Sandra Finley

Feb 072018
 

APPENDED:  background on the Tamiflu vaccine and Rumsfeld’s connection to it.

Sometimes I don’t want to circulate information like the following:  we know the theme.   More detail seems like unnecessary repetition.

Boot myself!  I don’t think we CAN stop.   It is dangerous NOT to arm people, when we’re talking Big Pharma.  Earlier postings document the drive to mandatory vaccination schedules, without which a child is banned from attending school.   There is a large effort in the US and in Canada to ensure CHOICE in the several questions regarding vaccination (whether to vaccinate? which vaccinations? how many at a time? at what age?).

RELATED:   2018-02-06 Indian Study Reveals Birth Dose of Hepatitis B Vaccine Unnecessary

In the United States, since 1991 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recommended that all infants receive the hepatitis B vaccine on the first day of birth before leaving the newborn nursery.  . . .    (a well-written article.)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2018/02/did-big-pharma-and-who-corruption-trick-the-world-into-tamiflu/

Recommend:  listen to the video.  This paragraph is not the full text:

In October 2002, 22 scientists, nine WHO Secretariat members, and two drug industry representatives met in Geneva to draw up draft guidelines on the use of antivirals and vaccines for influenza. These form the basis of advice issued to the world two years later. Included in this were three annexes—each drawn up by an eminent scientist present at the original meeting. The WHO would be expected to examine any financial link these three scientists and any others advising it would have with pharmaceutical companies. It said it did but it’s refusing to make public the details. In 2004, this guidance was distributed to nations as the definitive thinking on on pandemic planning. It was a stamp of approval that helped spark a worldwide rush for the drugs.

Around $10 billion has since been spent on Roche’s Tamiflu and another $2 billion on rival Relenza made by GSK.  (GSK is Glaxo Smith Kline.)

= = = =  = = = = = = =

2009-10-07   I want parents to know this about vaccinations, mercury, Rumsfeld, and money devoid of conscience. (Rumsfeld’s connection to Tamiflu)

= = = =  = = = = = = =

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TAMIFLU?

If you have the flu, there are several prescription medications available including: oral oseltamivir (Tamiflu), inhaled zanamivir (Relenza), or the intravenous drug peramivir (Rapivab).  However, studies show that these medications only help you recover one day faster from the flu. Rather than going to the doctor’s office to get examined and get a prescription, you might prefer to stay home and rest and drink plenty of fluids.

Over the counter (OTC) medications don’t cure the flu but they can help you feel better by treating symptoms such as aches, coughs, and sore throats.  Antibiotics do NOT work against the flu because it is caused by a virus and not by bacteria.

Tamiflu is heavily advertised, but many doctors believe that Tamiflu does not work well enough to justify the high cost of the drug, or the CDC recommendation that all patients take it.  These doctors point out that there is very little high quality evidence that Tamiflu reduces the rate of serious complications from the flu.

Feb 072018
 

hepatitis B text

“We found birth dose was not needed as infection rates were the same regardless of birth dose.”
— Jacob Puliyel, MD

A study funded by Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and published in the Indian Journal of Pediatrics was recently conducted by a group of pediatricians to examine if the birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine is crucial for acquiring full immunity against hepatitis B infection.1

India first introduced the hepatitis B vaccine in 2006. Approximately 61 percent of Indian women give birth at home rather than in a healthcare facility, making it nearly impossible for healthcare providers to administer newborn vaccines. Given this reality, the Indian government’s policy is to give the hepatitis B vaccine at birth to the 39 percent of babies born in healthcare settings and to administer the first dose at six weeks for babies born at home.2

Hepatitis B is an infection of the liver caused by the hepatitis B virus. It can either be acute and self-resolving or chronic, possibly leading to liver cirrhosis.3 This virus spreads through contact with infected body fluids such as blood transfusions and unprotected sexual contact and can pass from mother to baby.1

Blood samples from 1- to 5-year old children from five states (Delhi, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Gujarat) were collected to measure antigen and antibodies of the hepatitis B virus. In this sample, 880 children were fully vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine starting at birth, 686 were fully vaccinated but without the birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine and 844 were unvaccinated.4

The findings showed that children who were fully vaccinated with or without birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine had similar levels of protection against the infection.1 The study’s lead author Jacob Puliyel, MD, who is a pediatrician at St. Stephens Hospital in Delhi stated:

We found birth dose was not needed as infection rates were the same regardless of birth dose. However, if the mother is a hepatitis B carrier especially if she is e-antigen positive, the baby must be vaccinated at birth.1

Dr. Puliyel added:

Studies must be replicable before they can be accepted. We now have two studies, one from South India and this one from North India showing that many babies have acquired passive immunity that may be protecting them soon after birth when they are most vulnerable to develop chronic hepatitis. Further, studies may be done to confirm these findings.1

The results of the study support the Indian government’s approach to vaccinate babies born at home at six weeks instead of at birth.

