Canadian Infrastructure Bank (and CIB Act)


Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


IMPORTANT LINKS


CLICK HERE, for CIB main page.
CLICK HERE, for the Federal Gov’t website link.
CLICK HERE, for frequently asked questions.
CLICK HERE, for the statement of principles.
CLICK HERE, for Investing in Canada.
CLICK HEREfor the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act.
CLICK HERE, for the Financial Administration Act.

What is “Investing in Canada”?
The Investing in Canada plan is based on three key objectives:

  1. Create long-term economic growth
  2. Support a low carbon, green economy
  3. Build inclusive communities

It is: (I) spend your way to prosperity; (II) climate change scam; and (III) gender and racial agendas.

“There are important links between public infrastructure and climate change, which is why climate change mitigation and adaptation needs to be considered in the investment decision-making process. Infrastructure Canada’s 2018 Bilateral Agreements with provinces and territories include a requirement to apply a Climate Lens assessment for certain projects. It also applies to all Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund projects and any winning proposals dealing with mitigation and adaptation under the Smart Cities Challenge. To assist project proponents, Infrastructure Canada has developed a guidance document found here: Climate Lens General Guidance to support carrying out these assessments. In addition, Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Canadian Centre for Climate Services can provide guidance and resources to be used for making climate-smart decisions when planning for the future.

HOW DID THIS COME TO BE?


[Enacted by section 403 of chapter 20 of the Statutes of Canada, 2017, in force on assent June 22, 2017.]

Some quotes from C.I.B. Act

Canada Infrastructure Bank Act, Section 5(4):

Not a Crown agent
(4) The Bank is not an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada, except when
(a) giving advice about investments in infrastructure projects to ministers of Her Majesty in right of Canada, to departments, boards, commissions and agencies of the Government of Canada and to Crown corporations as defined in subsection 83(1) of the Financial Administration Act;
(b) collecting and disseminating data in accordance with paragraph 7(1)(g);
(c) acting on behalf of the government of Canada in the provision of services or programs, and the delivery of financial assistance, specified in paragraph 18(h); and
(d) carrying out any activity conducive to the carrying out of its purpose that the Governor in Council may, by order, specify.

In case anyone is wonder about the “Financial Administration Act” sections cited, the 2 Acts basically share the language and terminology.

So the bank is not an agent of the Crown, except when

  • Giving investment or banking advice
  • Collecting and sharing information
  • Acting on behalf of the Government
  • Doing anything the Governor in Council specifies

In other words, it is essentially a Crown agent.

Purpose of Bank
6 The purpose of the Bank is to invest, and seek to attract investment from private sector investors and institutional investors, in infrastructure projects in Canada or partly in Canada that will generate revenue and that will be in the public interest by, for example, supporting conditions that foster economic growth or by contributing to the sustainability of infrastructure in Canada.

Interesting purpose. It is a Crown Agent (sort of) that seeks investment from private and institutional investors. Also, the projects only have to be “partly” in Canada.

Whenever this government throws out the “sustainability” buzzword, one has to wonder if it is money being shovelled off to some UN project.

note:
Functions of Bank
7 (1) In order to carry out its purpose, the Bank may do only the following:
(a) structure proposals and negotiate agreements, with the proponents of infrastructure projects and with investors in infrastructure projects, with regard to the Government of Canada’s support of those projects;
(b) invest in infrastructure projects, including by means of innovative financial tools, and seek to attract investment from private sector investors and institutional investors in infrastructure projects;
(c) receive unsolicited proposals for infrastructure projects that come from private sector investors or from institutional investors;
(d) support infrastructure projects by, among other things, fostering evidence-based decision making;
(e) act as a centre of expertise on infrastructure projects in which private sector investors or institutional investors are making a significant investment;
(f) provide advice to all levels of governments with regard to infrastructure projects;
(g) collect and disseminate data, in collaboration with the federal, provincial and municipal governments, in order to monitor and assess the state of infrastructure in Canada and to better inform investment decisions in regards to infrastructure projects; and
(h) perform any other function conducive to the carrying out of its purpose that the Governor in Council may, by order, specify.

The C.I.B. may “only” do those things? Glad to know it has a tight leash. Except of course that the Governor in Council may order it to do just about anything else.

A LITTLE BIT OVERREACHING?

Now, in Section 18 of CIB Act, we get to the extent of the investments allowed under the Act. Hold on, because it is a long list.

18 In particular, the Bank may
(a) make investments in any person, including by way of equity investment in, or by making a loan to or acquiring a derivative from, the person;
(b) extend credit or provide liquidity to, or in relation to, any person;
(c) acquire and deal with as its own any investment made by another person;
(d) acquire and hold security or a security interest, including, in Quebec, a right in a security, of any kind and in any form for the due discharge of obligations under an investment or agreement that it makes;
(e) surrender the security, security interest or right in the security and acquire and hold, in exchange, security or a security interest, including, in Quebec, a right in a security, of any kind and in any form;
(f) realize the security, security interest or right in the security made, acquired or held by it on the investment or agreement;
(g) exchange, sell, assign, convey or otherwise dispose of, or lease, the investment, agreement, security, security interest or right in a security;
(h) enter into arrangements or agreements with, and act as agent or mandatary for, any department or agency of the government of Canada or a province, or any other body or person, for the provision of services or programs to, by, on behalf of or jointly with that body or person, and deliver financial assistance on their behalf under the arrangement or agreement;
(i) accept any interest or rights in real property or personal property or any rights in immovables or movables as security for the due performance of any arrangement or agreement with the Bank;
(j) determine and charge interest and any other form of compensation for services provided by the Bank in the exercise of its powers or the performance of its functions under this Act;
(k) acquire and dispose of any interest or right in any entity by any means; and
(l) acquire, hold, exchange, sell or otherwise dispose of, or lease, any interest or rights in real property or personal property or any right in immovables or movables and retain and use the proceeds of disposition.

So sum up, the bank may:

  • Invest in any person
  • Extend credit to any person
  • Buy others’ investments
  • Enter into agreements with anyone
  • Acquire and release any asset

Not only is this very overreaching, but there seems to be very little oversight or accountability here. Simply reporting to a Minister doesn’t seem adequate to keep unelected bureaucrats in check.

Also, a fair point is an issue of deniability. If a Minister simply were to claim not to know something, or not to probe too deeply, this C.I.B. could still ensure that the bidding gets done.

OH YEAH, IT’S PRIVILEGED INFO?

Privileged information
28 (1) Subject to subsection (2), all information obtained by the Bank, by any of the Bank’s subsidiaries or by any of the subsidiaries of the Bank’s wholly-owned subsidiaries in relation to the proponents of, or private sector investors or institutional investors in, infrastructure projects is privileged and a director, officer, employee, or agent or mandatary of, or adviser or consultant to, the Bank, any of its subsidiaries, or any of the subsidiaries of its wholly-owned subsidiaries must not knowingly communicate, disclose or make available the information, or permit it to be communicated, disclosed or made available.

Marginal note:
Authorized disclosure
(2) Privileged information may be communicated, disclosed or made available in the following circumstances:
(a) it is communicated, disclosed or made available for the purpose of the administration or enforcement of this Act and legal proceedings related to it;
(b) it is communicated, disclosed or made available for the purpose of prosecuting an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament;
(c) it is communicated, disclosed or made available to the Minister of National Revenue solely for the purpose of administering or enforcing the Income Tax Act or the Excise Tax Act; or
(d) it is communicated, disclosed or made available with the written consent of the person to whom the information relates.

Offence
31 A person who contravenes section 28 or 29 is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both.

ILLEGAL TO OBTAIN THIS INFORMATION


Let this sink in:

  1. The Canadian public is paying for these “investments”.
  2. The C.I.B. is not accountable to the public.
  3. We are not given the details of these “investments”.
  4. It is illegal to try to find out the details

So much for using access to information to get details.

BANK PUSHES AGENDA 2030


At first glance, the Canada Infrastructure Bank seems to be just an investment firm, or a broker for the Federal Government. But looking a little deeper, it seems clearly designed to finance UN Agenda 2030 “sustainable development agenda”. Go through what its areas are, and it is all SDA/Agenda 2030.

