CSN Press Room - Global Public Private Partnerships shaping Media and Politics
BACKGROUND INFORMATION - on the topic of Foreign Corporate Interference in Canadian Politics.
CONTENT
Current Relevance
Turning the UN into a Public Private Partnership (2008)
Expanded WEF Mission Statement —> Governments Take a Back Seat to Corporate Interests
Taking a Closer Look at the WEF (Including Mark Carney in 2016)
Four Purposes of the UN + From MDGs to SDGs
The Corporate Lobby sees Opportunities within UN Participation
Undefined Role of Non-State Actors at the WHO
Using CLIMATE to drive BUSINESS in HEALTH & SURVEILLANCE
When WEF Agenda Shapers Shape “Foresight” - Are New Market Opportunities for Cronies another Conflict of Interest?
Current Relevance
As a recent court ruling seems to dismiss the problem of ‘foreign interference’ in Canada’s Parliament, it might be of interest to members of the federal Liberal party (and any other parties) to consider the question of ‘foreign corporate interference’ in Canadian politics among Members of Parliament themselves.
Even the appearance of conflict of interest can erode the public trust. This was reconfirmed in August 2020 in conduction with the WE-Charity scandal.
First on the summary of Conflict of Interest guidelines for Parliamentarians is this statement:
When performing parliamentary duties or functions, you are prohibited from acting in any way that would further your private interests or those of a member of your family,[i] or that would improperly further another person or entity’s private interests
Some Canadians, for example, had been wondering whether having the Finance Minister associating with the CEOs of corporations with whom Canada entered into financial partnerships should have been considered a conflict of interest. Chrystia Freeland was a member of the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum (WEF) while the interests of her fellow WEF associate Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla have been furthered by her influence on vaccine purchase decisions within the federal govenment? Queries to government officials on this matter have remained unanswered. Now that she is running for the position of Liberal Leader, her profile page appears to have been recently removed from the WEF webpage.
Looking forward, members of the Liberal party are being tasked with choosing Canada’s next Prime Minister. Three of the six Liberal Leadership Candidates have a past (and possibly still current) history with the world’s larges lobby group.
Given that the WEF has demonstrated the ability to take over decision making at the United Nations, is it prudent to select as the next prime minister someone with close ties to such an influential corporate body?
Canadian Shareable News is sharing this background information regarding the mechanism through which the World Economic Forum’s multi-stakeholder system of global governance and its system of Global Public Private Partnerships have been impacting policy on a global scale.
Turning the UN into a Public Private Partnership
Since 2008, the United Nations and its subsidiaries have been targeted by some of the world’s largest transnational corporations across all secotors of the economy as partners in what was to be referred to as “Global Public Private Partnerships”. Instead of admitting that their modus operandi is ‘shareholder capitalism’ (i.e. getting the best rates of returns on investment for their shareholders) this network of corporations rebranded their operations as ‘stakeholder capitalism’. They positioned themselves as fellow stakeholders poised to help governments solve many of the world’s problems. It was to be capitalism rebranded as a philanthropic partnership, the co-creation of a kinder, better world.
Writing in August 2021 for “Open Democracy” Ivan Wecke references a 600-page report on transforming global governance entitled the ‘Global Redesign Initiative’ and how it became the 2020 ‘Great Reset’ plan championed by the CEO of the World Economic Forum (WEF).
The idea is that global capitalism should be transformed so that corporations no longer focus solely on serving shareholders but become custodians of society by creating value for customers, suppliers, employees, communities and other ‘stakeholders’. The way the WEF sees stakeholder capitalism being carried out is through a range of ‘multi-stakeholder partnerships’ bringing together the private sector, governments and civil society across all areas of global governance.
The idea of stakeholder capitalism and multi-stakeholder partnerships might sound warm and fuzzy, until we dig deeper and realise that this actually means giving corporations more power over society, and democratic institutions less.