In the United States, since 1991 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recommended that all infants receive the hepatitis B vaccine on the first day of birth before leaving the newborn nursery.5 Women who give birth in U.S. hospitals and medical facilities are routinely screened for hepatitis B infection.

Although only babies born to hepatitis B infected mothers are at risk for hepatitis B infection at birth and have a 20 to 90 percent increased risk of becoming chronically infected with hepatitis B, every newborn is vaccinated whether the mother tests negative or positive.6 According to the CDC, this national policy was instituted to reduce the risk of a newborn contracting the disease from a mother who may not know she is infected with hepatitis B.5

Feb 052018
 

– – –  Unusual for the UK Establishment to rule against the US Establishment.  Are the times a-changin’?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/feb/05/hacking-suspect-lauri-love-wins-appeal-against-extradition-to-us

By  Owen Bowcott,  Legal affairs correspondent.   Extradition.

Rights groups and lawyers for 33-year-old welcome landmark judgment against extradition to US

 0:39

A high court ruling blocking extradition to the US of Lauri Love, a student accused of breaking into US government websites, has been welcomed by lawyers and human rights groups as a precedent for trying hacking suspects in the UK in future.

The decision delivered by the lord chief justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon, is highly critical of the conditions Love would have endured in US jails, warning of the risk of suicide.

Lawyers for the 33-year-old, who lives in Suffolk, had argued that Love should be tried in Britain for allegedly hacking into US government websites and that he would be at risk of killing himself if sent to the US.

There was cheering and applause in court on Monday when Burnett announced his decision. He asked supporters to be quiet, saying: “This is a court, not a theatre.”

In his judgment, Burnett said: “It would not be oppressive to prosecute Mr Love in England for the offences alleged against him. Far from it. Much of Mr Love’s argument was based on the contention that this is indeed where he should be prosecuted.

“The CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] must now bend its endeavours to his prosecution, with the assistance to be expected from the authorities in the United States, recognising the gravity of the allegations in this case, and the harm done to the victims.”

The court heard evidence from psychiatrists who work in the US prison system and questioned the adequacy of safeguarding procedures in US prisons.

The CPS, which acts on behalf of the US authorities in the case, said it would read the judgment before deciding whether or not to appeal. It has 14 days to decide whether or not to appeal to the supreme court.

Emerging from the front of the court afterwards, Love said: “This is not just for myself. I hope this sets a precedent for the future for anyone in the same position that they will be tried here.”

At a press conference later, he added: “I am greatly relieved that I’m no longer facing the prospect of being locked up in a country I have never visited. This legal struggle has defined my life for the past four years. I’m not looking forward to be being prosecuted but I think there’s a better chance that it will be done justly and fairly in the UK.”

Love, who holds joint British and Finnish nationality, has Asperger syndrome and severe depression. His supporters had gathered outside the Royal Courts of Justice before the hearing carrying placards declaring: “Trump can’t get no Love”, “Free Love”, “Trial at home” and “Give Love a chance”.

They feared he would be held in solitary confinement and face a jail sentence of up to 99 years in the US.

Welcoming the judgment, Emma Norton, the head of legal casework at Liberty, which intervened in the case, said: “We are delighted that the court has today recognised Lauri’s vulnerability, close family connections to the UK and the potentially catastrophic consequences of extraditing him. This was always a case that could have been prosecuted here and it’s shameful that Lauri and his family have been put through this terrible ordeal.”

His father, the Rev Alexander Love, had said his son feared for his life because he did not think he could cope with the trauma of being sent to the US. He also praised Theresa May for devising the legal test that prevented Love’s removal.

Nick Vamos, a solicitor at the law firm Peters and Peters and a former CPS extradition specialist, said: “This judgment will mean that US and UK prosecutors will need to be very careful in future about how they decide who should prosecute cases of concurrent jurisdiction, and will have to focus far more than previously on a suspect’s connections to the UK.”

Feb 052018
 

Lou writes:

Sandra, thinking of why you do what you do,,, your activism .. your blog

Here is Sri Eawaran’s February 4, copied from my very old Words To Live By –

 

“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the whole.” John Donne

 

The unity underlying life is so complete and pervasive that when we inflict suffering on the smallest creature, we injure the whole. When we refrain from habits that harm others, when we take up jobs that relieve suffering, when we work to put an end to anger and separateness, we strengthen the whole.

 

There is nothing more important in life than learning to express this unity in all our relationships. Violence, war, and insensitivity to our fellow creatures are external manifestations of the disunity seething in our consciousness. When we begin to practice spiritual disciplines, right from the first day, however slowly, we begin to transform our character, conduct, and consciousness. When the divisiveness which has been agitating us and  making life difficult begins to mend, we get immediate evidence in our daily life. Our health improves, long-standing personal conflicts subside, our mind becomes clearer, and a sense of security and well-being follows us wherever we go.

