement, mutatis mutandis.
.
2. The treatment to be accorded by a Party under paragraph 1 means, with respect to a regional level of government, treatment no less favorable than the most favorable treatment that regional level of government accords to any like, directly competitive, or substitutable goods, as the case may be, of the Party of which it forms a part.

Article 14.4: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory.
.
2. Each Party shall accord to covered investments treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments in its territory of its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.

Article 17.3: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords to its own investors, in like circumstances, with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of financial institutions, and investments in financial institutions in its territory.
.
2. Each Party shall accord to financial institutions of another Party, and to investments of investors of another Party in financial institutions, treatment no less favorable than that it accords to its own financial institutions, and to investments of its own investors in financial institutions, in like circumstances, with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of financial institutions and investments.

Article 20.8: National Treatment
1. In respect of all categories of intellectual property covered in this Chapter, each Party shall accord to nationals of another Party treatment no less favorable than it accords to its own nationals with regard to the protection of intellectual property rights.

So what’s the problem here? Why would it be wrong to enforce rules that ensure equal treatment between the parties?

Quite simply, it makes protecting your own industries and businesses illegal. In fact, the Canadian Government has been sued –successfully — in the 1990s. This was because NAFTA meant that we could no longer enforce things like environmental laws if they were bad for business.

Governments (should) take steps to ensure that people are able to have decent work in their communities. However, that becomes much harder when foreign companies can come in and undercut local merchants. This works in a similar way when mass migration creates downward pressure on wages.

While this may result in lower costs for good and services, there is a bigger picture to consider. Decimating communities that are dependent on a few big employers is not offset by having cheaper products at Walmart.

However, this concern for society becomes a thing of the past. Note: these provisions were in other trade deals as well such as NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

2. Ch #14: Investments And Corporations

Article 14.11: Senior Management and Boards of Directors
1. No Party shall require that an enterprise of that Party that is a covered investment appoint to senior management positions a natural person of a particular nationality.
.
2. A Party may require that a majority of the board of directors, or any committee thereof, of an enterprise of that Party that is a covered investment, be of a particular nationality, or resident in the territory of the Party, provided that the requirement does not materially impair the ability of the investor to exercise control over its investment.

While much of the chapter is okay, this is rather disturbing. The reason is that appointing foreigners to head a corporation (much like putting foreigners in government), leads to a conflict of interest. In order to ensure the well being of a company — and its employees — it’s important to have people loyal to the country in question.

Call it bigoted, but I don’t believe this dual loyalty can be resolved in a way that benefits society as a whole.

3. Ch #16: Temporary Entries Must Be Allowed

It has been discussed here many times how Canada is experiencing a flood of people coming under: (a) Temporary Foreign Worker Program; (b) International Mobility Program; (c) student visas; and (d) other programs. However, USMCA contains provisions in Chapter 16 for this to happen on an even bigger scale (at least regarding workers).

usmca.chapter.16.temporary.entry

Article 16.4: Grant of Temporary Entry
2. A Party may refuse to grant temporary entry or issue an immigration document authorizing employment to a business person where the temporary entry of that person might adversely affect:
.
(a) the settlement of a labor dispute that is in progress at the place or intended place of employment; or
.
(b) the employment of a person who is involved in that dispute.

Article 16.7: Dispute Settlement
1. A Party may not initiate proceedings under Article 31.5 (Commission Good Offices, Conciliation, and Mediation) regarding a refusal to grant temporary entry under this Chapter or a particular case arising under Article 16.3(1) unless:
.
(a) the matter involves a pattern of practice; and
.
(b) the business person has exhausted the available administrative remedies regarding the particular matter.

It should be pointed out there are a few good provisions in this chapter. These include not importing workers to cross picket lines, and limiting ability to challenge refusals. That being said, there are many bad provisions.

Article 16.2: Scope
1. This Chapter applies to measures affecting the temporary entry of business persons of a Party into the territory of another Party.
.
2. This Chapter does not apply to measures affecting natural persons seeking access to the employment market of another Party, nor does it apply to measures regarding citizenship, nationality, residence or employment on a permanent basis.
.
3. Nothing in this Agreement prevents a Party from applying measures to regulate the entry of natural persons of another Party into, or their temporary stay in, its territory, including those measures necessary to protect the integrity of, and to ensure the orderly movement of natural persons across, its borders, provided that those measures are not applied in a manner as to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to any Party under this Chapter.