The plan from which the Great Reset originated was called the Global Redesign Initiative. Drafted by the WEF after the 2008 economic crisis, the initiative contains a 600-page report on transforming global governance. In the WEF’s vision, “the government voice would be one among many, without always being the final arbiter.” Governments would be just one stakeholder in a multi-stakeholder model of global governance. Harris Gleckman, senior fellow at the University of Massachusetts, describes the report as “the most comprehensive proposal for re-designing global governance since the formulation of the United Nations during World War II.” …
Instead of corporations serving many stakeholders, in the multi-stakeholder model of global governance, corporations are promoted to being official stakeholders in global decision-making, while governments are relegated to being one of many stakeholders. In practice, corporations become the main stakeholders, while governments take a backseat role, and civil society is mainly window dressing.
It is within this context that on June 13, 2019 a Strategic Partnership was announced between UN Secretary-General António Guterres and World Economic Founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab “to accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” The world’s largest corporate lobby group, the World Economic Forum, declared:
The partnership identifies six areas of focus – financing the 2030 Agenda, climate change, health, digital cooperation, gender equality and empowerment of women, education and skills – to strengthen and broaden their combined impact by building on existing and new collaborations. The full partnership framework can be found here.
While this partnership received little critical coverage within much of mainstream (corporate and government backed) media, it was addressed by writers at Open Democracy.
Writing on July 2, 2019, Harris Gleckman stated:
A new corporate and government marriage quietly took place last week when the leadership of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the United Nations (UN) signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to partner with each other. While this MOU is proudly displayed on the WEF website, it is nowhere to be found on the UN website. The only indication on the UN website of this important new development is a picture of the pen used to sign the agreement, and two pictures of the signing ceremony.
One reason for this difference is that the UN’s corporate-centered Global Compact has received a good deal of bad press. Now the new WEF-UN agreement creates a second special place for multinational corporations inside the UN. There is no similar institutional home in the UN system for civil society, for academics, for religious leaders, or for youth. It is hard to imagine a national government signing a similar formal partnership with one of its business organizations.
Gleckman is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Governance and Sustainability, at the University of Massachusetts in Boston. An interview with him on this topic is found here.
He continues:
All this joint work might have some practical good if it were not for three crucial elements: firstly, the agreement circumvents the intergovernmental review process; secondly, the agreement elevates multistakeholderism as the solution to the problems with the current multilateral system; and thirdly the proposed multistakeholder partnerships are not governed by any formal democratic system. Were the Secretary-General convinced of the wisdom of a UN marriage with the WEF, he could have submitted the draft MOU for approval by the member states. Instead, the Secretary-General joined the WEF in declaring in effect that multistakeholder groups without any formal intergovernmental oversight are a better governance system than a one-country-one-vote system.
All multistakeholder governance groups are largely composed of a self-selected group of multinational corporations and those organizations and individuals that they want to work with. They work without any common internal rule book to protect the views of all who might be impacted by the group. Participation in multistakeholder groups is a voluntary undertaking. The drop-in-drop-out arrangements are antithetical to the UN’s efforts for 75 years to build a stable secure global governance system with a clear understanding of obligations, responsibilities and liabilities.
Expanded WEF Mission Statement
No longer “just” an association of the CEOs of the largest transnational corporations, the World Economic Forum recast its vision of itself. Currently, its mission statement includes this text:
The World Economic Forum is the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation. The Forum engages the foremost political, business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas. ...
At the heart of our mission of improving the state of the world lies the belief in the power of human ingenuity, entrepreneurship, innovation and cooperation. We recognise the need for a forum fostering rigorous and respectful dialogue between and among leaders with different beliefs and viewpoints, where diversity of thought is respected and all voices can be heard. Achieving this mission is made possible by all our stakeholders, who come together to find common ground and seize opportunities for positive change.
The Forum’s commitment on facilitating progress on systemic challenges is taken forward through its 10 Centres, each applying the institution’s unique combination of impact methods to drive holistic efforts.The Centres build communities of purpose essential to addressing large-scale global challenges. Guided by these communities, our centre teams convert ambition into focused action, through structured multi-year initiatives and insight generation.