 

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

Jan 292018
 

Many thanks to Janet E for her continuing updates.

A NAFTA tribunal held Canada liable for rejecting a bid by Bilcon (an American company) to build a gravel quarry in the ecologically sensitive coastal area of Digby Neck, N.S.  It is estimated that Canada would have to pay more than $500 million, just for protecting the environment in accordance with Canadian law.    Details below.

UPDATE,   a very important article:

2018-02-15    Tearing up NAFTA? Please start with Chapter 11,   re Bilcon’s $500 million claim against Canadians. iPolitics

 

UPDATE:  
Subject: Re: Bilcon, NAFTA, ISDS

2018-02-15

. . .     We hope to have a decision from the federal court within the next two months.  Fingers crossed.

Lisa

Lisa Mitchell, Executive Director
ECELAW| lisa  AT  ecelaw.ca
(t) 902 670 1113
Twitter: @ecelaw

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Janet writes:

The Bilcon Digby Neck case is back in the news as the government of Canada challenges a landmark arbitral award brought under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) It will attempt to have the case set aside and environmental groups are helping.    Both Sierra Club Canada and East Coast Environmental Law are acting as Intervenors with Ecojustice representing them as noted in their joint press release below from which  the following statements are extracted:

The NAFTA tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction when it made determination on what a Canadian environmental assessment panel can decide, groups say

 Lisa Mitchell, executive director of East Coast Environmental Law said : “If the tribunal’s decision is allowed to stand, it would signal to local communities that no matter how much damage a project might do, their concerns can be essentially overruled by a NAFTA tribunal decision, at great financial cost.”

Gretchen Fitzgerald, National Program Director of the Sierra Club Canada Foundation said   “If government is committed to strengthening our environmental laws, Canada must reverse this decision and close the trade loophole in ongoing NAFTA negotiations. International trade agreements should not supersede the health of Canadians or interfere with our environmental assessment laws and protections.”

For background information on the case – see

Digby Neck Quarry Bilcon Case, Tribunal Decision and Dissent By Janet M Eaton

www.sierraclub.ca/sites/sierraclub.ca/files/JANET201505.pdf

==================================================

RELATED:

2015-11-16 YouTube: German Public TV tells Europeans re ISDS (Investor State Dispute Settlements). Canada? U.S.? What are we seeing?

2015-04-18 Hundreds of Millions of Dollars already paid out to corporations because of trade deals. It’s about to multiply many times over (TPP, CETA, etc.).

==================================================

http://www.sierraclub.ca/en/Press-Release-Bilcon-NAFTA-court-case

PRESS RELEASE FROM Ecojustice, East Coast Environmental Law, and Sierra Club Canada:

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 29, 2018

Environmental groups in court to intervene in NAFTA tribunal overstep

NAFTA tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction when it made determination on what a Canadian environmental assessment panel can decide, groups say

OTTAWA — Environmental groups are in court today to help Canada challenge a landmark arbitral award brought under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Chapter 11 provision by

American corporation, Bilcon.

A NAFTA tribunal held Canada liable for rejecting a bid by Bilcon to build a gravel quarry in the ecologically sensitive coastal area of Digby Neck, N.S. It is estimated that Canada would have to pay more than $500 million, just for protecting the environment in accordance with Canadian law.

“NAFTA tribunals are only supposed to decide questions of NAFTA law,” said Amir Attaran, lawyer at Ecojustice’s law clinic at the University of Ottawa. “They have no business deciding Canadian law and least of all, ordering Canadian taxpayers to compensate an American corporation because its proposed project threatened the environment. We expect the Federal court to put the NAFTA tribunal in its proper place.”

Represented by lawyers from Ecojustice, East Coast Environmental Law (ECELAW) and the Sierra Club Canada, will appear as interveners during the legal proceedings.

“Bilcon had the opportunity to have a Canadian court rule on the federal government’s rejection of its project. Instead the company chose to sue Canada for its decision to follow an independent environmental assessment panel’s recommendation to prioritize protecting communities and the environment, and reject the quarry project,” said Lisa Mitchell, executive director of East Coast Environmental Law. “If the tribunal’s decision is allowed to stand, it would signal to local communities that no matter how much damage a project might do, their concerns can be essentially overruled by a NAFTA tribunal decision, at great financial cost.”

Bilcon’s proposal for a 120 hectare quarry on Digby Neck, N.S. was to be located 50 metres from the shoreline to facilitate shipping across the Bay of Fundy. This increase in shipping traffic in an ecologically-sensitive environment could put important species, like the endangered North Atlantic right whale in harm’s way — one of the serious threats considered by the environmental assessment panel.