While this sounds great in theory, the reality is that Canada offers many options to “temporary” workers and students to remain in the country much longer and work towards permanent residence. This just lowers the threshold for getting the foot in the door.

Article 16.5: Provision of Information
1. Further to Article 29.2 (Publication), each Party shall publish online or otherwise make publicly available explanatory material regarding the requirements for temporary entry under this Chapter that will enable a business person of another Party to become acquainted with them.

On the surface, nothing wrong with this. However, it is unsettling to publish or make available instructions for how to bring hordes of people into the country.

Article 16.6: Temporary Entry Working Group
1. The Parties hereby establish a Temporary Entry Working Group, comprising representatives of each Party, including representatives of immigration authorities.
.
2. The Working Group shall meet at least once each year to consider:
.
(a) the implementation and administration of this Chapter;
.
(b) the development of measures to further facilitate temporary entry of business persons on a reciprocal basis;
.
(c) the waiving of labor certification tests or procedures of similar effect for spouses of business persons who have been granted temporary entry for more than one year under Section B, C or D of Annex 16-A (Temporary Entry for Business Persons);
.
(d) proposed modifications of or additions to this Chapter; and
.
(e) issues of common interest related to the temporary entry of business persons, such as the use of technologies related to processing of applications, that can be further explored among the Parties in other fora.

While this is presented as a very limited admission for business, it makes it pretty clear that it include bringing spouses along, and can be modified to include other groups of workers. How difficult would it be to lower the requirements so that entry level workers can be added?

Looking at the list of “professionals” who qualify for temporary entry, one has to wonder how this will effect wages and job prospects of locals. After all, flooding the market with more workers (supply) has consequences to the wages (demand) of those already here.

A section of Chapter 17, specifically 17.5(1)(d)(iv), provides a loophole in that there are no limits to the number of employees a company may have. Theoretically, a company can have an almost endless number of workers who need to cross the border

1. No Party shall adopt or maintain with respect to:

(d) imposes a limitation on:

(iv) the total number of natural persons that may be employed in a particular financial service sector or that a financial institution or cross-border financial service supplier may employ and who are necessary for, and directly related to, the supply of a specific financial service in the form of numerical quotas or the requirement of an economic needs test; or

usmca.chapter.17.financial.services

Section 139 of the Conservative Party Policy Declaration promotes generating more pilot programs for mass migration, and converting “temps” to permanent residents where possible.

Section 152 of the Conservative Party Policy Declaration refers to CANZUK, an open border scheme that may be extended beyond just Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.

cpc.policy.declaration

In fact, once (almost) free movement is factored in alongside this free trade, it begins to look like a North American version of CANZUK. That of course is official CPC policy.

Of course, even when there is a fake pandemic, and millions of Canadians are unemployed, our government still finds it necessary to import hundreds of thousands of workers. Seriously, if the Government won’t protect Canadians’ jobs in a time like this, they won’t ever do it.

4. Ch #19: Social Media, Interactive Services

Article 19.17: Interactive Computer Services
1. The Parties recognize the importance of the promotion of interactive computer services, including for small and medium-sized enterprises, as vital to the growth of digital trade.

2. To that end, other than as provided in paragraph 4, no Party shall adopt or maintain measures that treat a supplier or user of an interactive computer service as an information content provider in determining liability for harms related to information stored, processed, transmitted, distributed, or made available by the service, except to the extent the supplier or user has, in whole or in part, created, or developed the information.

3. No Party shall impose liability on a supplier or user of an interactive computer service on account of:
(a) any action voluntarily taken in good faith by the supplier or user to restrict access to or availability of material that is accessible or available through its supply or use of the interactive computer services and that the supplier or user considers to be harmful or objectionable; or
(b) any action taken to enable or make available the technical means that enable an information content provider or other persons to restrict access to material that it considers to be harmful or objectionable.

Doesn’t look too good for protecting free speech and viewpoint diversity. No consequences for deplatforming people with dissident viewpoints.