Together, we continue to strive for a better world, where cooperation and trust lead to lasting progress.
Taking a Closer Look at the WEF
In 2016, the Transnational Institute (TNI) took a closer look at the power structure behind the World Economic Forum. The TNI was once described by US author Naomi Klein as a “rich network of scholars, researchers and journalists”. Currently based in Amsterdam, the TNI was founded in the USA in 1974 “as the international programme of the Washington DC-based Institute for Policy Studies”. Yet, finding themselves increasingly unable to ‘speak truth to power’ they “concluded that systemic change can only happen through the power of social movements… For 50 years, TNI’s history has been entwined with the history of global social movements and their struggle for economic, social and environmental justice.” (https://www.tni.org/en/history)
The TNI’s analysis of the 24 board members of the World Economic Forum in 2016 noted:
The research showed that:
Only 6 of its 24 Board members are women (25%)
16 are from North America and Europe (67%). There is not one African Board member.
Half of the Board (12) are currently corporate executives. However if you look at their careers, 16 have a corporate background (67%)
22 of the 24 went to universities in US and Europe; 10 went to the same university (Harvard)
Only one member can be said to represent civil society (Peter Maurer of Red Cross). There are no representatives of trade unions, public sector organisations, human rights groups, peasant or indigenous organisations, students and youth.
A closer look at the backgrounds of some of the Board members also reveals a high prevalence of narrow ideological thinking and conflicts of interest. A number are leaders of corporations with a history of social and environmental abuses – all of which raises serious questions about the Board’s supposed mission to “promote true global citizenship”.
WEF likes to project itself as a concerned global actor, distressed by growing inequality and concerned to build a progressive globalisation. However when its own governing structures are dominated by the richest oligarchs and corporate executives obsessed with minimising regulations for corporate profits, it raises questions about whose interests they really serve.
Political scientist and TNI Board President Susan George has called these elites, the “Davos Class”, a “nomadic, powerful and interchangeable” class that “despite its members’ nice manners and well-tailored clothes, is predatory.” 3
(https://www.tni.org/en/publication/who-does-the-world-economic-forum-really-represent)
Now switching gears from the Corporate Class, to the United Nations.
Four Purposes of the UN
At its formation following WWII, the purpose of the United Nations was four-fold: to maintain international peace and security; to support relations among nations in order to strengthen global peace; to jointly tackle international problems “of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character”; and to be a central mechanism for “harmonizing the actions of nations”.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_I_of_the_United_Nations_Charter)
Since 1946, Canada has been represented at the United Nations by a succession of 25 representatives, or Ambassadors. All have been based at the Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations, which is in New York. Currently, that position is filled by former ON Premier Bob Rae. Rae is assisted in his role by Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative, Richard Arbeiter. For an overview of the work occurring in Canada’s Permanent Mission to the UN, see this page.
From MDGs to SDGs
In 2000, the United Nations had set itself the ambitious aim of eradicating global poverty by 2015.
The United Nations Millennium Development Goals (Source)
For a general overview see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Development_Goals Full fact sheets on each goal are found here: www.un.org/millenniumgoals/bkgd.shtml
In 2015, World Economic Forum writer Stéphanie Thomson wrote:
These eight goals, set by the United Nations back in 2000 to eradicate poverty, hunger, illiteracy and disease, expire at the end of this year.
The MDGs were concrete, specific and measurable, and therefore helped establish some priority areas of focus in international development. But that was also one of their biggest criticisms: by being so targeted, they had left out other, equally important, areas.
Despite the criticism, significant progress has been made over the past 15 years, especially when it comes to the goals of eradicating poverty and improving access to education. That progress, however, has been very uneven, with improvements often concentrated in specific regions and among certain social groups. A 2015 UN assessment of the MDGs found they fell short for many people: “The assessment of progress towards the MDGs has repeatedly shown that the poorest and those disadvantaged because of gender, age, disability or ethnicity are often bypassed.”