“If government is committed to strengthening our environmental laws, Canada must reverse this decision and close the trade loophole in ongoing NAFTA negotiations,” said Gretchen Fitzgerald,
National Program Director of the Sierra Club Canada Foundation. “International trade agreements should not supersede the health of Canadians or interfere with our environmental assessment laws and protections.”
Members of ECELAW and Sierra Club Canada Foundation were full participants in the Joint Review Panel that resulted in the decision to reject the proposed quarry — partly on the basis of its adverse impact on the ‘core values’ of the affected communities. The groups provided information and support to the community, brought the concerns to the attention of the public and engaged with experts to provide valuable input on the ecological and socio-economic impacts of the coastal quarry.
–  30 –
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Amir Attaran, lawyer | Ecojustice law clinic at the University of Ottawa
aattaran@ecojustice.ca
Lisa Mitchell, executive director | East Coast Environmental Law
1-902-670-1113 (mobile)
lisa@ecelaw.ca
Gretchen Fitzgerald, National Program Director | Sierra Club Canada Foundation
1-902-444-7096 (mobile)
gretchenf@sierraclub.ca
Jan 222018
 

From Al:

Please sign the petition and send Duff  $10.00.
It surely is time that the Conflict of Interest and the Ethics Commission
should have air tight rules and the power to enforce them and strict,
large fines that will stop eliminate the present shenanigans for a long,
long time.

Thanks.

Take care
Al
==================================================================================

——– Forwarded Message ——–

Subject: Help sue for government ethics
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 15:40:00 -0500
From: Democracy Watch <campaigns@democracywatch.ca>
Please support the Ethics Lapdogs Court Case Fund

Dear Friend,

We hope all is well and thank you for your ongoing support of Democracy Watch’s campaigns to make Canada the world’s leading democracy!

Unfortunately, despite the support of people like you sending more than 170,000 messages to federal party leaders and MPs here, the federal government continues to use secretive, partisan processes to choose Canada’s key democracy watchdogs.

Not surprisingly, the government keeps appointing people with weak enforcement records – they just appointed two new lapdogs — so key ethics laws remain unenforced.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in a 1996 case that if government ethics laws are not strictly and strongly enforced, Canada will not be a democracy.

We have tried democratically to convince the federal government to appoint strong watchdogs through an open, independent and merit-based process – a process like Ontario uses to appoint provincial judges (which is considered to be one of the best appointment processes in the world).

The government has refused to appoint strong watchdogs, and the lapdogs they have appointed have made rulings in the past 10 years that let dozens of people off the hook for clear violations, and that create huge loopholes in ethics laws – loopholes that allow for lots of unethical activities in federal politics.

So Democracy Watch is going to court to try to win rulings that will ensure government ethics laws are strictly and strongly enforced by strong watchdogs — please help by clicking here now and supporting Democracy Watch’s 5 key government ethics court cases.

As you will see on the page linked above, Democracy Watch has 2 court cases challenging rulings by former Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson that created huge loopholes in federal government ethics rules.

Democracy Watch has also filed a court case challenging a ruling by former Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd that created a huge loophole in federal lobbying ethics rules.

Since they were appointed in 2007, both the Ethics Commissioner and the Lobbying Commissioner have let off more than 80% of people who have violated the rules. Their dangerously weak enforcement has let hundreds of federal politicians, government officials, and lobbyists get away with violating federal ethics laws.

You can also help right now by clicking here and sending a message calling on the Auditor General to audit the Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner to ensure they didn’t cover up past wrongdoing.

Democracy Watch has also filed a court case challenging the appointment of new Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion, which was done without consulting the opposition parties as required by law. Mr. Dion had a very bad record of 8 unethical and questionable actions when he was the federal Integrity Commissioner, including being found guilty twice of violating the rights of people who were blowing the whistle on government wrongdoing.

Democracy Watch also recently filed a court case challenging the appointment of new Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger because the appointment was also made without consulting opposition parties. Ms. Bélanger also worked for 5 years for former Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson during a time when Commissioner Dawson let dozens of Cabinet ministers and MPs off the hook even though they clearly violated ethics rules.

As well, both commissioners’ offices were investigating the Prime Minister and other Cabinet ministers at the time they were chosen by the Cabinet. No one should be allowed to choose their own judge, especially when the judge will be deciding whether they were involved in an illegal situation.

These 5 lawsuits will help ensure that only fully qualified, fully independent people with strong enforcement records are appointed to these and other key government watchdog positions.

We need your help to pay the costs of these 5 lawsuits – please click here to donate now – and please spread the word to anyone you think may be interested in supporting these lawsuits.

Thank you for your support,
Duff, Josephine, Brad
and the entire Democracy Watch team

P.S. Even $5 will help win these 5 key government ethics court cases – please click here to donate now.

Copyright 2017 Democracy Watch
Jan 202018
 

This is about flu shots (vaccines).   The Broken Brain series (functional medicine) is also about vaccines (not solely, of course).