Globalist proposal wrapped in a nationalist packaging.
Truly evil.

The UN Business Action Hub


(A brief, promotional video)


Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


IMPORTANT LINKS

CLICK HERE, for the main page.
CLICK HERE, for “Global Hand”, a Hong Kong firm which connected UN to various businesses.
CLICK HERE, for a list of partners.
CLICK HERE, for the “Partnership Handbook”.

WHAT DO THEY DO?

The UN-Business Action Hub was developed as a joint effort of the United Nations Global Compact, Global Hand, a Hong-Kong based non-profit specializing in facilitating private sector and NGO connections, and 20 UN entities and aims to foster greater collaboration between the business and UN to advance solutions to global challenges and to support various humanitarian and disaster preparedness and response efforts.

On this platform business can learn more about UN entities, their mandates, specific needs, and offer programmatic support, in-kind and financial donations, while UN entities can learn more about the specific interests of companies, available resources and engagement opportunities desired by business.

Additionally, both UN and Business can post projects and use the platform to search for and interact with potential partners to scale the impact of their projects.
Join the hub and start interacting!

In a nutshell, this is the relationship:
(1) UN gets backers to support its globalist agenda, and
(2) Companies become more known and get free advertising

THE PARTNERSHIP HANDBOOK

Foreword

Executive Summary
1. Purpose of the handbook
2. Things to consider before creating a new partnership

  • Creating an enabling environment
  • Defining desired outcomes

3. Building the appropriate partnership

  • Building Block 1: Choose the partnership’s composition
  • Block 2: Define the roles of each partner
  • Building Block 3: Draft a roadmap for the partnership
  • Building Block 4: Define the partnership’s scope
  • Building Block 5: Design a governance structure for the partnership
  • Building Block 6: Decide how to finance the partnership
  • Building Block 7: Decide how to monitor and evaluate the partnership

4. Identifying established UN-business partnership models

  • Partnership model 1: Global implementation partnerships
  • Partnership model 2: Local implementation partnerships
  • Partnership model 3: Corporate responsibility initiatives
  • Partnership model 4: Advocacy campaigns
  • Partnership model 5: Resource mobilization partnerships
  • Partnership model 6: Innovation partnerships

Glossary of terms

This 64 page handbook reads like a typical partnership agreement or memorandum of understanding would, at least in some sense it does.

Of course, if you are going to partner with someone, you want information about the other party. You also want to discuss things like financing, goals, and division of labour. This is common sense, and anyone with any business sense would know this already.

The weird parts (at least for me), are several:

  1. Among “partners”, UN lists 42 of its own departments
  2. Everything is couched in social justice terms
  3. EXTREMELY wordy, but a lot of common sense
  4. Seems like a way to simply cash in on UN agendas
  5. A lot of “implied” consent of host populations

FINANCING A PARTNERSHIP

UN entities often partially absorb costs of partnerships, for example, if salaries for practitioners, travel expenses or administrative costs are covered by their own funds, in the following described as UN institutional funds. Further required funds come from business partners or involved governmental institutions. Besides that, partnerships can conduct external fundraising activities, for example, by establishing social media platforms for donating cash, such as WFP’s WeFeedback Website, or in rarer cases, international finance facilities, which issue bonds against the security of government guarantees, such as achieved by the GAVI Alliance. Finally, foundations have increasingly become an external source for funds, above all the UN foundation.

If partnerships address local problems or strive for policy impact, related governments can be approached for additional funds. Governments might also provide funds if partnerships’ approaches correspond with their priorities, for example, fighting climate change. Drawing on funds from governmental institutions does, however, also include them as partners, which is in principle desirable, but can run the risk of politicizing partnerships or slowing them down due to government bureaucracies. External fundraising activities can provide access to potentially huge financial resources not successfully leveraged by the UN so far such as donations from private households. They also have a positive side effect by raising awareness for development problems. However, as the amount of funds raised externally cannot always be predicted, such campaigns are better suited for scaling-up existing programs rather than launching new ones.

UN entities and business partners provide the bulk of funds for UN-business partnerships and the ratio of provided UN to business funds has a strong effect on partnership governance. If partnerships draw most financial resources from UN institutional funds, UN entities can maximize negotiating power vis-àvis business partners and most likely control decision-making. However, without a stake in decision-making and invested resources, companies may have less incentive to contribute to partnership activities. Such partnerships also tend to be limited in scope as UN entities have restricted financial resources, often far below those of companies.

FINAL THOUGHTS

An interesting takeaway from this is the plain acknowledgement that whoever contributes more, has more leverage in the bargaining.

Also implied is the idea that local governments can be persuaded to shell out public tax money if they can be persuaded that it aligns with their priorities.

This business action hub seems to be a global “Chamber of Commerce”, where businesses can connect with UN agencies. Social justice meets capitalism. What could go wrong?

CBC Propaganda #16: CPP “Invests” $2B In Mumbai, India


Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


IMPORTANT LINKS

CLICK HERE, for an honourable mention in the field of pensions, Bill Tufts. Author of the book: Fair Pensions For All.

CLICK HERE, for CBC Propaganda Master List.
CLICK HERE, for the CBC article.
CLICK HERE, for the Canada Pension Plan Act.
CLICK HERE, for the Income Tax Act.
CLICK HERE, for Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board
CLICK HERE, for sustainable investing link.
CLICK HERE, for CPPIB proxy voting.
CLICK HERE, for policies/guidelines (written in Chinese).
CLICK HERE, for Policy on Responsible Investing (Signed in 2010)
CLICK HERE, for CPPIB Areas of Investment.
CLICK HERE, for climate change info.
CLICK HERE, for human rights info.

WHY INVEST ABROAD?

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board opened office in Mumbai this month

Canada’s pension fund is ready to invest $2 billion in affordable housing in Mumbai, a top Indian official said, in a move that would boost Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s goal of providing cheap housing to millions of people.

“A week back, the Canadian ambassador … informed me that the Canadian pension fund is ready to invest $2 billion in Mumbai for affordable housing,” Devendra Fadnavis, chief minister of Maharashtra state where Mumbai is located, told reporters.

The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board opened an office in Mumbai this month and has already committed to invest more than $2 billion in India.

What the hell? The Canadian Pension Plan is something CANADIAN workers are forced to contribute to. Deductions are mandatory, and come right off your pay cheque. So “why” is this being invested in India, and to build cheap housing there?

The Canadian Government is screwing with Canadians’ pensions, without their consent to do so.

From the Income Tax Act:

2 (1) An income tax shall be paid, as required by this Act, on the taxable income for each taxation year of every person resident in Canada at any time in the year.

Marginal note:
Taxable income
(2) The taxable income of a taxpayer for a taxation year is the taxpayer’s income for the year plus the additions and minus the deductions permitted by Division C.

Marginal note:
Tax payable by non-resident persons
(3) Where a person who is not taxable under subsection 2(1) for a taxation year
(a) was employed in Canada,
(b) carried on a business in Canada, or
(c) disposed of a taxable Canadian property,
at any time in the year or a previous year, an income tax shall be paid, as required by this Act, on the person’s taxable income earned in Canada for the year determined in accordance with Division D.

From the Canada Pension Plan Act:

Amount to be deducted and remitted by employer
21 (1) Every employer paying remuneration to an employee employed by the employer at any time in pensionable employment shall deduct from that remuneration as or on account of the employee’s contributions for the year in which the remuneration in respect of the pensionable employment is paid to the employee any amount that is determined in accordance with prescribed rules and shall remit that amount, together with any amount that is prescribed with respect to the contributions required to be made by the employer under this Act, to the Receiver General at any time that is prescribed and, if at that prescribed time the employer is a prescribed person, the remittance shall be made to the account of the Receiver General at a financial institution (within the meaning that would be assigned by the definition financial institution in subsection 190(1) of the Income Tax Act if that definition were read without reference to its paragraphs (d) and (e)).

Quite clear: employers are obligated to deduct CPP from your pay.