5. Ch #20: Intellectual Property Rights

Article 20.7: International Agreements
1. Each Party affirms that it has ratified or acceded to the following agreements:
.
(a) Patent Cooperation Treaty, as amended on September 28, 1979, and modified on February 3, 1984;
.
(b) Paris Convention;
.
(c) Berne Convention;
.
(d) WCT; and
.
(e) WPPT

2. Each Party shall ratify or accede to each of the following agreements, if it is not already a party to that agreement, by the date of entry into force of this Agreement:
.
(a) Madrid Protocol;
.
(b) Budapest Treaty;
.
(c) Singapore Treaty;
.
(d) UPOV 1991;
.
(e) Hague Agreement; and
.
(f) Brussels Convention.

usmca.chapter.20.intellectual.property

This isn’t merely a trade agreement we have signed. It also forces to be committed to 11 different international treaties on intellectual property. Essentially, this is setting a global standard for I.P. In fairness, Canada is a party to many of them already. However, what will happen when people with Canadian patents are forced to compete with people holding similar patents elsewhere?

Considering that patenting genes and other biological material is already a reality, what will happen to health care currently available?

6. Ch #22: State Owned Enterprises

1. Each Party shall ensure that each of its state-owned enterprises, when engaging in commercial activities:
.
(a) acts in accordance with commercial considerations in its purchase or sale of a good or service, except to fulfil the terms of its public service mandate that are not inconsistent with subparagraphs (b) or (c)(ii);
.
(b) in its purchase of a good or service:
.
(i) accords to a good or service supplied by an enterprise of another Party treatment no less favorable than it accords to a like good or a like service supplied by enterprises of the Party, of any other Party or of a non-Party, and
.
(ii) accords to a good or service supplied by an enterprise that is a covered investment in the Party’s territory treatment no less favorable than it accords to a like good or a like service supplied by enterprises in the relevant market in the Party’s territory that are investments of investors of the Party, of another Party or of a non-Party; and
.
(c) in its sale of a good or service:
.
(i) accords to an enterprise of another Party treatment no less favorable than it accords to enterprises of the Party, of any other Party or of a non-Party, and
.
(ii) accords to an enterprise that is a covered investment in the Party’s territory treatment no less favorable than it accords to enterprises in the relevant market in the Party’s territory that are investments of investors of the Party, of another Party or of a non-Party

usmca.chapter.22.state.owned.enterprises

While this “sounds” okay, consider that state owned enterprises are typically funded by taxpayer dollars. They typically mean Crown Corporations and branches of the Government. Under the national treatment rules, these public groups will have to compete with foreigners, and treat them no worse. This comes despite the fact that foreigners don’t pay the taxes that keep them going. This is, in effect, a tax subsidy.

7. Ch #23: International Labour Org. (UN Group)

usmca.chapter.23.labour

Article 23.2: Statement of Shared Commitments
1. The Parties affirm their obligations as members of the ILO, including those stated in the ILO Declaration on Rights at Work and the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization (2008).
.
2. The Parties recognize the important role of workers’ and employers’ organizations in protecting internationally recognized labor rights.
.
3. The Parties also recognize the goal of trading only in goods produced in compliance with this Chapter.

The International Labour Organization (ILO) is a UN group which Canada, the U.S., and Mexico are all part of. In essence, this gives the UN a very large role in setting the agenda for work standards on the continent.

Article 23.14: Labor Council
1. The Parties hereby establish a Labor Council composed of senior governmental representatives at the ministerial or other level from trade and labor ministries, as designated by each Party.
.
2. The Labor Council shall meet within one year of the date of entry into force of this Agreement and thereafter every two years, unless the Parties decide otherwise.
.
3. The Labor Council may consider any matter within the scope of this Chapter and perform other functions as the Parties may decide.
.
4. In conducting its activities, including meetings, the Labor Council shall provide a means for receiving and considering the views of interested persons on matters related to this Chapter. If practicable, meetings will include a public session or other means for Council members to meet with the public to discuss matters relating to the implementation of this Chapter.
.
5. During the fifth year after the date of entry into force of this Agreement, or as otherwise decided by the Parties, the Labor Council shall review the operation and effectiveness of this Chapter and thereafter may undertake subsequent reviews as decided by the Parties.
.
6. Labor Council decisions and reports shall be made by consensus and be made publicly available, unless the Council decides otherwise.
.
7. The Labor Council shall issue a joint summary report or statement on its work at the end of each Council meeting.

This Council is to be made up of members chosen by the governments. There’s no indication that the public will have any say in choosing them. Decisions don’t have to be made public, which means we may never see what goes on. Meetings are to take place once every 2 years (as a default). Not very accountable.