With many thanks to Janet M.    I watched videos at the two links she sent,

  • Wendy Mesley from CBC that turned out to be from 2012.  It’s still valid and worthwhile – – I don’t think we are getting the same quality of broadcast in the public interest today.   Damn Big Pharma.
  • the URL at the very bottom, Del Bigtree.   Kinda blows your mind,  but then,  Del brings you back to the citizens (American, in this case) who are determined to break Big Pharma, by exposing what they are doing.    New False Flag, Flu-pocalypse debunked, James O’Keefe exposed Twitter, Del Agrees with Paul Offit

Janet writes:

Subject:  Surprise! CBC told some truth about flu deaths!? (please read all the way thru to the p.s.)  +++++ Highwire

flabbergasted, I am.

saw this on a Facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com/VaXismVideos/videos/257306324806722/?hc_ref=ARRhASc54nO4-66rU1VsAUx-IH3dQW2r2D9AFg-s-xkhn0Z6yqBNTWYcrlZuB3GclP0&pnref=story
Not sure if you can see it if you are not on FB.
But Wendy Mesley did a segment in which the B.S. about flu shot deaths is exposed.

Whoa!
CBC telling some truth about vaccine B.S.????

knock me over with a feather……….

Janet

p.s. Dang!!!!!!!!  T’was just revealed the item was from 2012.
http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/health/story/1.1127442

Blast………..

p.p.s. I am about to watch Del Bigtree’s latest “Highwire” episode on YouTube. It’s a lot about flu………New False Flag, Flu-pocalypse debunked, James O’Keefe exposed Twitter, Del Agrees with Paul Offit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_pO8ai1WDI&feature=em-subs_digest      (I followed Janet’s lead and watched.  I am glad that I did.)

Jan 202018
 

NOTE 1:  Many of you know Joyce Nelson from her book, “Beyond Banksters“.   Put “Joyce” into the search button on this blog (upper right corner) for more of her work.

NOTE 2:   2018-01-15   Input to Govt: How can the Criminal Justice system be changed to better suit Canadians?    (Thanks to Janet E for making the connection to what Joyce is saying.)

 

The Sentinel January 18th, 2018

https://watershedsentinel.ca/articles/tax-havens-other-paris-agreement

RECOMMEND:  go to the URL.  Below is a back-up copy of the text.   The Watershed Sentinel’s posting is much better!

 

Tax Havens and the Other Paris Agreement Paradise & Panama papers, Canada & red herrings, and the international agreement on tax havens with “enough loopholes to drive a fleet of Ferraris through”

Joyce Nelson

 

Photo: Laurent Ribot | https://www.flickr.com/photos/hellair/30214316424/

 

It´s not clear whether the Bill Morneau/Tax Revolt saga that roiled the media and Parliament throughout the last half of 2017 will continue in 2018, but it looks likely.

By mid-December pundits and politicians were calling for the Finance Minister to resign over conflict of interest charges connected with his shares in Morneau Shepell (his pension management company). Moreover, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) was complaining about the lack of clarity in tax changes to be introduced in January.

This brouhaha all started on July 18 when the Trudeau government announced plans to close three tax loopholes available to small business owners who incorporate their businesses as personal corporations, called Canadian-Controlled Private Corporations (CCPCs) – affecting quite a few upper middle-class professionals, from doctors, lawyers, and accountants to farmers and owners of small businesses. They were not about to take this lying down.

The CFIB took up their cause and put its own spin on things, arguing that business owners don´t have the “huge” salaries and pensions enjoyed by civil servants to rely on for retirement. On September 5, the CFIB delivered a petition to Ottawa with nearly 14,700 signatures.

Interestingly, it was later revealed that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is a client of Morneau Shepell.

 

There´ve been some funny moments in all the heated rhetoric, especially on September 19 when Trudeau faced questions about his own finances since he became party leader. He said, “I no longer have dealings with the way our family fortune is managed,” which prompted Conservative MP Lisa Raitt to tweet: “Here´s a tip – if you want to be seen as a man of the people try not to refer to your assets as `my family fortune´.”

Tax experts estimated the most that would be collected per year from Morneau´s original tax plan was about $250 million. Meanwhile, Canadians for Tax Fairness estimates that between $10 billion and $15 billion per year in Canadian taxes goes uncollected due to tax havens. This amount would be enough to fund Pharmacare, universal childcare, free university tuition, and infrastructure improvements in First Nations communities all at the same time.

Behind all the sound and fury, something else has been going on. In order to see it, we have to look at the timeline of events. And that leads to what I call “the other Paris agreement” – not the 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change but another Paris agreement, one few Canadians have heard about.

 

Paris again

On June 7, 2017, a representative for Morneau´s Finance Department, Ginette Petitpas Taylor (at the time, the parliamentary secretary to the finance minister) went to Paris for a mass-signing ceremony. Along with representatives from 66 other countries, she was there to formally adopt something called the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. This is usually referred to as the BEPS Agreement or the BEPS Initiative.