FOREIGNERS CAN COLLECT CPP?

[CPP Act] 107 (1) Where, under any law of a country other than Canada, provision is made for the payment of old age or other benefits including survivors’ or disability benefits, the Minister may, on behalf of the Government of Canada, on such terms and conditions as may be approved by the Governor in Council, enter into an agreement with the government of that country for the making of reciprocal arrangements relating to the administration or operation of that law and of this Act, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, arrangements relating to

(a) the exchange of such information obtained under that law or this Act as may be necessary to give effect to any such arrangements,

(b) the administration of benefits payable under this Act to persons resident in that country, the extension of benefits to and in respect of persons under that law or this Act and the increase or decrease in the amount of the benefits payable under that law or this Act to and in respect of persons employed in or resident in that country, and

(c) the administration of benefits payable under that law to persons resident in Canada, the extension of benefits to and in respect of persons under that law or this Act and the increase or decrease in the amount of the benefits payable under that law or this Act to and in respect of persons employed in or resident in Canada, and, subject to subsection (4), any such agreement may extend to and include similar arrangements with respect to any provincial pension plan.

Canada can make reciprocity agreements with other countries. One must be extremely careful here to safeguard against abuse.

WHO IS CPP INVESTMENT BOARD?

It has locations in:

  • Toronto, Canada
  • New York, USA
  • Sao Paolo, Brazil
  • London, England
  • Luxembourg
  • Sydney, Australia
  • Hong Kong, China
  • now, also Mumbai, India

We are a professional investment management organization that invests the funds of the Canada Pension Plan on behalf of its 20 million Canadian contributors and beneficiaries.

The CPP Investment Board was established by an Act of Parliament in December 1997.
We are accountable to Parliament and to federal and provincial ministers who serve as the CPP stewards. However, we are governed and managed independently from the CPP itself, and operate at arm’s length from governments.
We take our responsibility to Canadians very seriously and operate with a clear mandate – to maximize returns without undue risk of loss.

Our detailed mandate and objectives

Our mandate is set out in legislation. It states that:
We invest in the best interests of CPP contributors and beneficiaries.
We have a singular objective: to maximize long-term investment returns without undue risk, taking into account the factors that may affect the funding of the Canada Pension Plan and its ability to meet its financial obligations.

We provide cash management services to the Canada Pension Plan so that they can pay benefits.

Our unique structure
The CPPIB mandate is based on a governance structure that distinguishes us from a sovereign wealth fund. We have an investment-only mandate, unencumbered by political agendas and insulated from political interference in investment decision-making. Our management reports to an independent Board of Directors.

In carrying out our mandate, we aim to continually develop, execute and enhance the investment strategy that balances prospective risk and reward in order to ensure the long-term sustainability of the CPP Fund.

CPPIB “claims” to be independent from government interference, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. In fact, going through their website, CPPIB parrots many of the talking points of the UN globalists.

    UN Topics CPPIB Indulges In:

  1. ESG (Environment, Social & Governance)
  2. PRI (Principles for Responsible Investing)
  3. Sustainable Investing
  4. Climate Change
  5. Water
  6. Human Rights
  7. Surprisingly, no gender references

SO CALLED “SUSTAINABLE INVESTING”

SUSTAINABLE INVESTING
We believe that organizations that manage Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) factors effectively are more likely to create sustainable value over the long-term than those that do not. As we work to fulfill our mandate, we consider and integrate ESG risks and opportunities into our investment decisions.

At CPPIB we consider responsible investing simply as intelligent long-term investing. Over the exceptionally long investment-horizon over which we invest, ESG factors have the potential to be significant drivers – or barriers – to profitability and shareholder value. For these reasons we refer to what many call ‘Responsible Investing’ activities simply as Sustainable Investing. Given our legislated investment-only mandate, we consider and integrate both ESG risks and opportunities into our investment analysis, rather than eliminating investments based on ESG factors alone. As an owner, we monitor ESG factors and actively engage with companies to promote improved management of ESG, ultimately leading to enhanced long-term outcomes in the companies and assets in which 20 million CPP contributors and beneficiaries have a stake.

CPPIB has established governing policies, approved by our Board of Directors, to guide our ESG activities. Our Policy on Responsible Investing establishes how CPPIB approaches ESG factors within the context of our sole mandate to maximize long-term investment returns without undue risk of loss. Our Proxy Voting Principles and Guidelines provide guidance on how CPPIB is likely to vote on matters put to shareholders and communicate CPPIB’s views on governance matters.

This is rather chilling. The whole agency reads like it is a branch of the UN. Canadians’ pensions and pension contributions are in the hands of people who put UN virtue signalling at the forefront.

However, the CBC article (see the first photo), details NONE of this. Instead, it is touted as some great success.

CBC Propaganda #15: Giving Free Drugs To Prison Inmates


Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


IMPORTANT LINKS

CLICK HERE, for the CBC article.
CLICK HERE, for CBC Propaganda Master List.
CLICK HERE, for a related CBC “safe injection” article review.
CLICK HERE, for the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act of Canada.
CLICK HERE, for an article from the Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies.
CLICK HERE, for the 1991 Regulated Health Professionals Act.
CLICK HERE, for an interesting malpractice case.

INJECTING DRUGS TO “REDUCE HARM”

Correctional service ‘exploring’ new harm-reduction measure, union says Drumheller Institution a possible site.

Canada’s prisoner service is considering opening overdose prevention sites as it expands a needle-exchange program that is now offered at a fifth institution for offenders who inject smuggled drugs.

In a statement, the Correctional Service of Canada says it “is in the early stages of exploring overdose prevention sites as another harm-reduction measure option for inmates.”

Let’s clear something up. Needle exchange is “already” operational, and at least 5 prisons have them. Apparently being complicit in drug use in prison is harm reduction.

And these “overdose prevention sites” are essentially free narcotics except with doctor supervision.

Proponents say Drumheller Institution in Alberta is being looked at as a potential site, which would allow offenders to use illicit drugs under medical supervision. The correctional service did not respond to inquiries to confirm that.

Jason Godin, president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, said he has long lobbied for overdose prevention sites and that one has been proposed for Drumheller.

“At the very least, let’s start opening up (the sites) so we can get away from the needle-in-the-cell thing,” he said, adding supervised drug use would involve health-care professionals at a particular area in a prison instead of guards having to deal with inmates injecting smuggled drugs in their cells.

He said the needle-exchange program, which began last year, should be scrapped because nurses and doctors aren’t available at most institutions after 4 p.m. in case inmates overdose so sites dedicated to prevention make more sense, as long as they are adequately staffed.

The needle exchange program isn’t staffed properly, so let’s scrap it and start outright providing drugs directly to prisoners. This is harm reduction? And should prison staff be in the business of providing illicit drugs to inmates?

Wouldn’t this actually have the opposite effect of rehabilitation? Won’t people find it more advantageous to get arrested more in order to obtain free drugs?

I can sympathise with the guards wanting safer work atmosphere, but this might be a case of the cure being worse than the disease. And are taxpayers expected to foot the bill?

The correctional service said its needle-exchange program is aimed at preventing the spread of blood-borne diseases, such as HIV and hepatitis C, as well as skin infections from shared equipment as part of other harm-reduction measures including access to peer-support workers and the opioid substitution medications methadone and Suboxone.

The Nova Institution for Women in Truro, N.S., implemented a prisoner needle-exchange program earlier this month after it was introduced last June at Grand Valley Institution for Women in Kitchener, Ont., and the Atlantic Institution in Renous, N.B.

It was expanded to the Fraser Valley Institution for Women in Abbotsford, B.C., and the Edmonton Institution for Women this year.

Godin said at least two security issues have been reported since the needle-exchange program was rolled out, one involving a missing needle and another when an inmate left his injection kit out with the cell door open, potentially allowing unauthorized access to the equipment that could have posed a danger to guards or others.

Oh, the cognitive dissonance here. Prison staff say that this is aimed at preventing the spread of diseases, yet admits that human error can very easily cause more people to be put in danger.