So it was decided to go from 8 to 17 Goals, ostensibly for the eradication of poverty. this new set of goals came to be known as Agenda 2030 or ‘2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development ‘. Each goal was further expressed using a number of indicators that would need to be monitoring. The World Bank was reportedly given oversight to the mentoring of roughly 20% of the total of 231 indicators. (LINK)
Some of the new goals added in 2016 were:
Goal 12: Responsible consumption and production
Goal 13: Climate action
Goal 14: Life below water
Goal 15: Life on land
Goal 16: Peace, justice and strong institutions
Goal 17: Partnerships for the goals
Goal 17 opened up the door to
Of note in this description currently posted (and not revised or “corrected” on Wikipedia is:
There are two main types of actors for implementation of the SDGs: state and non-state actors.[3] State actors include national governments and sub-national authorities, whereas non-state actors are corporations and civil society.[119]: 80 Civil society participation and empowerment is important but there are also diverse interests in this group.[119]: 80
Building new partnerships is useful.[119] However, the SDGs are not legally binding and purposefully designed to provide much leeway for actors. Therefore, they can interpret the goals differently and often according to their interests.[3] (LINK)
It appears that the original goal of eliminating poverty was hijacked by advocates of what some call “the Climate Agenda”. Calls for ‘net zero’ initiatives have led to the further impoverishment of people in ‘lesser developed nations’ - without reliable energy they cannot proceed to improving their standard of living.
In 2016, the office of the UN Secretary General appointed one individual to function as a designated advocate for each of the goals. Their backgrounds range from the arts (a K-Pop band, an actress and a film producer) to members of the academic, corporate and various aristocracies and also included a few human rights activists and one scientist.(LINK) These advocates were lead by a succession of two co-chairs. In April 2023, PM the Prime Ministers of Barbados and of Canada served as co-chairs. The task of PM Mia Amor Mottley and PM Justin Trudeau was to lead the SDG advocates through a review of progress to date. (LINK) At that time, the UN described Canada’s Prime Minister as “a strong advocate for climate action and nature protection, the empowerment of women and girls around the world, and ensuring an inclusive and resilient recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.”
The Corporate Lobby sees Opportunity within Youth Leadership Deelpment
The question of foreign corporate interference goes far beyond politics. In addition to its long list of influential Agenda Shapers, and Young Global Leaders, it has also identifies people as Global Shapers. Published in January 2025, the “Global Shapers Impact Report” reads:
From environmental protection to social justice, Global Shapers lead projects to tackle pressing challenges in their communities and the world. These initiatives are designed with the input of diverse stakeholders and have a clearly defined problem statement, collective action solution and measurable outcomes to ensure impactful results. (https://reports.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Shapers_Impact_Report_2025.pdf)
Working through a long list of ‘hubs’, including in Quebec City and Toronto, the WEF boasts having had participation from 11.6 million young people globally in 2023-24, a 10 fold increase from 2022-23. (p. 34 here). While there is no objection to the support of young people, the question arises as to what degree those funding leadership opportunities for young people shape the content they're learning in search of ever more business opportunities. One could contrast the WEF model with that of other youth leadership projects, that while relying on corporate sponsorship do not seem to be involved in the direction of the content. The Caribbean Canada Leader’s Dialogue comes to mind.
The Corporate Lobby sees Opportunities within UN Participation
Already in 2015, the World Economic Forum was taking a keen interest in developments over at the United Nations. Then, in 2019, barely THREE months after the official announcement of the WEF + UN partnership, the World Economic Forum was already able host their 2019 annual meeting during the UN General Assembly.
The Sustainable Development Impact Summit is the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting for integrating and leveraging the best examples of public-private cooperation, systems thinking and Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies to progress the Sustainable Development Agenda.
The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement provide the architecture for resolving the world’s challenges by fundamentally shifting the way society produces, consumes and operates. Realizing this opportunity requires the cooperation of multiple stakeholders, worldwide.