Don´t let the boring name fool you. The BEPS Agreement is being touted as the first coordinated, international attempt to crack down on the trillions of dollars in corporate profits stashed away in offshore tax havens. As the official title indicates, governments across the planet have seen their tax base steadily eroded by multinational corporations shifting their profits into tax havens. Drafted by the G20 and the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), the BEPS Agreement is the result of several years of consultations (which are still ongoing, despite the formal signing).

 

Most tax experts agree that some of the biggest users of offshore tax havens are banks and the financial sector in general, along with multinational corporations engaged in resource extraction: forestry, mining, as well as the oil and gas sectors.

These havens are a huge issue, especially for Canada. A tiny NGO called Canadians for Tax Fairness, led by the intrepid Dennis Howlett, says that multinational corporations and the wealthiest Canadians are sending well over $250 billion per year to offshore havens to avoid paying taxes on it in Canada.

What better way to distract attention than to get Dr. Joe Blow Incorporated fighting with Dr. Jane Doe Unincorporated about income tax?

 

When the Panama Papers were leaked in April 2016 as anger about tax unfairness was rising worldwide, Bill Morneau told the press that Canada would become “a really strong voice” on the offshore tax haven issue, while PM Trudeau said, “It´s certainly something we will be working on together as a community of nations” – apparently a reference to the forthcoming BEPS Agreement.

In signing the Agreement on June 7, 2017, Ginette Petitpas Taylor (now federal minister of health) announced that this puts Canada “at the forefront of global action to improve international tax rules, and work towards a more fair and transparent tax system.”

There´s only one problem (or several). According to tax experts, the BEPS Agreement has major weaknesses and enough loopholes to drive a fleet of Ferraris through. As well, the BEPS Agreement doesn´t affect Canada´s Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEAs), which were introduced and signed by the Harper government and (as we shall see) are unique, to say the least.

 

Not only have our international partners delivered a tepid BEPS Agreement, but the Trudeau government continues (as Alain Deneault puts it) “to fight tax fraud by legalizing it.”

The OECD´s tax policy director had already acknowledged in 2016 that Canada´s TIEAs had caused a massive uptick in Canadian money flowing into tax havens, and he told the CBC that “we are dealing with” the issue in negotiations. But apparently, nothing was changed.

Before the BEPS Agreement was formally signed, an independent organization called the BEPS Monitoring Group issued a statement saying that the Agreement “fell short of providing a comprehensive and cohesive approach to reform of international tax laws.”

While most corporate media outlets in Canada simply ignored the BEPS Agreement signing ceremony of June 7, the Toronto Star (to its credit) published a critical article on June 8.

Written by Marco Chown Oved, the article pointed out that Canada leads the world in the number of tax treaties and agreements that allow multinational corporations to escape the taxman. Oved interviewed tax authorities who said the BEPS Agreement is vaguely worded and has so many loopholes that nothing much will change, especially for Canada.

Apparently, the so-called “community of nations” has come up with a tepid agreement.

Even more important, Canada has gamed the system in favour of corporate tax cheats.

 

Those TIEAs

The Watershed Sentinel (November-December 2011) was one of the first Canadian media outlets to blow the whistle on Canada´s TIEAs, noting that the “new TIEAs are being touted as a means for more `transparency´ about tax avoidance, but there is little to justify this claim … with the new TIEAs, a corporation can repatriate those offshore profits tax-free, leaving no trace of the deferred taxes.”

This is how it works: a corporation makes its profits in Canada but can set up subsidiaries in a tax haven (usually nothing more than a PO box). The corporation can shift its profits to the tax haven (where it pays no or low taxes) and keep its losses in Canada (where they are tax deductible). The corporation can then repatriate the profits (without being taxed) as dividends for shareholders, mergers and acquisitions, share buy-backs, fat bonuses and salaries, etc.

As I wrote in 2011, tax havens are a way to “starve the beast” of government, in order to foster privatization and deregulation. What I didn´t know at the time was that the Harper government had actually changed the tax code to facilitate this tax avoidance and repatriation of profits tax-free.

 

Canada leads the world in the number of tax treaties and agreements that allow multinational corporations to escape the taxman.

 

That fact didn´t come out until 2015, when Alain Deneault, a Canadian expert on tax havens and the author of two books about the issue, wrote that Canada had “made a travesty” of TIEAs (created by the OECD) by adding “a provision of its own” through “section 5907 (11) of Canada´s Income Tax Regulations.”

Deneault noted that this “new loophole” created by a tax code change was endorsed by a 2008 federal advisory panel which “included an ex-chairman of the board of the Royal Bank of Canada and an ex-CEO of SNC Lavalin Group, a retired Scotiabank executive who was a director of Barrick Gold and Rogers, an international tax expert from Pricewaterhouse Coopers, and a retired Shell Canada executive.”