And again, why are the prisons aiding and abetting in drug use? Isn’t that … “ILLEGAL”? And as for these supervised injection sites, does illicit drug use become legal as long as a doctor writes a prescription?

“Inmates who participate in the (program) are required to keep their needle kit safely stored in their cells,” it said, adding a lost kit or one with unaccounted-for items as well as unauthorized use of equipment could result in an inmate being disciplined.

The service said 13 inmates have been approved for the needle-exchange program at the five institutions but only five people are participating in the program because the remainder were either released or transferred to prisons that have not yet begun offering the service.

Peter Brown, a former offender who served three federal sentences at various institutions in Eastern Canada between 1992 and 1999 for crimes including robbery, said a needle-exchange program as well as overdose prevention sites are essential behind bars because drug use is common.

This is absurd. If inmates and cells are routinely searched for safety and contraband measures, “why” would requiring selected inmates to have it in their cells be a good idea? They are criminals. Moreover, couldn’t anyone who knows about their status rob them at almost any time.

Drug use is common in prison? That is true, but “why” should the public be allowing and financing it?

Brown said he used bleach provided by the correctional service to repeatedly rinse his needles and syringes to try and avoid transmission of HIV and hepatitis C. The service said bleach is still distributed to inmates for that reason.

Sandra Ka Hon Chu, director of research and advocacy for the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, said bleach is not as effective a method of avoiding transmission of blood-borne diseases as clean needles, which the group began lobbying for nearly two decades ago in keeping with similar programs in many European countries.

The staff is aware of the problem, and provides bleach, which can be extremely dangerous in the hands of drug addicted inmates. No concern for prison staff, just for the inmates shooting up.

Yes, drug use is often a problem among inmates. However, getting them treatment, and re-establishing something of a normal life would be much more beneficial to everyone in the long term.

As for the needle exchange, and the proposed “safe-injection” sites, shouldn’t the public have some say in the matter?

Canada’s Drugs & Substances Act

Possession of substance
4 (1) Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall possess a substance included in Schedule I, II or III.
Marginal note:
Obtaining substance
(2) No person shall seek or obtain
(a) a substance included in Schedule I, II, III or IV, or
(b) an authorization to obtain a substance included in Schedule I, II, III or IV
from a practitioner, unless the person discloses to the practitioner particulars relating to the acquisition by the person of every substance in those Schedules, and of every authorization to obtain such substances,
from any other practitioner within the preceding thirty days.

Definition of medical emergency
4.1 (1) For the purposes of this section, medical emergency means a physiological event induced by the introduction of a psychoactive substance into the body of a person that results in a life-threatening situation and in respect of which there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person requires emergency medical or law enforcement assistance.

Marginal note:
Exemption — medical emergency
(2) No person who seeks emergency medical or law enforcement assistance because that person, or another person, is suffering from a medical emergency is to be charged or convicted of an offence under subsection 4(1) if the evidence in support of that offence was obtained or discovered as a result of that person having sought assist­ance or having remained at the scene.

Marginal note:
Exemption — persons at the scene
(3) The exemption under subsection (2) also applies to any person, including the person suffering from the medical emergency, who is at the scene on the arrival of the emergency medical or law enforcement assistance.

Marginal note:
Exemption — evidence
(4) No person who seeks emergency medical or law enforcement assistance because that person, or another person, is suffering from a medical emergency, or who is at the scene on the arrival of the assistance, is to be charged with an offence concerning a violation of any condition of a pre-trial release or probation order relating to an offence under subsection 4(1) if the evidence in support of that offence was obtained or discovered as a result of that person having sought assistance or having remained at the scene.

Marginal note:
Deeming
(5) Any condition of a person’s pre-trial release, probation order, conditional sentence or parole relating to an offence under subsection 4(1) that may be violated as a result of the person seeking emergency medical or law enforcement assistance for their, or another person’s, medical emergency, or as a result of having been at the scene on the arrival of the assistance, is deemed not to be violated.
2017, c. 4, s. 2; 2018, c. 16, s. 195.1.
Previous Version

Possession, sale, etc., for use in production of or trafficking in substance
7.1 (1) No person shall possess, produce, sell, import or transport anything intending that it will be used
(a) to produce a controlled substance, unless the production of the controlled substance is lawfully authorized; or
(b) to traffic in a controlled substance.

Drug treatment court program
10(4) A court sentencing a person who is convicted of an offence under this Part may delay sentencing to enable the offender
(a) to participate in a drug treatment court program
approved by the Attorney General; or
(b) to attend a treatment program under subsection 720(2) of the Criminal Code.

    So what can we take away here?

  1. Drug use not illegal if you obtain authorization
  2. You won’t be charged with drug use for calling for medical aid
  3. You won’t be charged if you call in for “another’s” drug use
  4. You won’t be breaching:
    • Pre-trial conditions
    • Probation
    • Parole
    • A conditional sentence
    • From calling in for emergency medical attention
  5. Trafficking okay if legally authorised
  6. Provisions exist to allow criminals to get treatment

Although the review might seem like a cold indifference to people with drug problems this is not the case. I want them to be treated and move on with their lives.

However, supplying drugs and drug paraphernalia is (in my view) a very bad way to handle the problem.

CBC Propaganda #14: Let’s Replace The Canadian Population


Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


IMPORTANT LINKS

CLICK HERE, for CBC Propaganda Masterlist.

(CBC wants less Canadian children)
CLICK HERE, for “we’re only having 1 kids, and that’s okay”.
CLICK HERE, for beware of middle child syndrome.
CLICK HERE, for criticizing those with too many kids.
CLICK HERE, for why I only have 1 child.
CLICK HERE, for childless women changing culture.
CLICK HERE, for not teaching a daughter to be polite.
CLICK HERE, have less children to lower emissions.

(and in case you think CBC just wants less children in general)
CLICK HERE, for multiculturalism is critical to Canada.
CLICK HERE, for border walls are useless.
CLICK HERE, for nothing will stop migration.
CLICK HERE, for Europe should have open borders.
CLICK HERE, for Hungary’s Orban is a dictator for rejecting migration.
CLICK HERE, for bigot Orban wanting a Christian nation.
CLICK HERE, for Global Migration Compact is harmless.
CLICK HERE, for Canada having 100M people by year 2100.

(and to everyone’s favourite benevolent founder>
CLICK HERE, for Soros is misunderstood.
CLICK HERE, for Soros bullied out of Hungary.
CLICK HERE, for Canada joining UN, Soros, to sponsor refugees.

WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT

There are many, many more links on both subjects, but this should provide sufficient evidence for now. CBC, Canada’s government run “news” agency, consistently reports on both of these topics.

    CBC pushes both:

  1. Reducing Canadian birth rate; and
  2. Mass migration of foreigners

What are the consequences of these 2 initiatives? Well, when Canadians have less children, their birthrate falls, and the population declines. When you have mass migration, the declining population of Canadians is replaced by migrants and their descendants.

Think this is hyperbole? Consider these points:

  • Shame families with many children
  • Having 1 kid is okay
  • Childless is the new culture
  • Have fewer kids to save the planet

….. and on the other side:

  • Borders are immoral and pointless
  • Multiculturalism is part of Canada
  • Only bigots reject migration
  • Canada’s population needs to be much bigger
  • CONSIDER BOTH NARRATIVES

    First, starting with the fearmongering piece that climate change is destructive and can only be mitigated by altering human behaviour:

    What’s the single best decision you can make if you want to decrease the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) being released into the atmosphere?

    That’s the question UBC researcher Seth Wynes and his co-author Kimberly Nicholas set out to answer in a new paper published this week.

    Their answer? Have fewer children.

    The other three choices they identified were eating a plant-based diet, avoiding air travel and giving up personal vehicles. But by their reasoning, having one fewer child overwhelmingly outweighs all other choices, due to all of the GHGs that child would be responsible for emitting over the course of their life.

    “To put it simply, adding another person to the planet who uses more resources and produces more carbon dioxide is always going to make a large contribution to climate change,” Wynes said.

    And on the flip side of the “have fewer children” message, do you think that these people will recommend much, MUCH reduced immigration so as to reduce emissions? Nope, not a chance. From the “Century Initiative” promotion:

    If Canada sticks with current practices, our population will grow to between 51 to 53 million by the end of the century.

    A non-profit group called The Century Initiative advocates doubling that, to 100 million. That’s about triple our current population.

    “We recognize that it may be counterintuitive,” Shari Austin, CEO of the Century Initiative, told The Sunday Edition’s guest host Peter Armstrong.
    It’s the only way, she argued, that Canada can face the economic challenges ahead and strengthen its international influence.

    Currently, Canada accepts 310,000 immigrants per year. The Century Initiative suggests that number should be closer to 450,000.

    “It’s a big, audacious goal,” she conceded. But it has been done before. Since 1945 to the present day, Canada’s population has tripled.

    “A mix of people wanting to contribute to the economy and wanting to have children,” Austin explained.

    That doesn’t mean that refugees aren’t welcome.

    “We also have ethical obligations to make sure we do our fair share to help bring people to a better life,” she clarified.

    She also sees this as a way to create “a more diverse, more interesting, dynamic population.”

    “It’s an exciting opportunity to be proactive about what we want to look like in fifty years, in a hundred years. It’s also an opportunity to leave a better world for our kids and our grandkids.”

    It is interesting the contrast in the arguments.
    CBC uses ENVIRONMENTAL and HEALTH reasons to push for less Canadians to have less children. However,
    CBC uses ECONOMIC and MULTICULTURAL claims to push for more immigration (or migration)

    Nice bait-and-switch.

    To be fair, CBC does have many authors and contributors. However, the overall pattern is impossible to ignore. CBC regularly releases content pushing for Canadians to have less children. At the same time it sings the praises of open borders, mass migration and multiculturalism.

    GEORGE SOROS PUFF PIECES

    The financier is also famously active as a philanthropist. Through his Open Society Foundations, he has given billions to NGOs in more than 100 countries to “build vibrant and tolerant democracies,” according to its website.

    Why is Soros controversial?

    Emily Tamkin, a staff writer for Foreign Policy magazine, compares Soros’s public image to a mirror in the Harry Potter novels. When a character looked in that fictional mirror, they would see what they desired most.

    “He’s like that, but with the thing that you revile most,” she told The Current’s Anna Maria Tremonti.

    CBC also has done many flattering puff pieces on Soros. They claim he is misunderstood, and that it is bigots projecting their own prejudices onto him. No real objectivity here.

    IS THIS ILLEGAL?

    Under the letter of the law, probably not. But consider the following:

    Marginal note:
    Public incitement of hatred
    319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
    (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
    Marginal note:

    Wilful promotion of hatred
    (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
    (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

    Does this promote hate and harm against Canadians? I would think so, but sadly no judge ever would. The CBC, which uses our tax dollars to advocate for our own replacement is just so wrong.

    STATS-CAN AWARE OF DECLINE

    Here is a recent report:

    Fertility rates among Canadian women continue to decrease

    The total fertility rate (TFR) for 2015 was 1,563 births per 1,000 women. In 2016, the TFR was 1,543 births per 1,000 women. The TFR in Canada has shown a general decline since 2008, when it was 1,681 births per 1,000 women. The TFR is an estimate of the average number of live births that 1,000 women would have in their lifetime, based on the age-specific fertility rates of a given year.
    Taking mortality between birth and 15 years of age into consideration, developed countries such as Canada need an average of around 2,060 children per 1,000 females to renew their population based on natural increase and without taking immigration into account. The last year in which Canada attained fertility levels sufficient to replace its current population was 1971.

    While the TFR is a good indicator of fertility in Canada as a whole, this national average can hide major provincial and territorial differences. From 2000 to 2016, Nunavut was the only province or territory to consistently have fertility levels above the replacement rate, with a TFR of 2,986 live births per 1,000 women in 2016. With the exception of the Prairie provinces and the Northwest Territories, every other province and territory had TFRs during this period that rarely exceeded 1,700 births per 1,000 women.

    In 2016, for the 16th consecutive year, Saskatchewan had the highest TFR among the provinces, at 1,934 births per 1,000 women. It was followed by Manitoba (1,847), the Northwest Territories (1,793) and Alberta (1,694). British Columbia was the province with the lowest fertility rate at 1,404 births per 1,000 women, followed by Nova Scotia (1,422) and Newfoundland and Labrador (1,425).

    Sustainable Development Goals
    On January 1, 2016, the world officially began implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development — the United Nations’ transformative plan of action that addresses urgent global challenges over the next 15 years. The plan is based on 17 specific sustainable development goals.

    The Births release is an example of how Statistics Canada supports the reporting on the Global Goals for Sustainable Development. This release will be used in helping to measure the following goal:

    Forgot to mention, population control is part of Agenda 2030.

    Few Canadian Kids + Mass Migration = Demographic Replacement

    Final thought: Consider this policy idea, previously published.

    UN Conferences On Replacement Migration (Since 1974)


    Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

    PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
    PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
    Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


    IMPORTANT LINKS

    CLICK HERE, for Gov’t views & policies.
    CLICK HERE, for participant contact info.
    CLICK HERE, for Russian replacement migration.
    CLICK HERE, for European replacement migration.
    CLICK HERE, for Korean population decline.
    CLICK HERE, for various conferences.
    CLICK HERE, for the “About” page.
    CLICK HERE, for “resolutions” from the UN Population Division.

    LIST OF DOCUMENTS

      CLICK HERE, for the 2000 UN Expert Group Meeting On Policy Responses

    1. REPLACEMENT MIGRATION: IS IT A SOLUTION TO DECLINING AND A GEING POPULATIONS? (United Nations Population Division)
    2. UN/POP/PRA/2000/2 POPULATION AGEING AND POPULATION DECLINE: GOVERNMENT VIEWS AND POLICIES (Anatoly Zoubanov – United Nations Population Division)
    3. UN/POP/PRA/2000/3 THE INVERSION OF THE AGE PYRAMID AND THE FUTURE POULATION D ECLINE IN FRANCE: IMPLICATIONS AND POLICY RESPONSES (Jean-Claude Chesnais)
    4. UN/POP/PRA/2000/4 POLICY RESPONSES TO POPULATION AGEING AND POPULATION DECLINE IN FRANCE (Georges Tapinos)
    5. UN/POP/PRA/2000/5 DEMOGRAPHIC AGEING AND POPULATION DECLINE IN 21ST CENTURY G ERMANY – CONSEQUENCES FOR THE SYSTEMS OF SOCIAL I NSURANCE (Herwig Birg)
    6. UN/POP/PRA/2000/6 POLICY RESPONSES TO POPULATION AGEING AND POPULATION DECLINE IN GERMANY (Charlotte Hoehn)
    7. UN/POP/PRA/2000/7 POSSIBLE POLICY RESPONSES TO POPULATION AGEING AND P OPULATION DECLINE: THE CASE OF ITALY (Antonio Golini)
    8. UN/POP/PRA/2000/8 FEWER AND OLDER ITALIANS, MORE PROBLEMS? LOOKING FOR S OLUTIONS TO THE DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTION (Maria Rita Testa)
    9. UN/POP/PRA/2000/9 THE COMING OF A HYPER-AGED AND DEPOPULATING SOCIETY AND P OPULATION POLICIES – THE CASE OF JAPAN (Makoto Atoh)

    HOW FAR BACK DOES THIS GO?

    United Nations Conferences on Population

    Since the United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945 three world conferences on population have been held. The first conference, Bucharest World Population Conference, dates back to 1974. Ten years later Mexico City hosted the second International Conference on Population. The last world conference, the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development, was held 1994. Two other conferences on population have been convened. The first one in 1954 in Rome. The second one in Belgrade in 1965. In 1999 a Special Session of the General Assembly on Population was held in New York.

      Let’s Think About This:

    • 1st Conference in 1974
    • 2nd Conference in 1984
    • 3rd Conference in 1994

    Overview

    The Population Division was established in the earlier years of the United Nations to serve as the Secretariat of the then Population Commission, created in 1946. Over the years, the Division has played an active role in the intergovernmental dialogue on population and development, producing constantly updated demographic estimates and projections for all countries, including data essential for the monitoring of the progress in achieving the Millennium Development Goals, developing and disseminating new methodologies, leading the substantive preparations for the United Nations major conferences on population and development as well as the annual sessions of the Commission on Population and Development.

    The United Nations Population Division assists the Department of Economic and Social Affairs in discharging its functions as member of the Global Migration Group. It provides programmatic support to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for International Migration and Development. It co-chairs the Population cluster of the Executive Committee on Economic and Social Affairs (EC-ESA), together with the Population Division of ECLAC.

    Why would the UN want to know all this information? Why would it want to know the population and demographic trends of memberstates? Almost like it wants to control the world.

    Want A Job?

    CLICK HERE, and see if you’re qualified.
    Responsibilities
    Within delegated authority, the duties of the Associate Population Affairs Officer are the following:

    •Assists in developing and maintaining databases on demographic indicators, population and development indicators, population policy information and indicators or information on other population-related issues.
    •Applies the techniques of demographic analysis to estimate demographic indicators and to evaluate population data for completeness and accuracy so as to adjust the data as needed. It also includes the application of techniques or methods of projection of family planning indicators, and the provision of input to the periodic revisions of assumptions underlying those projections.
    •Prepares first drafts and inputs to technical studies or research reports.
    •Applies methodologies for demographic analysis.
    •Attends international, regional and national meetings on population issues to present results of demographic analysis and research; keeps abreast of developments in the field, gathers information, network and holds discussions on population issues with colleagues in other institutions.
    •Provides, as necessary, substantive support to technical cooperation projects in the area of population and development.
    •Performs other related duties as required, including a variety of administrative tasks necessary for the final delivery of the work unit’s products.

    Does plotting and calculating the future demographic trends turn you on? Get a kick out of becoming a minority in your own homeland? You can document the destruction of your nation and get paid quite well.

    WHY ISN’T THE PUBLIC AWARE?


    The United Nations has been studying population and demographic trends since at least 1974 (though probably much longer). They have been gathering all this information, and it is more than a passing interest.

    Keep in mind, the UN also promotes agreements such as the Global Migration Compact. There is no way the UN “wouldn’t” know about the long term trends and consequences from facilitating mass migration. There is no way the UN “wouldn’t” know about the breakdown and weakening of social cohesion by engaging in this.

    There is only one explanation
    UN WANTS DEMOGRAPHIC REPLACEMENT

    UN High Level Panel On Global Sustainability – Jordan Peterson Co-Authors

    (Peterson deplatforms Faith Goldy at free speech event)

    (Peterson’s free speech cognitive dissonance)

    (Peterson threatens to sue a critic)

    (Peterson files frivolous lawsuit against Laurier University)


    Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

    PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
    PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
    Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


    CLICK HERE, for a link to the document.
    CLICK HERE, for Jordan Peterson’s own website.
    CLICK HERE, for “Karma”, Peterson’s book getting banned in New Zealand.

    Note: At the risk of this looking like a hit-piece, the right in Canada should be very wary about embracing this “free speech” warrior as one of their own.

    And what did this work ultimately contribute to?

    AGENDA 2030

    Peterson’s Biography

    Raised and toughened in the frigid wastelands of Northern Alberta, Dr. Peterson has flown a hammer-head roll in a carbon-fiber stuntplane, piloted a mahogany racing sailboat around Alcatraz Island, explored an Arizona meteorite crater with a group of astronauts, built a Native American Long-House on the upper floor of his Toronto home, and been inducted into a Pacific Kwakwaka’wakw family (see charlesjoseph.ca). He’s been a dishwasher, gas jockey, bartender, short-order cook, beekeeper, oil derrick bit re-tipper, plywood mill laborer and railway line worker. He’s taught mythology to physicians, lawyers, and businessmen; worked with Jim Balsillie, former CEO of Blackberry’s Research in Motion, on Resilient People, Resilient Planet, the report of the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Global Sustainability; helped his clinical clients manage the triumphs and catastrophes of life; served as an advisor to senior partners of major Canadian law firms; penned the forward for the 50th anniversary edition of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago; lectured to more than 250,000 people across North America, Europe and Australia in one of the most-well attended book tours ever mounted; and, for The Founder Institute, identified thousands of promising entrepreneurs, in 60 different countries.

    So What’s In This Report?

    Disclaimer: The members of the panel endorse the report and generally agree with its findings. The members think that the message of this report is very important. The recommendations and the vision represent the consensus the panel members reached, but not every view expressed in this report reflects the views of all individual panel members. panel members naturally have different perspectives on some issues. if each panel member had individually attempted to write this report, she or he might have used different terms to express similar points. The panel members look forward to the report stimulating wide public dialogue and strengthening the common endeavour to promote global sustainable development.

    Let’s set this straight. The members, by and large, support the content of the report. Althought there may be small discrepancies, on the whole they agree with the content.

    The panel also wishes to thank the civil society organizations that shared their valuable ideas and views during a series of consultations coordinated by the United Nations Non-Governmental liaison service. The full list of contributors from civil society is available from www.un-ngls.org/gsp. furthermore, the panel interacted at various meetings with senior representatives of the following organizations: civicUs: World alliance for citizen participation, eTc Group, the Global campaign for climate action, the huairou commission, oxfam international, stakeholder forum, sustainUs and the World resources institute.

    Interesting list of “organizations” that shared their views.

    Priority Areas For action Include:


    • delivering on the fundamentals of development: international commitments to eradicate poverty, promote human rights and human security and advance gender equality
    advancing education for sustainable development, including secondary and vocational education, and building of skills to help ensure that all of society can contribute to solutions that address today’s challenges and capitalize on opportunities
    • creating employment opportunities, especially for women and youth, to drive green and sustainable growth
    • enabling consumers to make sustainable choices and advance responsible behaviour individually and collectively
    • Managing resources and enabling a twenty-first-century green revolution: agriculture, oceans and coastal systems, energy and technology, international cooperation
    • building resilience through sound safety nets, disaster risk reduction and adaptation planning

    1/ As with all UN causes, a virtue signal towards human rights and gender equality.

    2/ Advancing education? Propaganda in the classrooms?

    3/ Make work projects with age and gender quotas. Okay.

    4/ Advance responsible behaviour? Will there be some sort of “social credit system”?

    5/ Environmental systems to be managed globally

    6/ Disaster reduction, as in climate change I assume

    Policy Action Needed On

    incorporating social and environmental costs in regulating and pricing of goods and services, as well as addressing market failures
    • creating an incentive road map that increasingly values long-term sustainable development in investment and financial transactions
    • increasing finance for sustainable development, including public and private funding and partnerships to mobilize large volumes of new financing
    • expanding how we measure progress in sustainable development by creating a sustainable development index or set of indicators

    This is going to be a globalist money pit, with cash flooding from all over the world to achieve some vague goals. And regulating the costs of goods and services? How very Communistic of you.

    (Page 50, Box 13): The Growing Use of Emissions Trading
    “cap and trade” emissions trading systems allow environmental damage to be reflected in market prices. by capping emissions, they guarantee that the desired level of emission reduction is achieved; and by allowing trading, they give business the flexibility to find the cheapest solutions, while rewarding investment in low-carbon technologies and innovation.

    This is the climate change scam on steroids. Carbon dioxide is not pollution, despite what the UN says. Under this scheme, “pollution” can be offset by buying credits, which of course does nothing to actually reduce emissions.

    (Page 64): Institutionalised Governance
    The present section examines aspects of governance and coherence for sustainable development at the national and global levels. it also pays special attention to holding all actors accountable for achieving sustainable development, and many of the recommendations put forward are designed to strengthen accountability at all decision making levels

    This is taking the actual decision making ability away from the people who are elected by and accountable to their citizens.

    (Page 30) Education
    67. investing in education and training provides a direct channel to advancing the sustainable development agenda. it is widely recognized as a tremendously efficient means to promote individual empowerment and lift generations out of poverty, and it yields important development benefits for young people, particularly women.

    68. primary education for all, in particular, is a precondition for sustainable development. despite real progress, we are still not on track to achieving Millennium development Goal 2 by ensuring that all children, boys and girls alike, achieve a full course of primary schooling by 2015. instead, 67 million children of primary school age remain out of school and are still not receiving a primary education. The gap is especially critical for girls, who as of 2008 still made up more than 53 per cent of the out-of-school population. basic education is essential to overcoming barriers to their future employment and political participation, as women presently constitute roughly two thirds of the 793 million adult illiterates worldwide.

    69. The Millennium development Goal on universal primary education has not yet been met, owing in part to insufficient funds, although other barriers exist. international means to supplement funds and support local and national efforts could help to overcome challenges such as teacher shortages and lack of infrastructure. The World bank’s Global partnership for education provides one model to help countries develop and implement sound education strategies.

    70. While primary education is the foundation of development, post-primary and secondary education and vocational training are as crucial in building a sustainable future. every added year of education in developing countries increases an individual’s income by 10 per cent or more on average. studies also show that women in developing countries who complete secondary school have on average one child fewer than women who complete only primary school, leading to more economic wealth within families and decreased intergenerational poverty. Moreover, post-primary education based on a curriculum designed to develop key competencies for a twenty-first-century economy — such as ecosystem management, science, technology and engineering — can encourage innovation and accelerate technology transfer, as well as provide skills vital for new green jobs. yet today it is estimated that fewer than a quarter of children complete secondary school.

    I can’t be the only one thinking that this “global” education push will just lead to propaganda to be used against children. Rather than teaching the basics, kids will be indoctrinated about how to be good global citizens.

    Also worth noting, wherever this education takes root, it leads to young children being exposed to highly sexual content.

    4. (Page 54) Innovative Sources of Financing
    158. other innovative sources of financing can be used at the global, regional or national level as a way of pricing externalities, as well as of generating revenue that can be used to finance other aspects of sustainability. The reform of tax systems to shift taxation away from employment and towards consumption and resource use can help incentivize greener, more resource-efficient growth. Tax deductions to incentivize sustainable behaviour can also be highly effective.

    159. While the political acceptability of innovative sources of finance and new fiscal measures will vary by country, as past efforts have shown, recent years have seen particular attention paid to the potential for this kind of approach to be used at the global level. The panel discussed and agreed on the need to further explore new areas of innovative sources of finance. This could build on, for instance, the work of the high-level advisory Group of the secretary-General on climate change financing. in terms of sources, a number of categories were identified by the advisory Group (see box 16).

    160. a number of important sectors of the global economy are currently untaxed, despite the externalities they generate; these include emissions from fossil fuel combustion in the international maritime and aviation sectors. a tax on the most important energy-related greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, would be another economically efficient means of addressing externalities.

    recommendation 27
    161. governments should establish price signals that value sustainability to guide the consumption and investment decisions of households, businesses and the public sector. in particular, governments could:

    a. establish natural resource and externality pricing instruments, including carbon pricing, through mechanisms such as taxation, regulation or emissions trading systems, by 2020;

    b. ensure that policy development reflects the positive benefits of the inclusion of women, youth and the poor through their full participation in and contribution to the economy, and also account for the economic, environmental and social costs;

    c. reform national fiscal and credit systems to provide long-term incentives for sustainable practices, as well as disincentives for unsustainable behaviour;

    d. Develop and expand national and international schemes for payments for ecosystem services in such areas as water use, farming, fisheries and forestry systems;

    e. Address price signals that distort the consumption and investment decisions of households, businesses and the public sector and undermine sustainability values. governments should move towards the transparent disclosure of all subsidies, and should identify and remove those subsidies which cause the greatest detriment to natural, environmental and social resources;

    f. Phase out fossil fuel subsidies and reduce other perverse or trade-distorting subsidies by 2020. The reduction of subsidies must be accomplished in a manner that protects the poor and eases the transition for affected groups when the products or services concerned are essential.

    This is all about finding new ways to tax people, and regulate their behaviour. Absolutely leads to complete government control. Worst of all, it wouldn’t even be our government doing the regulating.

    The review will stop here, but please read through the document in its entirety. Anyone who supports it is no friend of freedom, or of sovereignty.

    UCLG — United Cities & Local Gov’t (Globalist Stormtroopers)


    (UCLG Propaganda Film)


    Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

    PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
    PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
    Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


    CLICK HERE, for main page.
    CLICK HERE, for global agenda.
    CLICK HERE, for Constitution and rules.
    CLICK HERE, for 2016 Bogota Commitment.
    CLICK HERE, for migration, (not “immigration”).
    CLICK HERE, for Mediterranean City-City Migration.
    CLICK HERE, for partnership with EU.

    Global Agenda Of Local Gov’ts

    Note: This is “their” headline.

    They have specific plans for each of:

    (a) Local Action
    (b) National Action
    (c) International Action

    Note: lip-service is being paid to the power and authority that local communities an (to a lesser degree) nations will have. However, this is illogical. As more and more parties become involved, the voice and authority of each becomes less and less.

    Furthermore, the further away the power brokers are, the less the effected people will be able to make decisions. Now, what are the specifics the UCLG are advocating?

    LOCAL ACTION

    Realization of the New Urban Agenda on the ground
    As a result of the growing links between global and local challenges, local and regional governments now play a greater role in the regulation of the urban fabric and territories, and the protection of the commons. However, they often lack the resources to meet these new challenges, putting pressure on their ability to fulfil pre-existing responsibilities. To contribute to what in the SDGs is termed a ‘transformed world’, local and regional governments across all world regions must be proactive and commit to the following actions:

    1. Improve their strategic management capacity.
    2. Boost participation by fostering a buoyant and autonomous civil society to co-create cities and territories.
    3. Harness integrated urban and territorial planning to shape the future of cities and territories.
    4. Ensure access to quality and resilient infrastructures and basic services for all.
    5. Foster local economic opportunities to create decent jobs and social cohesion.
    6. Put the ‘Right to the City’ at the centre of urban and territorial governance.
    7. Lead the transition toward low carbon, resilient cities and regions.
    8. Promote local heritage, creativity and diversity through people-centred cultural policies

    NATIONAL ACTION

    A new multilevel governance system
    Local leadership will only flourish if there is a national enabling environment for local and regional governments with adequate legal frameworks and resources,
    as well as a transformation of top-down approaches. Moreover, it can only succeed if the uneven decentralization found in many countries and regions is urgently addressed. National governments should:
    1. Renew institutional frameworks to promote shared governance and effective decentralization.
    2. Build coherent and integrated national urban and regional policies in consultation with sub-national governments.
    3. Rethink sub-national financing systems to reconcile financing with sustainability.
    4. Involve local and regional governments in the follow-up of the SDGs and the New Urban Agenda, supported by accurate territorialized data.

    INTERNATIONAL ACTION

    Local and regional governments’ rightful place at the global table
    For global policies and agreements to properly harness local experience and commitment, the place of local and regional governments in international policymaking needs to change. They must be part of a structured consultation as a recognized and organized global constituency rather than subject to ad hoc consultation processes. The efforts of local and regional governments to organize and produce informed inputs must be acknowledged as part of the decision making process by taking the following steps:
    1. Include organized local and regional government networks in the governing structures of international development institutions
    2. Create new instruments to finance local sustainable infrastructure and services
    3. Support decentralized and city-to-city cooperation, learning and knowledge-sharing to foster innovation.

    You know what is absent here?
    Any talk of sovereignty.
    Any talk of having control over one’s own affairs.
    This is all about globalism, down to the municipal level.

    ALL MIGRATS, ALL CITIZENS

    “According to the International Organization for Migration, migration can be defined as the movement of a person or group of people, either crossing an international border or within a state. There is now agreement not only on the importance of better exploiting the economic, social and cultural benefits of international migration, but also the downsides of this phenomenon that could be better handled.

    Migration, integration, inclusion and the protection of migrants’ rights have hitherto been largely regulated and debated at state level, with states developing policies tailored to their countries’ needs as a whole. Thus, the central role of states as main actors in migration management and dialogue somewhat neglects a very basic fact of international migration – in reality, migratory flows, whether rural-to-urban or urban-to-urban, link cities across and between regions. Migration is a challenge that needs short and long term solutions and a review of policies must take the current role of cities into account.”

    1/ So migration is “agreed” to be a good thing. Why was the public never consulted?
    2/ How the downsides could be better handled? You mean like not doing migration in the first place?
    3/ “Migrants’ rights”? And what right would those be? Is migration itself a right? Are entitlement programs a right?

    Partnership With European Union

    ““For the first time ever, local and regional governments and the European Commission commit to work side by side to pursuit objectives that will contribute to achieve democracy, human dignity, equality, justice for all and in the spirit of solidarity throughout the world. Local and regional governments help shape strong local communities and contribute to economic prosperity and social and cultural well-being. We look forward to developing our programmes in cooperation with the European Commission to take this forward.””

    How can this possibly be a good thing? EU is autocratic, and is on the verge of breaking apart.

    1/ EU tried to pull voting rights of Hungary and Poland

    2/ UK voted to leave (Brexit)

    3/ Italy had its national budget vetoed

    4/ German open borders forced the dissolution of Schengen free travel zone, and reinstitution of border controls

    5/ Visegrad nations openly reject migrant quotas

    6/ Openly nationalist leaders in Europe winning elections

    7/ May 2019 EU elections may lead to collapse of EU agenda

    But beyond this, the EU is a great example of globalist control working out.

    FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS

    The Global Observatory on Local Finance hosted a cross-cutting study, launched by UCLG Committee on Local Finance for Development, to improve and fine-tune its advocacy on local finance in preparation for Habitat III and Financing for Development follow-up meetings.

    The conditions for the mobilization of local resources for sustainable urban development. This study aims at analyzing the triggering factors of success of public policies dedicated to financing urban development, with a focus by territory on the main financing sources of local governments:”

    Will this be a bigger version of the “financial flows” that the carbon taxes (Paris Accord) are designed to bring in?

    This will come as a shock to no one, but UCLG supports:
    (a) Agenda 2030,
    (b) SDA
    (c) Gender Agenda
    (d) Climate Change

    This organization completely erases sovereignty of nations, and autonomy of cities. Instead, it promotes the idea that it is all one “global community” and that everyone should have a say in it.

    What it DOESN’T mention, is by that logic, everyone else will have a say in running “your” community. Think you have sovereignty now? Well you won’t for very long.

    Infanticide #4: Fallout And Some Pushback


    Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

    PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
    PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
    Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


    In This Series

    CLICK HERE, for Part 1, New York and Virginia.
    CLICK HERE, for Part 2, Kill The Survivors.
    CLICK HERE, for Part 3, UN Endorses Abortion As Human Right

    Links Worth Checking Out

    CLICK HERE, for Oregon allowing mentally ill people to starve to death. That is House Bill 4135.
    CLICK HERE, for a mother who gave birth, killed her child, and claimed it’s basically an abortion.
    CLICK HERE, for a NY man who killed his pregnant girlfriend, but will only face 1 murder charge.
    CLICK HERE, for Wikipedia’s “Heartbeat Bill” listings.
    CLICK HERE, for Florida’s SB 492, to make it a felony for a doctor to perform abortion if heartbeat detected. Also, CLICK HERE, for House Bill 235 in Florida.
    CLICK HERE, for Georgia Heartbeat Bill, House Bill 481.
    CLICK HERE, and also CLICK HERE, for Maryland.
    CLICK HERE, for Missouri, House Bill 126.
    CLICK HERE, for West Virginia, House Bill 2903.
    CLICK HERE, for the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
    CLICK HERE, for Ohio Planned Parenthood being defunded by taxpayers.

    Stabbing Baby Post-Birth Is “Abortion”


    From the Toresays.com article, a 17 year old Texas teenager apparently gave birth, then murdered her infant. Here is a quote:

    “The infant girl was delivered naturally and there were nine entry wound sites. The infant was stabbed 5 times in her back, once on her side and three times in the neck. This was determined by Dr. Diaz who performed the forensic examination. She also determined that the child was found 12 hours after birth and died to homicidal violence.

    Many of them quoted the snippets of coverage by MSM who claimed killing a child up until the time of birth is a “right of women’s health”. All these young children believe they have the right to end the life of an infant because “My Body My Right”.

    What this young lady did was murder. She stabbed an innocent young baby girl 9 times and abandoned her in a shed and went straight to back to bed. The rhetoric of the radical leftists MSM along with the educational system that purports radical grievances and ideologies has torn the fabric of basic morals and the sanctity of life. “

    This is disgusting. How did we get to the point where not only abortion is legal, but then giving birth and then killing your child is considered “your right”?

    Perhaps the rationale here is: “well, I saved the taxpayers some money by not having them pay for a doctor, so I did you a favour.”

    But at least there is some good news. The recent surge in pro-death sentiments has led to some backlash, and people reaffirming that life really does matter.

    CBC Propaganda #13: Political Charities Not Worth Auditing


    Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

    PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
    PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG

    Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


    CLICK HERE, for a link to the CBC article.
    CLICK HERE, for the propaganda masterlist.

    Political activity audits of charities suspended by Liberals

    Panel report says charities should be free to engage in politics, minister suspends infamous audit program

    While this “looks” like a victory for free speech and political engagement, one has to ask how tainted charities will become when their income is influenced by who gets into power.

    The Liberal government is suspending the few remaining political activity audits of charities after an expert panel report recommended removing a political gag order imposed on them by the Conservatives five years ago.

    As an immediate first step to respond to the panel’s recommendations, National Revenue Minister Diane Lebouthillier “has asked the CRA to suspend all action in relation to the remaining audits and objections that were part of the Political Activities Audit Program, initiated in 2012,” a release Thursday said.

    The panel report, also released Thursday, and the suspension together appear to end a long chill for charities that began in 2012, when the Conservative government launched 60 political activity audits, starting with environmental groups that had criticized federal energy and pipeline policies.

    This actually makes sense. When political advocacy groups cloak themselves as charities, the lines get blurred and its dangerous.

    The program cost environmental, anti-poverty, human-rights and religious charities significant staff resources and legal fees, and brought an “advocacy chill” to the sector, with many groups self-censoring lest they be caught in the Canada Revenue Agency’s net or annoy their auditors.

    The Liberal Party campaigned in the 2015 election to end the “political harassment” of charities, but once elected did not quite end the program. Instead, the new government cancelled six of the political activity audits that were yet to be launched, but allowed audits already underway to continue.

    That left groups such as Environmental Defence and Canada Without Poverty, which were deemed too political by CRA, still under immediate threat of losing their charitable status. Thursday’s announcement lifts that threat, at least until the government responds to the panel recommendations.

    The five-member panel, chaired by Marlene Deboisbriand on the board of Imagine Canada, says Canada’s charity law and regulations are too restrictive and vague. It calls for changes to the Income Tax Act to delete any reference to “political activities” with regard to charities.

    For what it’s worth, it is still worthwhile to know if the charity in question is a charity, and to what degree it engages in political activities. Of course, the same could be said for religious groups.

    The panel report, based on wide consultations last fall, also said there was broad consensus in the charity sector that partisan activities — endorsing particular candidates or parties — should remain forbidden.

    The proposed changes would eliminate current rules that restrict a charity’s political activities to 10 per cent of their resources. Critics have argued the rules are unclear on definitions of what constitutes a political act.

    No kidding, charities shouldn’t be endorsing political candidates or parties. And 10% is actually a lot. If a “charity” spends a good chunk of their money lobbying for government, shouldn’t they register as such?

    The revenue minister’s decision to suspend political activity audits, as recommended by the panel report Thursday, amounts to an abrupt about-face. Last year, Lebouthillier refused to intervene, saying the “independence of the charity directorate’s oversight role is a fundamental principle that must be protected.”

    To be clear, I have no issue with people getting involved in politics. However, there are considerable financial and tax advantages to being classified as a “charity”. If the groups in questions really are lobbying politically, then it puts them on an unlevel playing field.