Taking place during the UN General Assembly, the summit engages the most relevant and influential leaders across business, government, civil society, NGOs and academia to collaborate and address the world’s most pressing problems, following four thematic tracks:
Transforming Markets: How to place human and environmental health at the core of market systems and value chains
Accelerating Climate Action: How to cap global warming at 1.5 degrees through innovative partnerships and smart technologies
Financing Sustainable Development: How to mobilize investment for the 2030 Agenda
Mobilizing Action for Inclusive Societies: How to bolster local entrepreneurship and innovation to make growth more equitable
(https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_SDI19_Meeting_Overview.pdf)
So what purportedly began in 2000 as a compassionate vision to eradicate global poverty, in less than two decades, clearly became a market and investment opportunity. Summit attendees were invited to make use of some of the products already made available to them by member corporations:
Download the TopLink app on your mobile device to view event information, receive live updates, connect with other participants, and access curated news and insights from leading sources.
Check out the Forum’s Strategic Intelligence platform, a new suite of innovative digital tools designed to help leaders make sense of complex global challenges and inform their organizational strategies. The platform includes a unique, interactive data visualization tool that lets users identify the connections among the forces that are shaping the world. Get expert insights on the go by downloading the new Strategic IQ app from the App Store or Google Play on your mobile device.
(https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_SDI19_Meeting_Overview.pdf)
Undefined Role of Non-State Actors at the WHO
In 2013, this article was published by the Royal Society for Public Health. The World Health Organization and Global Health Governance: post-1990.
… over the past decade, the organization has to some extent been bypassed for funding, and it lost some of its authority and its ability to set a global health agenda. The reasons for this decline are complex and multifaceted. Some of the main factors include WHO's inability to reform its core structure, the growing influence of non-governmental actors, a lack of coherence in the positions, priorities and funding decisions between the health ministries and the ministries overseeing development assistance in several donor member states, and the lack of strong leadership of the organization.
On May 28, 2016, at the 69th World Health Assembly of the World Health Organization (WHO), the Framework of Engagement with Non-State Actors (FENSA) was approved. It established different rules of collaboration to four categories of actors: nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), private sector entities, philanthropic foundations, and academic institutions. A critique of this framework was published in July 2017 in a Brazilian public health journal and referenced here. It outlined concerns around various “accountability mechanisms.”
In 2017, the comments of then Director of the World Health Organization, Canadian Dr. Margaret Chan, were included in the documentary entitled “Trust WHO”.
Dr. Chan was confirming what had already been written by the Global Policy Forum in 2015. Authors Barbara Adams and Jens Martens analyzed the funding sources for the United Nation’s core activities. Fit for whose purpose? Private funding and corporate influence in the United Nations
The organization of the United Nations, its main bodies and its Secretariat constitute the core of the UN system of global governance. The UN Secretariat carries out the day-to-day-work of the organization to further the global norms and standards of the UN Charter and other relevant conventions and treaties. Its work is currently organized under 28 programmes. These cover a wide range of topics, such as: the survey of economic and social trends and problems; research and technical assistance on trade and development; the mediation of international disputes and the administration of peacekeeping operations; international drug control, crime and terrorism prevention; the promotion and protection of human rights; and dialogues and conferences on sustainable development. (p. 16)
In contrast to the mounting global problems faced by the UN and its expanding responsibilities and mandates, public funding flowing to the organization’s programmes, funds and specialized agencies has failed to keep pace. The UN has remained notoriously underfunded and has had to tackle repeated financial crises.
The UN has faced financial pressures since its earliest years, as Member States have periodically withheld assessed payments because of policy disputes, and have reduced their regular budget payments through a targeted withholding of contributions.
In 2013, funding of all UN system-wide activities reached US$42.6 billion. This sum includes the budgets of the UN, its programmes, funds and specialized agencies (with the exception of the IMF and World Bank Group). Operational activities for development and humanitarian assistance accounted for about 63 per cent, peacekeeping operations for 18 per cent and norm setting, policy and advocacy activities for the remaining 19 per cent (see Figure 1).