 

As Deneault bluntly put it, “While claiming to fight tax fraud, Ottawa legalizes its every aspect.

At the same time, its honour is untarnished in that it actively looks for TIEAs to sign and can therefore boast of being part of the international initiative instigated by the OECD. Fighting tax fraud by making it legal: this is truly Orwellian.”

 

As far as I can determine, no other country has this arrangement.

Both the CBC and the Toronto Star reported this Orwellian situation in 2016 and stated that the Trudeau Liberals had done nothing to change it. In June 2017,  the day after Ginette Petitpas Taylor signed the other Paris agreement, the Toronto Star again raised the issue.

I suspect that the Liberal government, which had said that Canada would be “a really strong voice” on the offshore tax haven issue, felt there might be a need to distract attention from the matter, before the whole issue of tax havens could further galvanize Canadian taxpayers.

What better way to distract attention than to get Dr. Joe Blow Incorporated fighting with Dr. Jane Doe Unincorporated about income tax? Six weeks after the BEPS Agreement was signed on June 7, Morneau´s Finance Department released the plan to remove those three tax loopholes benefiting incorporated professionals – sparking outrage throughout the summer and autumn.

 

Driving the narrative

Before Morneau´s alleged conflicts of interest became an issue in mid-October, the pundits had a field day. For example, The Globe and Mail´s Campbell Clark wrote (September 6) that this is Morneau´s “first real fight” and he´s “eager” to take it on. “He wanted this. He wants to take on the argument that if the government does not stop the use of private corporations for personal tax advantages, Canada will have a two-tier tax system for incorporated business people and everybody else – and that gap will grow bigger over time.” As Morneau told reporters in Vancouver on September 6, “We want to make sure … that we´re not creating an ongoing tax advantage for a privileged few.”

 

Such things were being said with a straight face as Morneau and Trudeau metaphorically put on their Robin Hood costumes.

 

During the height of the rhetoric, Conrad Black called Morneau´s tax plan “a seismic lurch to the left.” Actually, the original tax plan fits rights into the neoliberal economic agenda of shifting the tax burden further away from multinational corporations.

So what was the one thing that almost never came up? I followed the issue (in print) from mid-July to the end of October and found only three articles that referred to tax havens. In each instance it was an NDP member of Parliament that raised the offshore issue.

Various tax experts estimated that the most that would be collected per year from Morneau´s original tax plan (most of it later rolled back) was about $250 million. Meanwhile, Dennis Howlett of Canadians for Tax Fairness (CTF) was estimating in September that because of offshore tax havens, at least $8 billion in Canadian taxes on multinational corporations goes uncollected annually.

 

After the November 5 release of another tax havens data-leak called the Paradise Papers, CTF revised its estimate to between $10 billion and $15 billion per year in Canadian tax losses due to tax havens. In their important November 2017 report Bay Street and Tax Havens: Curbing Corporate Canada´s Addiction, CTF stated that this amount would be enough to fund Pharmacare, universal childcare, free university tuition, and infrastructure improvements in First Nations communities all at the same time.

On November 8, PM Trudeau tried to quell the uproar about the Paradise Papers by telling the press, “We have done much in regards to tax avoidance and tax evasion, including working with international partners.”

It´s a tired old line that we´ve heard before.

Not only have those international partners delivered a tepid BEPS Agreement, but the Trudeau government continues (as Alain Deneault puts it) “to fight tax fraud by legalizing it.”

 

Good news

As a Toronto Star editorial (November 8, 2017) noted, “The Paradise Papers are doing nothing to soothe those who worry about the unseemly intertwining of money and power in politics or about the extent to which the economy is rigged by the few against the many. The government can do something about that. It can, for instance, close unfair and ineffective tax loopholes and collect what´s owed. Or it can sit back, defend the current arrangements and watch the cynicism grow.”

The good news is that the BEPS Agreement is still being negotiated internationally and could be rewritten to take much stronger action against tax evasion and tax avoidance.

Similarly, the tax code changes that the Harper government added as a provision to TIEAs could be eliminated.

Both of these changes would need a loud, concerted and immediate push from the Canadian public. In other words, this is no time for either apathy or cynicism.

 

Joyce Nelson´s latest book is Beyond Banksters: Resisting the New Feudalism. The sequel, Bypassing Dystopia, will be published by Watershed Sentinel Books in March 2018.

 

 

Jan 202018
 

To maintain my calm and good nature (ha ha!),  I wrote after listening to  – – –

(CBC, The House)   Montreal NAFTA talks could signal beginning of the end    (9 minutes)

RELATED POSTINGS:

2017-11-01   NZ joins the trend for countries to say no to ISDS (NAFTA and other trade deals)

2017-07-28    A monster payday in Argentina shows a flaw in Trump’s NAFTA renegotiation, David Dayen, The Intercept (ISDS)

2017-06-10    How can you ask questions about trade deals and NOT query Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) chapters? Question to CBC, The House.  

 

TO: The House, CBC Radio   (from on-line,  http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse/contact)   Jan 20, 2018

 

American citizen resistance against NAFTA (therefore a huge ally of Trump) focuses on ONE issue.

I have not heard even once, discussion of that clause on The House.

 

That clause has also been a rallying point for Canadian citizens.  The application of “Chapter 11” in NAFTA has been much more egregious for Canadian citizens than American citizens.

How can the CBC claim to conduct unbiased and informing journalism when a critical viewpoint is omitted from the debate?

NAFTA Chapter 11 (Investor State Dispute Settlement – ISDS) established closed tribunals under which businesses make claims against the Government of Canada.   The tribunals have awarded hundreds of millions of dollars to corporations.  Corporate tribunals, corporate lawyers, are, under NAFTA, a higher authority than the Laws that Canadians pass in their parliaments and legislatures.   What we have in NAFTA is a hi-jacking of the public purse.

Awards given by the NAFTA ISDS tribunals are a direction to the Government, to hand over taxes paid by Canadian citizens, to the corporate claimant.

It is outrageous,  and you do not discuss it.

Sandra Finley

Jan 192018
 

I want most urgently to circulate and encourage:

***   The deadline for participation in “transformation” of the Criminal Justice System, has been extended to January 31st.  ***

 

Please help spread the word.  There are a number of ways to participate, besides making a submission.  Go to  justicetransformation.ca.  

I am hoping to find some excitingly innovative input from Canadians.  It is important to say something, even if it is to reinforce a point made by others.  The first link below is my submission.   There are many, quite different points to be made.  I addressed only one.

IF we don’t care, we will get a don’t-care system for Criminal Justice.

Added at bottom:  CBC Radio discussed NAFTA this morning.  Once again, they did not mention the ISDS clause.  I think it is really important to keep hammering it.  So once again, I challenged them on the omission.  See at bottom.

 

POSTINGS, FOR YOUR SELECTION

http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=20228

My submission to the consultations – – different from many?  I focused on  “No, we do not have the Rule of Law in Canada“.   The people in Corporations and other people of power are not always prosecuted for their crimes.   They can be exempted, for example, by paying fines – –  financed and expensed by the Corporation.  The person walks away.  And so on.

I hope my submission makes it clear that we will ALL be the worse off,  if the status quo continues.

The question asked is    “How would you change our Justice system to better serve all Canadians?”

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=20281

The reply I received from the Justice Transformation project.  Tells of the extended deadline.

I phoned the Deputy Minister of Justice’s office in Saskatchewan on January 19th.  They did not know about the Federal Government’s Justice Transformation initiative.   You might think of persons who should know, and contact them?

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=20290    Ted Talk

The place that travel writer Pico Iyer would most like to go? Nowhere. In a counterintuitive and lyrical meditation, Iyer takes a look at the incredible insight that comes with taking time for stillness  . . . he teases out strategies we all can use. . . .

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

2018-01-10 Powerful press conference! New York City is divesting from fossil fuels AND suing 5 big oil and gas companies.

This may be the best press conference I have ever watched

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

2018-01-07  Dr. Mark Hyman on changing the way we do “health”. Functional medicine. Free on-line series, “Broken Brain”.

Time sensitive.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

2018-01-18   ‘Insanity’ to allow nuclear waste storage near Ottawa River, Indigenous groups say, CBC News

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

2017-07-11   (USA) Is The Justice Department Shying Away From Prosecuting Corporations? NPR interview, author Jesse Eisinger

It’s an American source that speaks well to what I tried to say in my submission to justicetransformation.ca.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

 

2018-01-14 Canadians who have ‘electromagnetic hypersensitivity’ (EHS) feel forced to escape modern life – home

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

2018-01-09 ‘We need to let social media run amok,’ says scholar Chris Kutarna. CBC The Current.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

 

2018-01-09 Julian Assange: Ecuador seeks mediator in ‘unsustainable’ standoff

In the time since that article, Ecuador is, or was, attempting to provide Assange with Ecuadorean citizenship.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

2015-03-17  Updated 2017-12,  The Minerva Initiative

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

2017-12-06  Indigenous Climate Action rejects $150,000 award from Aviva Canada due to moral conflict with Aviva investments

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Children are moulded, “The Golden Notebook”, Doris Lessing

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Just posted this morning:

2018-01-20   It appears that the NAFTA ISDS clause does not exist. A note to the CBC.

– – – – – – – – – – – –   that’s enough!  – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

I have been neglecting you!    There are more postings that I didn’t send notice of.   Consider my failure a Christmas gift to you.  Quiet! 

Cheers,    Sandra