UN SDGs International Labour Organization Partnered With

  • BORDERLESS SUSTAINABLE INITIATIVES FORUM
  • Economic inclusion and sustainable development of Andean grain producers in Ayacucho and Puno
  • Equal Pay International Coalition
  • FarmBiz Youth
  • Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data
  • Improving transitions from school to work through engaging youth in policy dialogue
  • Japanese Technical Cooperation Project for Promotion of Regional Initiative on Solid Waste Management in Pacific Island Countries (J-PRISM)
  • Pacific Financial Inclusion Programme (PFIF)
  • Pacific Youth Development Framework Partnership (PYDF Partnership)
  • Solutions for Youth Employment (S4YE)
  • Strengthening Women’s Ability for Productive New Opportunities (SWAPNO) in Bangladesh
  • Sustainable Week
  • United Nations Pacific Interagency Task Force on Noncommunicable Disease Prevention and Control (UN PIATF)

It’s beyond the scope of this article to go into each group that ILO partners with. However, take a look at the webpage to see for yourself what ILO does with the rest of its time. Anyhow, this is the group whose labour standards we must now comply with.

8. Ch #24: UNSDA Environmental Agenda

Article 24.1: Definitions
For the purposes of this Chapter:
environmental law means a statute or regulation of a Party, or provision thereof, including any that implements the Party’s obligations under a multilateral environmental agreement, the primary purpose of which is the protection of the environment, or the prevention of a danger to human life or health, through:
.
(a) the prevention, abatement, or control of the release, discharge, or emission of pollutants or environmental contaminants;

Article 24.2: Scope and Objectives
1. The Parties recognize that a healthy environment is an integral element of sustainable development and recognize the contribution that trade makes to sustainable development.
.
2. The objectives of this Chapter are to promote mutually supportive trade and environmental policies and practices; promote high levels of environmental protection and effective enforcement of environmental laws; and enhance the capacities of the Parties to address trade-related environmental issues, including through cooperation, in the furtherance of sustainable development.

A lot of the content here looks like it was cut and pasted directly from Agenda 2030. There are also references to pollution and emissions, which one can assume refers to the Paris Accord and the climate change scam. Quite the long read.

usmca.chapter.24.environmental.regulations

9. Ch #26: Focus On Competitiveness

Article 26.1: North American Competitiveness Committee
1. Recognizing their unique economic and commercial ties, close proximity, and extensive trade flows across their borders, the Parties affirm their shared interest in strengthening regional economic growth, prosperity, and competitiveness.

2. With a view to promoting further economic integration among the Parties and enhancing the competitiveness of North American exports, the Parties hereby establish a North American Competitiveness Committee (Competitiveness Committee), composed of government representatives of each Party.

3. Each Party shall designate a contact point for the Competitiveness Committee, notify the other Parties of the contact point, and promptly notify the other Parties of any subsequent changes. Recognizing the need for a comprehensive and coordinated approach to enhance North American competitiveness, each Party’s contact point shall coordinate with its relevant government departments and agencies.

usmca.chapter.26.competitiveness.committee

There is to be a committee to enhance competitiveness. In practice, it means a committee devoted to goods and services at the lowest possible cost. Certainly this group will ensure that countries aren’t able to enact any protectionist policies to aid their own people.

10. Ch #27: Anticorruption Measures

6. In order to prevent corruption, each Party shall adopt or maintain measures as may be necessary in accordance with its laws and regulations, regarding the maintenance of books and records, financial statement disclosures, and accounting and auditing standards, to prohibit the following acts carried out for the purpose of committing the offenses described in paragraph 1:
.
(a) the establishment of off-the-books accounts;
(b) the making of off-the-books or inadequately identified transactions;
(c) the recording of non-existent expenditure;
(d) the entry of liabilities with incorrect identification of their objects;
(e) the use of false documents; and
(f) the intentional destruction of bookkeeping documents earlier than foreseen by the law.

usmca.chapter.27.corruption

While these certainly are good things to prohibit, it’s unclear why this is being put into a trade agreement. It’s also ambiguous how there would be any real enforcement of such clauses.

11. USMCA A New Level Of Globalism

USMCA is touted as NAFTA 2.0, or the New NAFTA. However, much of its contents have nothing to do with trade, but enforcing other areas of society.

Chapter 2 (and elsewhere), make local protection impossible
Chapter 14 focuses on “investments”, which is extremely broad
Chapter 16 makes it easier to being people across the borders for work purposes. Touted as temporary, but we all know this isn’t the case
Chapter 17 allows for an unlimited number of workers
Chapter 19 restricts free speech protections online
Chapter 20 is uniform intellectual property laws
Chapter 22 undermines government agencies and organization
Chapter 23 forces compliance with ILO social justice agenda
Chapter 24 brings back all the environmental agendas
Chapter 26 focuses on competitiveness (lowest cost) over protectionism
Chapter 27 focuses on corruption.