While at first glance around US$40 billion per year may seem to be a substantial sum, in reality the overall budget of the whole UN system is smaller than the budget of New York City (US$68.5 bn in FY 2012– 2013), less than a quarter of the budget of the European Union (US$180 bn in 2013), and only 2.3 per cent of the world’s military expenditures (US$1,747 bn in 2013).
The structural underfunding of the UN system and its dependence on a limited number of donors has led the UN to search for new funding sources, particularly in the private and business sector. (p. 12 - 13)
This report indicates, for example that the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) is a funding source (p. 28), and that from 1990 until 2014the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation had contributed over $231 million. (p. 24 - 25)
The authors explain:
Through its shift towards partnerships with private foundations and transnational financial service providers UNCDF’s programme priorities have increasingly come to be shaped by these private actors. (p. 57 - 58)
In advance of the 2024 WHO Pandemic Treaty negotiations, concerned citizens were referencing the undefined role of 217 “non state actors” - asking whether representatives from these organizations were being granted preferential treatment - special access to and influence over the delegates who were to write the terms of the revised International Health Regulations and the new Pandemic Treaty.
(https://www.canadaexitwho.org/learn/breaking-barriers showing a list of non-state actors retrieved from this webpage: https://www.who.int/about/collaboration/non-state-actors)
Using CLIMATE to drive BUSINESS in HEALTH & SURVEILLANCE
The UN’s Paris Agreement, described below, has been founded on climate modelling that was heavily relied up on by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change. It was adopted by 196 Parties at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris, France, on 12 December 2015. It entered into force on 4 November 2016.
Its overarching goal is to hold “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” and pursue efforts “to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.” The Paris Agreement is a landmark in the multilateral climate change process because, for the first time, a binding agreement brings all nations together to combat climate change and adapt to its effects.However, in recent years, world leaders have stressed the need to limit global warming to 1.5°C by the end of this century.
That’s because the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that crossing the 1.5°C threshold risks unleashing far more severe climate change impacts, including more frequent and severe droughts, heatwaves and rainfall.
To limit global warming to 1.5°C, greenhouse gas emissions must peak before 2025 at the latest and decline 43% by 2030.
(https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement)
Globally, scientists who point at inconsistencies, errors and other flaws in the work of those who engage in what some call ‘climate alarmism’ have been censored out of mainstream public discourse. As such, few Canadians are aware of articles such as Models reconsidered: There is no climate emergency or videos like What If Everything You Thought About CO2 Was Wrong?
Members of the CLINTEL Network have attempted four times to inform the administration of the UN of the counter productive effects of the CO2 Climate ‘Agenda’.
When WEF Agenda Shapers Shape “Foresight” - Are New Market Opportunities for Cronies another Conflict of Interest?
The little known Disruptions on the Horizon document, produced in April 2024 by an even lesser known “branch” of the Federal Government, Policy Horizons Canada, should give Canadians pause. Policy Horizaons Canada is describe as a “centre of excellence in foresight. We empower the Government of Canada with a future-oriented mindset and outlook to strengthen decision making”. It is operating under the leadership of yet another World Economic Forum Agenda Contributor, Kristel Van der Elst.
Recent Policy Horizons’s publications include:
Interesting timing as more and more Canadians slip into poverty.
Completely under the radar in mainstream reporting. Fully considered “conspiracy theory material” by many.
In 2023, Canadian Policy Horizons wrote about Future lives: Basic needs at risk
It is difficult to know whether the recent spike in the cost of basic needs will be short-lived, or whether inflation and high prices will endure and worsen. Forces such as climate change and technological innovation may complicate recovery if Canada is in an economic downturn. Could Canada see a future in which many people cannot meet their basic physiological and safety needs?
Although this may seem unthinkable, in the coming years, a significant proportion of people in Canada may struggle to access basic necessities like: water, food, energy, shelter, financial security and employment.
These pressures do not happen in isolation. They may occur simultaneously, worsening the sense of insecurity over the life course. This could make people more vulnerable to extreme, populist, and anti-establishment leaders and groups. Alternatively, they may look for collective solutions, such as labour organization and other social movements.
This future is not guaranteed to transpire. For example, persistent labour shortages may drive wages up, technological advances could reduce the costs of some goods and services, and the assumption that most people’s basic needs are generally satisfied may well continue to hold. However, this future is plausible and the consequences could be dire if many people struggle to meet their basic needs. Overlooking such a scenario might be a risk in a number of policy areas.
The insecurity mentioned in a document published by an unaccountable government branch led by an Agenda Shaper of an unaccountable organization of the world’s most powerful group of corporations is being driven, in great part, by decisions made by a Cabinet led by Agenda Shapers and Board Trustee Members of said unaccountable powerful corporate organization. The solution of these corporate visionaries to the problem faced in 2000, that of the eradication of poverty, has lead to so many more investment opportunities while causing much more poverty.
climate alarmism driven by fake science which led to
drastic implementation of ‘net zero’ politics which led to
de-industrialization, especially in the case of Europe’s (former) industrial powerhouse Germany - which was a leading industrial nation, and now no longer is
17 million fatalities (conservative estimate) as a result of the fake science and clear corporate greed that led to the nearly the entire global population being injected with a bioweapon at the behest of the World Health Organization which had been overtaken by the World Economic Forum and its pharmaceutical Agenda Shapers.
massive fifth generation warfare operations around propaganda and surveillance ensuring that few followers of mainstream media are aware of what is going on around them
ONE HEALTH - A perfect Cover?
This World Health Organization initiative is rooted in the CO2 based theory of climate change. Reducing CO2 emissions is used as the rationale for eliminating animal agriculture and for drastically cutting back on the use of fossil fuels. The theory about pathogens with pandemic potential arising out of animal/human contact is a key driver of Canada’s Bill C-293 the “Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Bill”. This Private Member’s Bill, fronted by ON MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith was at the second reading stage in the Senate prior to the prorogation of Parliament in early January 2025. On October 23, 2024 CSNews provided a slide show and a Briefing Note drawing attention to the fact that all recent pandemics derived from bioweapons research activities. Naturally occurring pathogens (often harvested from the animal world) have repeatedly been artificially manipulated. Many critics point out that using ONE HEALTH as a justification for the control, surveillance, land use, agricultural restrictions referenced in Bill C-293 is not scientifically justifiable.
Lead advocate for this bill, MP Erskine-Smith made light of concerns held by Canadians. He downplayed the uncanny similarities between the WHO Pandemic Treaty and his bill. He did not address the potential for corporate capture of Canada’s Health Care system inherent in the lack of definitions of terms and other specifics in the Bill itself. ON journalist Chris George addresses many aspects of both Bill C-293 and its interconnection with not only the World Health Organization but also the World Economic Forum here.
More recently, Erskine-Smith blew off concerns held by Canadians around the potential for massive conflicts of interests should Mark Carney be chosen as Liberal Party Leader and by extension, as the next Prime Minister.
Canadians aware of the vast potential for corporate fuelled government overreach in the combination of the Online Harms Bill (C-63) AND the Pandemic Preparedness Bill (C-293) fully envision the following sequence of events.
a) Parliamentarians using prorogation time to determine which private members bills to advance first, and which House and Senate Bills to relaunch. Priority would be bills that enable additional powers in emergency situations (like Bill C-293) and bills that clamp down on freedom of speech (like Bill C-63).
b) Mark Carney positioned as party leader and Prime Minister
c) The World Health Organization declaring the current avian flu scare as the next pandemic of international concern - or using a wild fire or climate scenario to declare a climate emergency to obtain the same result - restrictions on citizen mobility.
d) Dr. Teresa Tam and the rest of PHAC once again rolling out the types of measures alluded to in Bill C-293 AND/OR steps being taking to reconfigure access to currency, opening the door to more bank accounts being frozen,
https://www.ipolitics.ca/news/endorsement-tracker-erskine-smith-anand-and-mackinnon-back-carney
To read more on citizen concerns re: Bill C-293 and the use of “One Health” see the references posted with the latest CSNews Press Release found here.