Of course this is not all of USMCA’s content, but the more important parts. Canada, the U.S. and Mexico are signing away large parts of their (remaining) autonomy with this deal.

CLICK HERE, for USMCA on US Trade/Commerce site.
CLICK HERE, for ILO labour standards.
CLICK HERE, for SDGs that ILO is partnered with.

usmca.chapter.02.national.treatment
usmca.chapter.14.investments
usmca.chapter.16.temporary.entry
usmca.chapter.17.financial.services
usmca.chapter.20.intellectual.property
usmca.chapter.22.state.owned.enterprises
usmca.chapter.23.labour
usmca.chapter.24.environmental.regulations
usmca.chapter.26.competitiveness.committee
usmca.chapter.27.corruption

cpc.policy.declaration

Posted on

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”

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. Important Links

(1) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/
(2) http://archive.is/szSHr
(3) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/partners-funders
(4) http://archive.is/Ah9Pw
(5) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/vcp-mission
(6) http://archive.is/saio2
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=5088&regId=892445&blnk=1
(8) http://archive.is/xxQJe
(9) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=3653&regId=895048&blnk=1
(10) http://archive.is/AYdhO
(11) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=12241&regId=880634&blnk=1
(12) http://archive.is/GH1Cy
(13) https://twitter.com/vaccine_trust

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.

Posted on

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)

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.

1. 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.

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.

2. 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.

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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

(1) “https://www.kff.org/news-summary/canada-commits-cad-600m-to-gavi-cad-190m-to-gpei-over-4-years/
(2) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vaccination-canada-gavi-covid-pandemic-1.5566532
(3) http://archive.is/RxcxT
(4) https://iffim.org/about-iffim
(5) http://archive.is/BCjMe
(6) https://iffim.org/investor-centre/vaccine-bonds
(7) http://archive.is/lPUOc
(8) http://polioeradication.org/
(9) http://archive.is/NTy9J (2013 archive)
(10) http://archive.is/iEvNd (2020 archive)
(11) https://www.worldbank.org
(12) http://archive.is/iHVTJ (2019 archive)
(13) http://archive.is/IPLo5 (Current)
(14) https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/speech/2018/05/15/leveraging-innovative-finance-for-realizing-the-sustainable-development-goals
(15) http://archive.is/Cpx4c
(16) https://canucklaw.ca/ccs-7-climate-bonds-a-100t-industry-intl-econ-forum-of-the-americas/
(17) https://canucklaw.ca/ccs-16-dr-shiva-ayyadurai-on-how-the-carbon-tax-works/

Posted on

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

1. Important Links

(1) http://catherinemckenna.liberal.ca/biography/
(2) http://catherinemckenna.ca/site/2013/09/exciting-times-canadian-lawyers-abroad/
(3) http://archive.is/DYoQg
(4) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/
(5) http://archive.is/fqUPW
(6) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/author/canadianlawyersabroad/
(7) http://archive.is/UOSKe
(8) https://leveljustice.org/news
(9) http://archive.is/zWgkW
(10) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/2015/11/04/canadian-lawyers-abroad-goes-next-level-with-new-name-and-new-look/
(11) http://archive.is/OlXub

Some Posts Written By McKenna
(1) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/so-whats-up-with-canadian-lawyers-abroad/
(2) http://archive.is/UdqBw
(3) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/is-law-school-a-losing-game-in-canada-who-knows/
(4) http://archive.is/GbQ7q
(5) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/revisiting-yet-again-the-question-of-what-to-do-with-articling/
(6) http://archive.is/A61RA
(7) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/so-you-want-to-be-an-international-lawyer-part-1/
(8) http://archive.is/zzC2I
(9) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/so-you-want-to-be-an-international-lawyer-part-2/
(10) http://archive.is/FwR2w
(11) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/were-failing-our-children/
(12) http://archive.is/6D4ky
(13) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/articling-and-the-2011-lsuc-bencher-election/
(14) http://archive.is/VBZ4U
(15) https://canadianlawyersabroad.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/canadian-lawyers-abroads-rights-of-spring-the-lowdown/
(16) 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.

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress