Bank of America backs SEC proposal for climate risk disclosures
By Elizabeth Dilts Marshall
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Bank of America on Friday threw its support behind the securities regulator's proposal requiring U.S.-listed companies to disclose their climate-related risks and greenhouse gas emissions.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) unveiled the draft rule last month, aiming to help investors better understand the "actual or likely material impacts" climate-related risks will have on a company's business, strategy and outlook.
"We think the proposal is constructive and headed in the right direction," said Paul Donofrio, head of sustainability at Bank of America, the country's second-biggest bank by assets.
Among the proposed rule's key requirements, companies must disclose their own direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions, known as Scope 1 and 2 emissions, as well as those generated by suppliers and partners, known as Scope 3 emissions.
"We are all in on this notion of companies providing the marketplace with disclosures that will help everybody understand what the emission status is at a company and what their plans are to get to net zero ... so that market participants can allocate capital (as they see fit)," Donofrio told reporters.
Donofrio, who spent six years as the bank's chief financial officer, cautioned that Scope 3 emissions are currently hard for the majority of companies to calculate accurately but said the bank supports phasing in those disclosures later.
"Scope three disclosures, today, might be subject to a lot of uncertainty, would not get the assurance, therefore not be trusted and it might call into a question other disclosures," Donofrio said.
He added that the bank supports a price on carbon, which could reflect "its true cost to society so that people will see the value of those investments".
(Reporting by Elizabeth Dilts Marshall; Additional reporting by Simon Jessop in London; Editing by David Goodman)
Saturday, April 09, 2022
CAPITALI$TS IN SPACE
SpaceX launches 3 visitors to space station for $55M each
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — SpaceX launched three rich businessmen and their astronaut escort to the International Space Station on Friday for more than a week’s stay, as NASA joins Russia in hosting guests at the world’s most expensive tourist destination.
It’s SpaceX’s first private charter flight to the orbiting lab after two years of carrying astronauts there for NASA.
Arriving at the space station Saturday will be an American, Canadian and Israeli who run investment, real estate and other companies. They’re paying $55 million apiece for the rocket ride and accommodations, all meals included.
Russia has been hosting tourists at the space station — and before that the Mir station — for decades. Just last fall, a Russian movie crew flew up, followed by a Japanese fashion tycoon and his assistant.
NASA is finally getting into the act, after years of opposing space station visitors.
“It was a hell of a ride and we’re looking forward to the next 10 days,” said former NASA astronaut and chaperone Michael Lopez-Alegria on reaching orbit.
The visitors' tickets include access to all but the Russian portion of the space station — they’ll need permission from the three cosmonauts on board. Three Americans and a German also live up there.
Lopez-Alegria plans to avoid talking about politics and the war in Ukraine while he’s at the space station.
“I honestly think that it won’t be awkward. I mean maybe a tiny bit,” he said. He expects the “spirit of collaboration will shine through.”
The private Axiom Space company arranged the visit with NASA for its three paying customers: Larry Connor of Dayton, Ohio, who runs the Connor Group; Mark Pathy, founder and CEO of Montreal’s Mavrik Corp.; and Israel’s Eytan Stibbe, a former fighter pilot and founding partner of Vital Capital.
Before the launch, their enthusiasm was obvious: Stibbe did a little dance when he arrived at the rocket at Kennedy Space Center.
SpaceX and NASA have been upfront with them about the risks of spaceflight, said Lopez-Alegria, who spent seven months at the space station 15 years ago.
“There’s no fuzz, I think, on what the dangers are or what the bad days could look like,” Lopez-Alegria told The Associated Press before the flight.
Each visitor has a full slate of experiments to conduct during their stay, one reason they don’t like to be called space tourists.
“They’re not up there to paste their nose on the window,” said Axiom’s co-founder and president, Michael Suffredini, a former NASA space station program manager.
The three businessmen are the latest to take advantage of the opening of space to those with deep pockets. Jeff Bezos’ rocket company Blue Origin is taking customers on 10-minute rides to the edge of space, while Virgin Galactic expects to start flying customers on its rocket ship later this year.
Friday‘s flight is the second private charter for Elon Musk’s SpaceX, which took a billionaire and his guests on a three-day orbit ride last year.
Axiom is targeting next year for its second private flight to the space station. More customer trips will follow, with Axiom adding its own rooms to the orbiting complex beginning in 2024. After about five years, the company plans to detach its compartments to form a self-sustaining station — one of several commercial outposts intended to replace the space station once it's retired and NASA shifts to the moon.
At an adjacent pad during Friday’s launch: NASA’s new moon rocket, which is awaiting completion of a dress rehearsal for a summertime test flight.
As a gift for their seven station hosts, the four visitors are taking up paella and other Spanish cuisine prepared by celebrity chef José Andrés. The rest of their time at the station, NASA’s freeze-dried chow will have to do.
The automated SpaceX capsule is due back with the four on April 19.
Connor is honoring Ohio’s air and space legacy, taking up a fabric swatch from the Wright brothers’ 1903 Kitty Hawk flyer and gold foil from the Apollo 11 command module from the Neil Armstrong Air and Space Museum in Wapakoneta.
Only the second Israeli in space, Stibbe will continue a thunderstorm experiment begun by the first — Ilan Ramon, who died aboard shuttle Columbia in 2003. They were in the same fighter pilot squadron.
Stibbe is carrying copies of recovered pages of Ramon’s space diary, as well as a song composed by Ramon’s musician son and a painting of pages falling from the sky by his daughter.
“To be a part of this unique crew is a proof for me that there’s no dream beyond reach,” he said.
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Marcia Dunn , The Associated Press
SpaceX launches 3 visitors to space station for $55M each
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — SpaceX launched three rich businessmen and their astronaut escort to the International Space Station on Friday for more than a week’s stay, as NASA joins Russia in hosting guests at the world’s most expensive tourist destination.
It’s SpaceX’s first private charter flight to the orbiting lab after two years of carrying astronauts there for NASA.
Arriving at the space station Saturday will be an American, Canadian and Israeli who run investment, real estate and other companies. They’re paying $55 million apiece for the rocket ride and accommodations, all meals included.
Russia has been hosting tourists at the space station — and before that the Mir station — for decades. Just last fall, a Russian movie crew flew up, followed by a Japanese fashion tycoon and his assistant.
NASA is finally getting into the act, after years of opposing space station visitors.
“It was a hell of a ride and we’re looking forward to the next 10 days,” said former NASA astronaut and chaperone Michael Lopez-Alegria on reaching orbit.
The visitors' tickets include access to all but the Russian portion of the space station — they’ll need permission from the three cosmonauts on board. Three Americans and a German also live up there.
Lopez-Alegria plans to avoid talking about politics and the war in Ukraine while he’s at the space station.
“I honestly think that it won’t be awkward. I mean maybe a tiny bit,” he said. He expects the “spirit of collaboration will shine through.”
The private Axiom Space company arranged the visit with NASA for its three paying customers: Larry Connor of Dayton, Ohio, who runs the Connor Group; Mark Pathy, founder and CEO of Montreal’s Mavrik Corp.; and Israel’s Eytan Stibbe, a former fighter pilot and founding partner of Vital Capital.
Before the launch, their enthusiasm was obvious: Stibbe did a little dance when he arrived at the rocket at Kennedy Space Center.
SpaceX and NASA have been upfront with them about the risks of spaceflight, said Lopez-Alegria, who spent seven months at the space station 15 years ago.
“There’s no fuzz, I think, on what the dangers are or what the bad days could look like,” Lopez-Alegria told The Associated Press before the flight.
Each visitor has a full slate of experiments to conduct during their stay, one reason they don’t like to be called space tourists.
“They’re not up there to paste their nose on the window,” said Axiom’s co-founder and president, Michael Suffredini, a former NASA space station program manager.
The three businessmen are the latest to take advantage of the opening of space to those with deep pockets. Jeff Bezos’ rocket company Blue Origin is taking customers on 10-minute rides to the edge of space, while Virgin Galactic expects to start flying customers on its rocket ship later this year.
Friday‘s flight is the second private charter for Elon Musk’s SpaceX, which took a billionaire and his guests on a three-day orbit ride last year.
Axiom is targeting next year for its second private flight to the space station. More customer trips will follow, with Axiom adding its own rooms to the orbiting complex beginning in 2024. After about five years, the company plans to detach its compartments to form a self-sustaining station — one of several commercial outposts intended to replace the space station once it's retired and NASA shifts to the moon.
At an adjacent pad during Friday’s launch: NASA’s new moon rocket, which is awaiting completion of a dress rehearsal for a summertime test flight.
As a gift for their seven station hosts, the four visitors are taking up paella and other Spanish cuisine prepared by celebrity chef José Andrés. The rest of their time at the station, NASA’s freeze-dried chow will have to do.
The automated SpaceX capsule is due back with the four on April 19.
Connor is honoring Ohio’s air and space legacy, taking up a fabric swatch from the Wright brothers’ 1903 Kitty Hawk flyer and gold foil from the Apollo 11 command module from the Neil Armstrong Air and Space Museum in Wapakoneta.
Only the second Israeli in space, Stibbe will continue a thunderstorm experiment begun by the first — Ilan Ramon, who died aboard shuttle Columbia in 2003. They were in the same fighter pilot squadron.
Stibbe is carrying copies of recovered pages of Ramon’s space diary, as well as a song composed by Ramon’s musician son and a painting of pages falling from the sky by his daughter.
“To be a part of this unique crew is a proof for me that there’s no dream beyond reach,” he said.
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Marcia Dunn , The Associated Press
Chelsea FC director with Canadian ties says acquisition of Abramovich-linked investment vehicle 'annulled'
Barbara Shecter - Yesterday
Director of Chelsea FC Eugene Tenenbaum stands alongside owner Roman Abramovich.
An accountant from Toronto with longstanding ties to Roman Abramovich , one of the wealthy Russian businessmen sanctioned by western nations following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February, told the Financial Post this week that a deal to buy an investment vehicle linked to Abramovich was never completed “due to the current situation.”
Eugene Tenenbaum, who grew up in Toronto and met Abramovich after moving to Moscow in the early 1990s as national director of KPMG Peat Marwick Russia, had recently agreed to purchase a company called Ervington Investments Ltd. from a trust called Norma Investments.
The transaction was first reported by Reuters and was referenced in London Stock Exchange filings, which indicated the transfer of control took place on Feb. 24, the same day that Russia invaded Ukraine.
Last month, The Wall Street Journal reported control of Norma Investments had been transferred to another Abramovich associate named David Davidovich around the time of the Ukraine invasion.
Abramovich’s family was previously the beneficial owner of Norma, Tenenbaum told the Financial Post, but at the time he sought to buy Ervington from Norma, it was controlled by Davidovich.
However, Tenenbaum says his transaction was annulled.
“Regarding Ervington, my company is no longer the shareholder as the transaction was never fully completed and annulled due to the current situation,” Tenenbaum said via email, adding that the transaction “was reversed by mutual agreement between the buyer and the seller.”
Asked to clarify whether he meant the situation surrounding Abramovich and sanctions imposed by the European Union, Canada, and the United Kingdom, which caused him to put his London-based Chelsea FC football club on the block, Tenenbaum responded: “Correct.”
Tenenbaum said the seller he referred to in his annulled transaction had been Davidovich and not Abramovich’s family.
“My transaction was with Norma. Not the family. When I started the transaction Davidovich was already the owner of Norma through his company,” Tenenbaum said.
He referred to Abramovich by the initials RA, and said: “RA or the family of RA have no involvement in this transaction and are not the beneficial owner of Ervington.”
According to Reuters, which first reported the Ervington sale last month, the company had been used as an investment vehicle for Abramovich for at least eight years. Among its investments was a ride-sharing app called Via.
Tenenbaum told Reuters that he was keen to buy Ervington because it is a company he had worked with for many years and wanted to continue to do so.
Asked what had changed since last month, he told the Financial Post: “I think my statement ‘due to the current situation’ sums it all up.”
Tenenbaum added that neither he nor Davidovich is subject to any sanctions.
Both have long been associated with Abramovich. Tenenbaum is on the board of Chelsea FC, a football club in the U.K.’s Premier League, which is owned by Abramovich. The team is now on the block as a result of U.K. sanctions that were imposed on Abramovich in March following Russia’s invasion. Abramovich has also been sanctioned by Canada and the European Union.
He has not faced sanctions in the United States and has been widely reported to be assisting with negotiations between Russia and Ukraine aimed at resolving the armed conflict. The western sanctions aimed at those with links to Russian President Vladimir Putin or his regime have sparked widespread interest in assets owned by those targeted.
Abramovich is understood to have made much of his fortune selling his energy company Sibneft to Russian state-owned energy giant Gazprom in 2006 for US$13.1 billion.
He is also the largest shareholder of London-listed steel company Evraz PLC, with a 28.64 per cent stake. Evraz directors, including Tenenbaum, stepped down in March following the U.K. sanctions, and shares of the company — which has operations in Russia and North America, including Alberta and Saskatchewan — were suspended from trading.
Tenenbaum, whose family immigrated to Canada in the 1970s from Ukraine, which was then part of the Soviet Union, worked for Sibneft as head of corporate finance beginning in 1998.
The website for Chelsea FC describes him as one of Abramovich’s “closest associates.”
• Email: bshecter@nationalpost.com | Twitter: BatPost
Barbara Shecter - Yesterday
Director of Chelsea FC Eugene Tenenbaum stands alongside owner Roman Abramovich.
An accountant from Toronto with longstanding ties to Roman Abramovich , one of the wealthy Russian businessmen sanctioned by western nations following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February, told the Financial Post this week that a deal to buy an investment vehicle linked to Abramovich was never completed “due to the current situation.”
Eugene Tenenbaum, who grew up in Toronto and met Abramovich after moving to Moscow in the early 1990s as national director of KPMG Peat Marwick Russia, had recently agreed to purchase a company called Ervington Investments Ltd. from a trust called Norma Investments.
The transaction was first reported by Reuters and was referenced in London Stock Exchange filings, which indicated the transfer of control took place on Feb. 24, the same day that Russia invaded Ukraine.
Last month, The Wall Street Journal reported control of Norma Investments had been transferred to another Abramovich associate named David Davidovich around the time of the Ukraine invasion.
Abramovich’s family was previously the beneficial owner of Norma, Tenenbaum told the Financial Post, but at the time he sought to buy Ervington from Norma, it was controlled by Davidovich.
However, Tenenbaum says his transaction was annulled.
“Regarding Ervington, my company is no longer the shareholder as the transaction was never fully completed and annulled due to the current situation,” Tenenbaum said via email, adding that the transaction “was reversed by mutual agreement between the buyer and the seller.”
Asked to clarify whether he meant the situation surrounding Abramovich and sanctions imposed by the European Union, Canada, and the United Kingdom, which caused him to put his London-based Chelsea FC football club on the block, Tenenbaum responded: “Correct.”
Tenenbaum said the seller he referred to in his annulled transaction had been Davidovich and not Abramovich’s family.
“My transaction was with Norma. Not the family. When I started the transaction Davidovich was already the owner of Norma through his company,” Tenenbaum said.
He referred to Abramovich by the initials RA, and said: “RA or the family of RA have no involvement in this transaction and are not the beneficial owner of Ervington.”
According to Reuters, which first reported the Ervington sale last month, the company had been used as an investment vehicle for Abramovich for at least eight years. Among its investments was a ride-sharing app called Via.
Tenenbaum told Reuters that he was keen to buy Ervington because it is a company he had worked with for many years and wanted to continue to do so.
Asked what had changed since last month, he told the Financial Post: “I think my statement ‘due to the current situation’ sums it all up.”
Tenenbaum added that neither he nor Davidovich is subject to any sanctions.
Both have long been associated with Abramovich. Tenenbaum is on the board of Chelsea FC, a football club in the U.K.’s Premier League, which is owned by Abramovich. The team is now on the block as a result of U.K. sanctions that were imposed on Abramovich in March following Russia’s invasion. Abramovich has also been sanctioned by Canada and the European Union.
He has not faced sanctions in the United States and has been widely reported to be assisting with negotiations between Russia and Ukraine aimed at resolving the armed conflict. The western sanctions aimed at those with links to Russian President Vladimir Putin or his regime have sparked widespread interest in assets owned by those targeted.
Abramovich is understood to have made much of his fortune selling his energy company Sibneft to Russian state-owned energy giant Gazprom in 2006 for US$13.1 billion.
He is also the largest shareholder of London-listed steel company Evraz PLC, with a 28.64 per cent stake. Evraz directors, including Tenenbaum, stepped down in March following the U.K. sanctions, and shares of the company — which has operations in Russia and North America, including Alberta and Saskatchewan — were suspended from trading.
Tenenbaum, whose family immigrated to Canada in the 1970s from Ukraine, which was then part of the Soviet Union, worked for Sibneft as head of corporate finance beginning in 1998.
The website for Chelsea FC describes him as one of Abramovich’s “closest associates.”
• Email: bshecter@nationalpost.com | Twitter: BatPost
Britain talks tough on Putin, while its politicians also get millions in Kremlin-linked cash
Alexander Smith - NBC News
LONDON — It was a strongly worded warning from British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to Russian President Vladimir Putin: Invade Ukraine and there will be “significant consequences.”
Three days after that phone call last Dec. 13, Johnson’s Conservative Party received a donation of 66,500 pounds (nearly $88,000) from Lubov Chernukhin, the wife of one of Putin’s former deputy ministers.
In all, Chernukhin has donated more than 2 million pounds to the Conservative Party since 2012, making her one of the largest female donors in British political history, public records from the British Electoral Commission show.
Chernukhin says that she is a vehement critic of Putin and his war, and that none of her donations have been funded by corruption or improper means. Neither she nor her husband are among those who have been sanctioned by the the British government or others, and there is no suggestion either are guilty of any wrongdoing.
Her lawyers said in an email to NBC News that she disputed having historical links to the Kremlin because her husband, Vladimir, fled Russia in 2004 after being fired by the government and suffering harassment. (Vladimir Chernukhin used to chair Russia’s state development bank VEB, whose assets Britain froze after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.)
But she is far from alone. Lubov Chernukhin is just one of several Russia-linked millionaires and billionaires to donate large sums to the ruling Conservative Party.
For some experts and critics, this type of bankrolling exposes a contradiction at the heart of Britain’s response to the invasion: How can Johnson’s government claim to be one of Putin's strongest opponents, when London — and the ruling party itself — is awash with Russian cash?
One of the most prominent critics of the funding status quo is Dominic Grieve, a former U.K. Attorney General and ex-Conservative lawmaker who in recent years has rebelled against Johnson’s administration.
“The Conservative Party says these are allowable donations — and they may be — but you do have to ask yourself what the motivation is for this and what the intention is behind it,” he said.
“A lot of Russians with very close links to Putin” are now “well integrated into the U.K. business and social scene, and accepted because of their wealth,” according to a report by the British Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee in 2020, based on the committee‘s inquiry that Grieve headed up a year earlier.
Grieve said there is no doubt in his mind that this constitutes a risk to national security.
'Curried favor and garnered influence'?
This is a story that starts amid the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, when a few canny, ruthless Russians got rich from the often shady carve-up of lucrative state resources.
Fearing their fortunes might be lost in a fragile economy and shaky rule of law, many decided their money was safer in the financial hub of London. Successive British governments (not just Conservative ones) did little to discourage them.
Over the next 30 years, London became so riddled with Russian capital that it earned nicknames like “Londongrad,” “Moscow-on-Thames” or simply “the laundromat.”
These Russian "oligarchs" plowed their money into mansions in London's leafy Hampstead and stucco Georgian town houses in Belgravia; into luxury goods from the Harrods department store; and into expensive educations for their children at prestigious schools.
According to Transparency International, a Berlin-based watchdog, people with links to the Kremlin or corrupt activities in Russia have purchased at least 1.5 billion pounds (close to $2 billion) of real estate in Britain. That number is "certainly just the tip of the iceberg," the organization said in a report in February.
Soon this money "started buying what you might call influence," Tom Keatinge, an expert in financial crime at the Royal United Services Institute think tank, said. That meant "donating to galleries or to academic institutions," but also "making donations to political parties, typically the Conservative Party, where it may or may not have curried favor and garnered influence."
© Toby MelvilleImage: Police officers seal off the road on which Russian Sergei Skripal and his daughter have been staying in Salisbury, Britain, on March 7, 2018. (Toby Melville / Reuters file)
Accepting this flow of wealth into London was not only a risk in terms of money laundering but also national security, said Grieve, a longtime critic of Johnson’s.
That's because many, but not all, Russian oligarchs are "intimately bound up with what can only be described as a mafia society — headed by the chief boss of the mafiosi, Mr. Putin," he said.
For decades “the U.K. has been welcoming dirty Russian money with open arms,” agreed Bill Browder, an American-born hedge-fund manager based in London who is now a leading anti-Putin campaigner on corruption and human rights.
Although the Ukraine invasion “was a day of reckoning when everybody realized” that accepting Russian money “was enabling the murder of tens of thousands of people,” Browder is still skeptical that significant progress will be made in Britain or elsewhere.
“In my experience there is always a disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality,” he said.
Perhaps the most ostentatious investment was the purchase by Roman Abramovich of the capital’s biggest soccer clubs, Chelsea FC, founded in 1905. While he has always denied allegations he is linked to Putin, Abramovich, whose fortune amounts to an estimated $12.3 billion, according to Reuters, was sanctioned by Britain and the European Union last month.
The U.K. government sanctioned him last month alongside six others who it described as "Russia’s wealthiest and most influential oligarchs, whose business empires, wealth and connections are closely associated with the Kremlin."
© Ian MacNicolIan MacNicol Archive (Ian MacNicol / Getty Images file)
The political sphere has been a similar free-for-all. Unlike in the U.S. there is no limit to how much a British registered voter can donate to a political party. And until recently wealthy Russians have been able to fast-track British residency permits if they invest at least 2 million pounds in the country.
Johnson denies there is anything wrong with these donations, telling Parliament in February that “we do not raise money from Russian oligarchs. We raise money from people who are registered to vote on the U.K. register of interests.”
The Conservative Party did not respond to NBC News' emailed request for comment on the questions surrounding its Russia-linked funding. The opposition Labour Party has also received Russia-linked donations, albeit to a much lesser extent. There is no suggestion of wrongdoing by any of these donors, many of whom have complex relationships and histories with their homeland and Putin.
Among the highest-profile donors is Lubov Chernukhin, who has paid several six-figure sums at auction to play tennis with Johnson and then-Prime Minister David Cameron, as well as to dine privately with Theresa May when she was prime minister.
Her husband said in 2018 court documents that his time at Russia's state development bank from 2002 to 2004 "elevated me to the inner circles of the Russian establishment." He described Abramovich and Oleg Deripaska, another billionaire oligarch and alleged Putin ally, as being "like friends" in the witness statement, although the court battle was against Deripaska himself.
In an email to NBC News, Lubov Chernukhin's lawyers said that she "has never held any political position in Russia or elsewhere" and "she has no links to President Putin or the Kremlin."
On the day of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, she released a statement condemning "Russian military aggression," "Putin's despotic regime" and his "Stalinesque persecution of the Russian people." Chernukhin said she supported the "strongest possible sanctions against Putin's regime and its enablers."
Her lawyers said she married her husband in 2007, three years after he was “driven out” of Russia after falling out of favor with the Kremlin. She has donated millions of pounds of her own money to the Conservative Party because she "is passionate about democracy," her lawyers said.
Evgeny Lebedev at the 65th Evening Standard Theatre Awards at the London Coliseum on Nov. 24, 2019. (Mike Marsland / WireImage)
The Conservative Party is also under scrutiny because of Johnson’s decision last year to award a peerage to his friend Evgeny Lebedev, a media mogul who owns the London Evening Standard and Independent newspapers and whose father was a KGB spy. The prime minister’s estranged ex-adviser, Dominic Cummings, says that he was “in the room” when British officials told Johnson that intelligence agencies had “serious reservations” about the peerage — reservations he said the prime minister ignored.
Johnson says this recollection is “simply incorrect.” And Lebedev said in an emailed response to NBC News that "the PM and other members of the Cabinet have categorically denied this."
Lebedev, who is a dual British-Russian national, also wrote in his newspaper that “I am not some agent of Russia” but “proud to be a British citizen and consider Britain my home.” He has repeatedly called for Putin to end his invasion in Ukraine.
'Nowhere to hide'
The invasion has certainly been a wake-up call for the West. Germany, for example, is having its own reckoning over its reliance on Russian gas.
In Britain, the government points out that it has never shied away from condemning Putin, who Johnson this week accused of war crimes and "indiscriminate and unforgivable slaughter" of civilians in the Ukrainian town of Bucha.
The NLAW anti-tank missiles Britain donated to Ukraine have gained a near cult-status on the battlefield and helped push back the Russian advance. And the U.K. has joined Washington and Brussels in sanctioning hundreds more Russian banks, companies and oligarchs.
“There will be nowhere to hide," Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said Feb. 28 of the oligarch purge.
But for some critics this is too little, too late.
Browder and others ask why the West was jolted into action by the Ukraine invasion, but not Putin's bombing of civilians from Grozny to Aleppo; by Russian spies targeting people with radioactive poisons and nerve agents on British soil; by the Kremlin’s crackdown on political opposition at home; and by its election meddling in the U.S. and elsewhere.
"Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a failure of deterrence by Western democracies," Grieve, the former U.K. attorney general, said. “The interesting question is: Did we convey an impression that Putin could act with impunity in Ukraine because people in Britain and elsewhere were far too interested in Russian money to do something about it?”
Alexander Smith - NBC News
LONDON — It was a strongly worded warning from British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to Russian President Vladimir Putin: Invade Ukraine and there will be “significant consequences.”
Three days after that phone call last Dec. 13, Johnson’s Conservative Party received a donation of 66,500 pounds (nearly $88,000) from Lubov Chernukhin, the wife of one of Putin’s former deputy ministers.
In all, Chernukhin has donated more than 2 million pounds to the Conservative Party since 2012, making her one of the largest female donors in British political history, public records from the British Electoral Commission show.
Chernukhin says that she is a vehement critic of Putin and his war, and that none of her donations have been funded by corruption or improper means. Neither she nor her husband are among those who have been sanctioned by the the British government or others, and there is no suggestion either are guilty of any wrongdoing.
Her lawyers said in an email to NBC News that she disputed having historical links to the Kremlin because her husband, Vladimir, fled Russia in 2004 after being fired by the government and suffering harassment. (Vladimir Chernukhin used to chair Russia’s state development bank VEB, whose assets Britain froze after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.)
But she is far from alone. Lubov Chernukhin is just one of several Russia-linked millionaires and billionaires to donate large sums to the ruling Conservative Party.
For some experts and critics, this type of bankrolling exposes a contradiction at the heart of Britain’s response to the invasion: How can Johnson’s government claim to be one of Putin's strongest opponents, when London — and the ruling party itself — is awash with Russian cash?
One of the most prominent critics of the funding status quo is Dominic Grieve, a former U.K. Attorney General and ex-Conservative lawmaker who in recent years has rebelled against Johnson’s administration.
“The Conservative Party says these are allowable donations — and they may be — but you do have to ask yourself what the motivation is for this and what the intention is behind it,” he said.
“A lot of Russians with very close links to Putin” are now “well integrated into the U.K. business and social scene, and accepted because of their wealth,” according to a report by the British Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee in 2020, based on the committee‘s inquiry that Grieve headed up a year earlier.
Grieve said there is no doubt in his mind that this constitutes a risk to national security.
'Curried favor and garnered influence'?
This is a story that starts amid the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, when a few canny, ruthless Russians got rich from the often shady carve-up of lucrative state resources.
Fearing their fortunes might be lost in a fragile economy and shaky rule of law, many decided their money was safer in the financial hub of London. Successive British governments (not just Conservative ones) did little to discourage them.
Over the next 30 years, London became so riddled with Russian capital that it earned nicknames like “Londongrad,” “Moscow-on-Thames” or simply “the laundromat.”
These Russian "oligarchs" plowed their money into mansions in London's leafy Hampstead and stucco Georgian town houses in Belgravia; into luxury goods from the Harrods department store; and into expensive educations for their children at prestigious schools.
According to Transparency International, a Berlin-based watchdog, people with links to the Kremlin or corrupt activities in Russia have purchased at least 1.5 billion pounds (close to $2 billion) of real estate in Britain. That number is "certainly just the tip of the iceberg," the organization said in a report in February.
Soon this money "started buying what you might call influence," Tom Keatinge, an expert in financial crime at the Royal United Services Institute think tank, said. That meant "donating to galleries or to academic institutions," but also "making donations to political parties, typically the Conservative Party, where it may or may not have curried favor and garnered influence."
© Toby MelvilleImage: Police officers seal off the road on which Russian Sergei Skripal and his daughter have been staying in Salisbury, Britain, on March 7, 2018. (Toby Melville / Reuters file)
Accepting this flow of wealth into London was not only a risk in terms of money laundering but also national security, said Grieve, a longtime critic of Johnson’s.
That's because many, but not all, Russian oligarchs are "intimately bound up with what can only be described as a mafia society — headed by the chief boss of the mafiosi, Mr. Putin," he said.
For decades “the U.K. has been welcoming dirty Russian money with open arms,” agreed Bill Browder, an American-born hedge-fund manager based in London who is now a leading anti-Putin campaigner on corruption and human rights.
Although the Ukraine invasion “was a day of reckoning when everybody realized” that accepting Russian money “was enabling the murder of tens of thousands of people,” Browder is still skeptical that significant progress will be made in Britain or elsewhere.
“In my experience there is always a disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality,” he said.
Perhaps the most ostentatious investment was the purchase by Roman Abramovich of the capital’s biggest soccer clubs, Chelsea FC, founded in 1905. While he has always denied allegations he is linked to Putin, Abramovich, whose fortune amounts to an estimated $12.3 billion, according to Reuters, was sanctioned by Britain and the European Union last month.
The U.K. government sanctioned him last month alongside six others who it described as "Russia’s wealthiest and most influential oligarchs, whose business empires, wealth and connections are closely associated with the Kremlin."
© Ian MacNicolIan MacNicol Archive (Ian MacNicol / Getty Images file)
The political sphere has been a similar free-for-all. Unlike in the U.S. there is no limit to how much a British registered voter can donate to a political party. And until recently wealthy Russians have been able to fast-track British residency permits if they invest at least 2 million pounds in the country.
Johnson denies there is anything wrong with these donations, telling Parliament in February that “we do not raise money from Russian oligarchs. We raise money from people who are registered to vote on the U.K. register of interests.”
The Conservative Party did not respond to NBC News' emailed request for comment on the questions surrounding its Russia-linked funding. The opposition Labour Party has also received Russia-linked donations, albeit to a much lesser extent. There is no suggestion of wrongdoing by any of these donors, many of whom have complex relationships and histories with their homeland and Putin.
Among the highest-profile donors is Lubov Chernukhin, who has paid several six-figure sums at auction to play tennis with Johnson and then-Prime Minister David Cameron, as well as to dine privately with Theresa May when she was prime minister.
Her husband said in 2018 court documents that his time at Russia's state development bank from 2002 to 2004 "elevated me to the inner circles of the Russian establishment." He described Abramovich and Oleg Deripaska, another billionaire oligarch and alleged Putin ally, as being "like friends" in the witness statement, although the court battle was against Deripaska himself.
In an email to NBC News, Lubov Chernukhin's lawyers said that she "has never held any political position in Russia or elsewhere" and "she has no links to President Putin or the Kremlin."
On the day of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, she released a statement condemning "Russian military aggression," "Putin's despotic regime" and his "Stalinesque persecution of the Russian people." Chernukhin said she supported the "strongest possible sanctions against Putin's regime and its enablers."
Her lawyers said she married her husband in 2007, three years after he was “driven out” of Russia after falling out of favor with the Kremlin. She has donated millions of pounds of her own money to the Conservative Party because she "is passionate about democracy," her lawyers said.
Evgeny Lebedev at the 65th Evening Standard Theatre Awards at the London Coliseum on Nov. 24, 2019. (Mike Marsland / WireImage)
The Conservative Party is also under scrutiny because of Johnson’s decision last year to award a peerage to his friend Evgeny Lebedev, a media mogul who owns the London Evening Standard and Independent newspapers and whose father was a KGB spy. The prime minister’s estranged ex-adviser, Dominic Cummings, says that he was “in the room” when British officials told Johnson that intelligence agencies had “serious reservations” about the peerage — reservations he said the prime minister ignored.
Johnson says this recollection is “simply incorrect.” And Lebedev said in an emailed response to NBC News that "the PM and other members of the Cabinet have categorically denied this."
Lebedev, who is a dual British-Russian national, also wrote in his newspaper that “I am not some agent of Russia” but “proud to be a British citizen and consider Britain my home.” He has repeatedly called for Putin to end his invasion in Ukraine.
'Nowhere to hide'
The invasion has certainly been a wake-up call for the West. Germany, for example, is having its own reckoning over its reliance on Russian gas.
In Britain, the government points out that it has never shied away from condemning Putin, who Johnson this week accused of war crimes and "indiscriminate and unforgivable slaughter" of civilians in the Ukrainian town of Bucha.
The NLAW anti-tank missiles Britain donated to Ukraine have gained a near cult-status on the battlefield and helped push back the Russian advance. And the U.K. has joined Washington and Brussels in sanctioning hundreds more Russian banks, companies and oligarchs.
“There will be nowhere to hide," Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said Feb. 28 of the oligarch purge.
But for some critics this is too little, too late.
Browder and others ask why the West was jolted into action by the Ukraine invasion, but not Putin's bombing of civilians from Grozny to Aleppo; by Russian spies targeting people with radioactive poisons and nerve agents on British soil; by the Kremlin’s crackdown on political opposition at home; and by its election meddling in the U.S. and elsewhere.
"Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a failure of deterrence by Western democracies," Grieve, the former U.K. attorney general, said. “The interesting question is: Did we convey an impression that Putin could act with impunity in Ukraine because people in Britain and elsewhere were far too interested in Russian money to do something about it?”
IDB chief, facing possible probe, says allegations against him being 'weaponized'
By Cassandra Garrison
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - The head of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), Mauricio Claver-Carone, on Friday said he was the target of an "anonymous political media campaign" after Reuters reported the bank's directors were looking into an accusation that he had an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate.
IDB directors met this week to discuss hiring an outside firm to investigate allegations that Claver-Carone had carried out an intimate relationship with a staffer, Reuters reported exclusively.
The news agency was unable to confirm the claims about the alleged relationship, which, if verified, would appear to be against the bank's rules. Claver-Carone has not responded to repeated requests for comment.
At an event on Friday, which was streamed online, Claver-Carone criticized an "anonymous political media campaign" against him and said he had evidence of the truth and hoped to have the opportunity to defend himself. He did not directly address the specific allegations, which were made in an anonymous letter.
"Trust me, I would love to present to all of you today the direct evidence which I have - not circumstantial, not hearsay, not anonymous - but direct evidence of truth," Claver-Carone said in opening remarks at an IDB event.
"I do hope I am given the opportunity to officially present my case and information," he added, saying he would respect the confidentiality of the ongoing process.
He alleged that some people at the bank were "weaponizing an anonymous letter to orchestrate a media campaign," without giving evidence.
The IDB declined to comment on Claver-Carone's remarks.
The bank's directors met again on Thursday and drafted a resolution to hire an external firm to investigate the allegations which must be approved by the board of governors, a bank source said. The directors decided not to propose removing Claver-Carone from his duties, the bank source added.
The Washington-based IDB is a development bank that, while far smaller than the International Monetary Fund or World Bank, is a key player in Latin America.
(Reporting by Cassandra Garrison; Editing by Alistair Bell)
CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M
Ex-Goldman banker convicted of bribery, money laundering conspiracy charges in 1MDB caseBy Luc Cohen and Jody Godoy
NEW YORK(Reuters) -Former Goldman Sachs banker Roger Ng was convicted by a U.S. jury on Friday of corruption charges related to his role in helping loot hundreds of millions of dollars from Malaysia's 1MDB development fund.
Ex-Goldman Sachs banker Roger Ng exits the United States Courthouse after being found guilty in Brooklyn, New York
The charges stemmed from one of the biggest financial scandals in history. Prosecutors charged Ng, Goldman's former top investment banker for Malaysia, for conspiring to violate an anti-corruption law and launder money.
Ex-Goldman Sachs banker Roger Ng exits the United States Courthouse after being found guilty in Brooklyn, New York
They said he helped his former boss Tim Leissner embezzle money from the fund, launder the proceeds and bribe officials to win business for Goldman.
Ng, 49, had pleaded not guilty to the charges. His lawyers say Leissner, who pleaded guilty to similar charges in 2018 and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors' investigation, falsely implicated Ng in the hopes of receiving a lenient sentence.
The fund was founded to pursue development projects in the Southeast Asian country.
The jury convicted Ng of two counts of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) through bribery and circumvention of Goldman's internal accounting controls, as well as one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering.
Ex-Goldman Sachs banker Roger Ng exits the United States Courthouse after being found guilty in Brooklyn, New York
"Today's verdict is a victory for not only the rule of law, but also for the people of Malaysia," Breon Peace, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, said in a statement. "The defendant and his cronies saw 1MDB not as an entity to do good for the people of Malaysia, but as a piggy bank to enrich themselves."
Ng, wearing a black suit jacket and black tie, showed little emotion as the jury's foreperson read out the verdict. Ng glanced back and forth between the jury and the desk he was seated at. His lawyer, Marc Agnifilo, hung his head after the guilty verdict to the first count was read.
U.S. District Judge Margo Brodie, who is overseeing the case, ordered that Ng be subject to a curfew pending sentencing, but said she did not consider him a flight risk.
© Reuters/JEENAH MOONFILE PHOTO:
"Today's verdict is a victory for not only the rule of law, but also for the people of Malaysia," Breon Peace, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, said in a statement. "The defendant and his cronies saw 1MDB not as an entity to do good for the people of Malaysia, but as a piggy bank to enrich themselves."
Ng, wearing a black suit jacket and black tie, showed little emotion as the jury's foreperson read out the verdict. Ng glanced back and forth between the jury and the desk he was seated at. His lawyer, Marc Agnifilo, hung his head after the guilty verdict to the first count was read.
U.S. District Judge Margo Brodie, who is overseeing the case, ordered that Ng be subject to a curfew pending sentencing, but said she did not consider him a flight risk.
© Reuters/JEENAH MOONFILE PHOTO:
Ex-Goldman Sachs banker Roger Ng and his lawyer Marc Agnifilo leave the federal court in New York
Deliberations began on Tuesday after a nearly two-month trial in federal court in Brooklyn.
'HARD TO WIN'
Agnifilo said Ng may appeal, depending on the outcome of his post-trial motions and his sentence. He stood by his decision to convince Ng to waive extradition to face trial, saying he had a better chance of a fair trial in the United States than in Malaysia.
"These big cases are tough and they're hard to win," Agnifilo told reporters.
Prosecutors have said Goldman helped 1MDB raise $6.5 billion through three bond sales, but that $4.5 billion was diverted to government officials, bankers and their associates through bribes and kickbacks between 2009 and 2015.
Ng is the first, and likely only, person to face trial in the United States over the scheme. Goldman in 2020 paid a nearly $3 billion fine and its Malaysian unit agreed to plead guilty.
Jurors heard nine days of testimony from Leissner, who said he sent Ng $35 million in kickbacks. Leissner said the men agreed to tell banks a "cover story" that the money was from a legitimate business venture between their wives.
Ng's wife, Hwee Bin Lim, later testified for the defense that the business venture was, in fact, legitimate. She said she invested $6 million in the mid-2000s in a Chinese company owned by the family of Leissner's then-wife, Judy Chan, and that the $35 million was her return on that investment.
Agnifilo said in his closing argument on Monday that Leissner could not be trusted. Alixandra Smith, a prosecutor, said in her summation that Leissner's testimony was backed up by other evidence.
Jho Low, a Malaysian financier and suspected mastermind of the scheme, was indicted alongside Ng in 2018 but remains at large.
(Reporting by Luc Cohen in New York; editing by Jonathan Oatis and David Gregorio)
Deliberations began on Tuesday after a nearly two-month trial in federal court in Brooklyn.
'HARD TO WIN'
Agnifilo said Ng may appeal, depending on the outcome of his post-trial motions and his sentence. He stood by his decision to convince Ng to waive extradition to face trial, saying he had a better chance of a fair trial in the United States than in Malaysia.
"These big cases are tough and they're hard to win," Agnifilo told reporters.
Prosecutors have said Goldman helped 1MDB raise $6.5 billion through three bond sales, but that $4.5 billion was diverted to government officials, bankers and their associates through bribes and kickbacks between 2009 and 2015.
Ng is the first, and likely only, person to face trial in the United States over the scheme. Goldman in 2020 paid a nearly $3 billion fine and its Malaysian unit agreed to plead guilty.
Jurors heard nine days of testimony from Leissner, who said he sent Ng $35 million in kickbacks. Leissner said the men agreed to tell banks a "cover story" that the money was from a legitimate business venture between their wives.
Ng's wife, Hwee Bin Lim, later testified for the defense that the business venture was, in fact, legitimate. She said she invested $6 million in the mid-2000s in a Chinese company owned by the family of Leissner's then-wife, Judy Chan, and that the $35 million was her return on that investment.
Agnifilo said in his closing argument on Monday that Leissner could not be trusted. Alixandra Smith, a prosecutor, said in her summation that Leissner's testimony was backed up by other evidence.
Jho Low, a Malaysian financier and suspected mastermind of the scheme, was indicted alongside Ng in 2018 but remains at large.
(Reporting by Luc Cohen in New York; editing by Jonathan Oatis and David Gregorio)
PHOTOS © Reuters/BRENDAN MCDERMID
The Columbia River Treaty
A myriad of First Nations on either side of the border like the Secwépemc (Shuswap) and Ktunaxa (Akisqnuk) have had deep seeded roots to the Columbia River for thousands of years, long before the Treaty attached to it ever became a notion. What is the Columbia River Treaty? The Columbia River Treaty is a water management agreement that was implemented in 1964 between the United States and Canada and is well-respected internationally.
The reason behind this Treaty was the disastrous flood of 1948 that cost many lives and caused devastation to Oregon’s City of Vanport. Four dams were constructed from the get-go under this Treaty with many more to follow throughout the Columbia’s watershed. Over 60 in fact, more than any other river. As a part of it, Canada agreed on the building of the first three dams in British Columbia: the Duncan, Hugh L. Keenleyside, and the Mica. The fourth dam, the Libby, was built by the U.S. in Montana and floods into Canada.
While there were a lot of big wins that came from the Columbia River Treaty and these dams such as flood control, and all the hydroelectricity they generate, it has created even greater losses. This Treaty displaced thousands of residents, and First Nations of the areas, ripping them from their homeland, while forcing them on to reserves. Dams, and reservoirs constructed inundated more than 110,000 hectares (270,000 acres) of Canadian ecosystems.
Since its development it has had negative impacts on farms, infrastructure, tourism, and forestry. With more dams than any river in North America, when the Columbia River Treaty was first written, little thought was given to the impacts it would have on the ecosystem and on the water quality, its fish, and local wildlife.
All the dams and culverts that stem from this Treaty have had a direct effect on the number of salmon that are able to swim up into areas off the Columbia River that used to be plentiful. Right now, Shuswap Band Councillor Tim Eugene is part of a group of members working on the Columbia River treaty.
“What we are going to be bringing back is the salmon,” says Shuswap Band Councillor Tim Eugene. “We haven’t had salmon for eighty-two years now. There used to be salmon in the Columbia River just down at Athalmer, that was our fishing grounds''. The First Nations of the land as well as the public were not consulted when this Treaty first came into play, and hurt feelings remain strong to this day.
In 1964, the U.S. prepaid Canada $64 million to ensure these flood control operations would be provided, with a reduction of flood damage and the safety of U.S. citizens to be a priority. That 60 years is almost up. Over the years, with the ebbs, and flows of populations there has been changes to the consumption of electricity along the Columbia River, these changes alone force officials to reevaluate the Columbia River Treaty as negotiations for it arise in 2024.
More importantly, there are now consultation, and accommodation requirements in place to ensure that the voices of the Indigenous people are heard regarding their resources, and territories going forward. As we get closer to the year 2024, groups like the Okanagan Nation Alliance (ONA) and the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) through their websites, and Facebook page have already began educating the public on their rights as Indigenous people, as well as their expectations on the Columbia River going forward.
The Columbia Treaty doesn’t have an end date per say, but it can be terminated by either country as of Sept. 2024 or onwards, if 10 years notice is given. According to the British Columbia government website. talks about whether to terminate this Treaty will occur post-2024. Shuswap Band Councillor Tim Eugene is a part of Columbia Collaborative, a group made up of six different Indigenous Bands, including Adam’s Lake, Little Shuswap, and Splatsin, that will have a say on the Columbia River Treaty.
“We are still looking for an Indigenous name for it. These bands are going to be determining what’s going on with the Columbia River Treaty. That’s what we’re doing on the Shuswap Band governor’s level. We’re getting all this organized because we feel we should be the ones making decisions on the Columbia River. says Shuswap Band Councillor Tim Eugene. “We feel really connected to it, and we really feel the need to gain a better understanding of it.”
Come Sept. 2024 there will be a lot of discussions between both countries regarding the Columbia River Treaty; this time including the input of First Nations to determine its future, or lack of one.
Chadd Cawson, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, The Columbia Valley Pioneer
A myriad of First Nations on either side of the border like the Secwépemc (Shuswap) and Ktunaxa (Akisqnuk) have had deep seeded roots to the Columbia River for thousands of years, long before the Treaty attached to it ever became a notion. What is the Columbia River Treaty? The Columbia River Treaty is a water management agreement that was implemented in 1964 between the United States and Canada and is well-respected internationally.
The reason behind this Treaty was the disastrous flood of 1948 that cost many lives and caused devastation to Oregon’s City of Vanport. Four dams were constructed from the get-go under this Treaty with many more to follow throughout the Columbia’s watershed. Over 60 in fact, more than any other river. As a part of it, Canada agreed on the building of the first three dams in British Columbia: the Duncan, Hugh L. Keenleyside, and the Mica. The fourth dam, the Libby, was built by the U.S. in Montana and floods into Canada.
While there were a lot of big wins that came from the Columbia River Treaty and these dams such as flood control, and all the hydroelectricity they generate, it has created even greater losses. This Treaty displaced thousands of residents, and First Nations of the areas, ripping them from their homeland, while forcing them on to reserves. Dams, and reservoirs constructed inundated more than 110,000 hectares (270,000 acres) of Canadian ecosystems.
Since its development it has had negative impacts on farms, infrastructure, tourism, and forestry. With more dams than any river in North America, when the Columbia River Treaty was first written, little thought was given to the impacts it would have on the ecosystem and on the water quality, its fish, and local wildlife.
All the dams and culverts that stem from this Treaty have had a direct effect on the number of salmon that are able to swim up into areas off the Columbia River that used to be plentiful. Right now, Shuswap Band Councillor Tim Eugene is part of a group of members working on the Columbia River treaty.
“What we are going to be bringing back is the salmon,” says Shuswap Band Councillor Tim Eugene. “We haven’t had salmon for eighty-two years now. There used to be salmon in the Columbia River just down at Athalmer, that was our fishing grounds''. The First Nations of the land as well as the public were not consulted when this Treaty first came into play, and hurt feelings remain strong to this day.
In 1964, the U.S. prepaid Canada $64 million to ensure these flood control operations would be provided, with a reduction of flood damage and the safety of U.S. citizens to be a priority. That 60 years is almost up. Over the years, with the ebbs, and flows of populations there has been changes to the consumption of electricity along the Columbia River, these changes alone force officials to reevaluate the Columbia River Treaty as negotiations for it arise in 2024.
More importantly, there are now consultation, and accommodation requirements in place to ensure that the voices of the Indigenous people are heard regarding their resources, and territories going forward. As we get closer to the year 2024, groups like the Okanagan Nation Alliance (ONA) and the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) through their websites, and Facebook page have already began educating the public on their rights as Indigenous people, as well as their expectations on the Columbia River going forward.
The Columbia Treaty doesn’t have an end date per say, but it can be terminated by either country as of Sept. 2024 or onwards, if 10 years notice is given. According to the British Columbia government website. talks about whether to terminate this Treaty will occur post-2024. Shuswap Band Councillor Tim Eugene is a part of Columbia Collaborative, a group made up of six different Indigenous Bands, including Adam’s Lake, Little Shuswap, and Splatsin, that will have a say on the Columbia River Treaty.
“We are still looking for an Indigenous name for it. These bands are going to be determining what’s going on with the Columbia River Treaty. That’s what we’re doing on the Shuswap Band governor’s level. We’re getting all this organized because we feel we should be the ones making decisions on the Columbia River. says Shuswap Band Councillor Tim Eugene. “We feel really connected to it, and we really feel the need to gain a better understanding of it.”
Come Sept. 2024 there will be a lot of discussions between both countries regarding the Columbia River Treaty; this time including the input of First Nations to determine its future, or lack of one.
Chadd Cawson, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, The Columbia Valley Pioneer
MacKay recalls the French, German NATO 'no' to Ukraine that Zelenskyy denounced
OTTAWA — Peter MacKay says he was chilled by a memory from his time as Canada's defence minister as he absorbed the recent images of Volodymyr Zelenskyy walking through the corpse-laden streets of Bucha.
Last weekend, the stricken and angry Ukrainian president called out the former leaders of Germany and France — Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy — for blocking his country's entry into the NATO alliance at their 2008 summit.
The membership could have protected his country from future Russian attacks under the alliance's Article 5 collective defence guarantee.
In a video now seen around the world, Zelenskyy shared his message for the former German chancellor and French president.
"I invite Ms. Merkel and Mr. Sarkozy to visit Bucha and see what the policy of concessions to Russia has led to in 14 years," Zelenskyy said.
"To see with their own eyes the tortured Ukrainian men and women."
His words transported MacKay back to the fateful summit in Bucharest, Romania, where Canada and some of its allies were discussing a plan that would see Ukraine join NATO.
The Conservative government of Stephen Harper, with MacKay as defence minister, wholeheartedly supported the expansion.
"I recall President Sarkozy of France huddling in the corner with Chancellor Angela Merkel, and they were having a rather animated discussion," MacKay recalled in an interview this week.
When the meeting reconvened, MacKay remembered Sarkozy and Merkel speaking against granting Ukraine access to a plan that would have put it on the course to NATO membership.
"And that was the end of it … It just melted like spring snow after that little conflab happened over in the corner."
France and Germany denied the alliance the consensus needed to move forward.
MacKay's reflections offer insight into Canada's role in the chain of geopolitical events that has culminated with the Russian war on Ukraine, and the broad global condemnation of President Vladimir Putin as a war criminal for the alleged killing and torture of civilians by retreating Russian soldiers in Bucha, a town near Kyiv.
Ukraine dropped its plans to join NATO two years later under former president Viktor Yanukovych, but it became a foreign policy priority again in 2017 under then-president Petro Poroshenko.
Canada may ultimately be judged as being on the right side of history given what followed the Bucharest summit: Russia's 2014 annexation of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula, the eight-year war in Ukraine's eastern Donbas region with Russian-backed separatists, and the tragedies and alleged war crimes flowing from the Feb. 24 invasion.
"I think it was a decision that put into play some very negative consequences that we're seeing play out on the ground right now in Ukraine," MacKay said of the 2008 meeting.
" (Zelenskyy) is giving expression to the way many people view that moment in time as being critical and historically tragic. He has basically said that, you know, they have blood on their hands for this horrible war crime that is happening, that is unfolding daily, inside Ukraine."
As the Bucha news emerged, MacKay dug into an old box of papers and retrieved a blue briefing book with gold lettering from the 2008 summit. He said it felt "ominous" to be reminded of it.
The summit was seized mainly with the NATO mission in Afghanistan, where Canada and its allies were grappling with a renewed wave of violence from a Taliban and al-Qaida revolt.
The expansion of NATO further east into Europe — something Putin has adamantly opposed to this day as a security threat — was also up for discussion. Ukraine and Georgia, both former members of the Soviet Union, were vying for membership.
MacKay recalled a passionate discussion.
"There were concerns, in particular for Ukraine, with respect to governance and corruption allegations within the government. And there was the constant reference to Russia being a very nefarious influence on Ukraine's westernization, or ability to pull out of their influence in their constellation of satellite countries."
Canada, however, was unequivocal. With the meeting underway on April 2, 2008, Harper released a statement that said Canada was supporting Ukraine and Georgia's bid to be admitted to the process that would eventually lead to full NATO membership.
"The Ukrainian people naturally yearn for greater freedom, democracy and prosperity. Canada will do everything in its power to help Ukraine realize these aspirations," Harper, who did not respond to an interview request, said at the time.
Shuvaloy Majumdar, the policy chief for Harper's longest-serving foreign minister John Baird, said Canada, several European countries and the U.S. administration of George W. Bush were among those pushing for NATO to expand.
"Canada was an early leader in that time … It was German opposition that interfered with Ukraine's membership," said Mujumdar, who now works for Harper's consulting company and is the head of the foreign policy program at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute think tank.
"Germany and others (were) more focused on reconciliation, on energy … and living in a fantasy land when it came to energy transition questions, whether it's nuclear or other renewable sources."
Harper later played a leading role in having Russia ejected from what was then the G8 — now the G7 — after the 2014 invasion of Crimea.
MacKay said the West can still make it up to Ukraine, especially as Russian forces have partially withdrawn. NATO has said imposing a no-fly zone would spark a wide-scale war with Russia. MacKay said it should opt for a "variation" on that by equipping Ukraine with massive amounts of air defence weaponry, including fighter jets.
MacKay said he believes Russia is regrouping for another attack, even though its forces are badly bloodied and demoralized.
"It goes without saying that Vladimir Putin has had his distorted view of recreating the Soviet Union in the front, if not the back of his mind for a very long time," MacKay said.
"And he's been testing the edges of NATO, and saw that Ukraine was the most vulnerable and the most desirable in terms of its location."
This report by The Canadian Press was first published April 9, 2022.
Mike Blanchfield, The Canadian Press
OTTAWA — Peter MacKay says he was chilled by a memory from his time as Canada's defence minister as he absorbed the recent images of Volodymyr Zelenskyy walking through the corpse-laden streets of Bucha.
Last weekend, the stricken and angry Ukrainian president called out the former leaders of Germany and France — Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy — for blocking his country's entry into the NATO alliance at their 2008 summit.
The membership could have protected his country from future Russian attacks under the alliance's Article 5 collective defence guarantee.
In a video now seen around the world, Zelenskyy shared his message for the former German chancellor and French president.
"I invite Ms. Merkel and Mr. Sarkozy to visit Bucha and see what the policy of concessions to Russia has led to in 14 years," Zelenskyy said.
"To see with their own eyes the tortured Ukrainian men and women."
His words transported MacKay back to the fateful summit in Bucharest, Romania, where Canada and some of its allies were discussing a plan that would see Ukraine join NATO.
The Conservative government of Stephen Harper, with MacKay as defence minister, wholeheartedly supported the expansion.
"I recall President Sarkozy of France huddling in the corner with Chancellor Angela Merkel, and they were having a rather animated discussion," MacKay recalled in an interview this week.
When the meeting reconvened, MacKay remembered Sarkozy and Merkel speaking against granting Ukraine access to a plan that would have put it on the course to NATO membership.
"And that was the end of it … It just melted like spring snow after that little conflab happened over in the corner."
France and Germany denied the alliance the consensus needed to move forward.
MacKay's reflections offer insight into Canada's role in the chain of geopolitical events that has culminated with the Russian war on Ukraine, and the broad global condemnation of President Vladimir Putin as a war criminal for the alleged killing and torture of civilians by retreating Russian soldiers in Bucha, a town near Kyiv.
Ukraine dropped its plans to join NATO two years later under former president Viktor Yanukovych, but it became a foreign policy priority again in 2017 under then-president Petro Poroshenko.
Canada may ultimately be judged as being on the right side of history given what followed the Bucharest summit: Russia's 2014 annexation of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula, the eight-year war in Ukraine's eastern Donbas region with Russian-backed separatists, and the tragedies and alleged war crimes flowing from the Feb. 24 invasion.
"I think it was a decision that put into play some very negative consequences that we're seeing play out on the ground right now in Ukraine," MacKay said of the 2008 meeting.
" (Zelenskyy) is giving expression to the way many people view that moment in time as being critical and historically tragic. He has basically said that, you know, they have blood on their hands for this horrible war crime that is happening, that is unfolding daily, inside Ukraine."
As the Bucha news emerged, MacKay dug into an old box of papers and retrieved a blue briefing book with gold lettering from the 2008 summit. He said it felt "ominous" to be reminded of it.
The summit was seized mainly with the NATO mission in Afghanistan, where Canada and its allies were grappling with a renewed wave of violence from a Taliban and al-Qaida revolt.
The expansion of NATO further east into Europe — something Putin has adamantly opposed to this day as a security threat — was also up for discussion. Ukraine and Georgia, both former members of the Soviet Union, were vying for membership.
MacKay recalled a passionate discussion.
"There were concerns, in particular for Ukraine, with respect to governance and corruption allegations within the government. And there was the constant reference to Russia being a very nefarious influence on Ukraine's westernization, or ability to pull out of their influence in their constellation of satellite countries."
Canada, however, was unequivocal. With the meeting underway on April 2, 2008, Harper released a statement that said Canada was supporting Ukraine and Georgia's bid to be admitted to the process that would eventually lead to full NATO membership.
"The Ukrainian people naturally yearn for greater freedom, democracy and prosperity. Canada will do everything in its power to help Ukraine realize these aspirations," Harper, who did not respond to an interview request, said at the time.
Shuvaloy Majumdar, the policy chief for Harper's longest-serving foreign minister John Baird, said Canada, several European countries and the U.S. administration of George W. Bush were among those pushing for NATO to expand.
"Canada was an early leader in that time … It was German opposition that interfered with Ukraine's membership," said Mujumdar, who now works for Harper's consulting company and is the head of the foreign policy program at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute think tank.
"Germany and others (were) more focused on reconciliation, on energy … and living in a fantasy land when it came to energy transition questions, whether it's nuclear or other renewable sources."
Harper later played a leading role in having Russia ejected from what was then the G8 — now the G7 — after the 2014 invasion of Crimea.
MacKay said the West can still make it up to Ukraine, especially as Russian forces have partially withdrawn. NATO has said imposing a no-fly zone would spark a wide-scale war with Russia. MacKay said it should opt for a "variation" on that by equipping Ukraine with massive amounts of air defence weaponry, including fighter jets.
MacKay said he believes Russia is regrouping for another attack, even though its forces are badly bloodied and demoralized.
"It goes without saying that Vladimir Putin has had his distorted view of recreating the Soviet Union in the front, if not the back of his mind for a very long time," MacKay said.
"And he's been testing the edges of NATO, and saw that Ukraine was the most vulnerable and the most desirable in terms of its location."
This report by The Canadian Press was first published April 9, 2022.
Mike Blanchfield, The Canadian Press
Government report acknowledges 'feminist' federal budget benefits men more than women
The Liberal government has made gender equality a top priority, but its latest federal budget benefits men more than women because many of its spending initiatives target male-dominated sectors.
© Olivier Hyland/CBCA stack of the 2022 budget books in Ottawa on Thursday.
A statement and impacts report on gender and diversity that accompanied the budget says nearly half of the budget's measures — 44 per cent — are expected to benefit women and men in equal proportions, while 42 per cent are expected to directly or indirectly benefit men.
Only a considerably smaller share of the budget measures — roughly 14 per cent — will directly or indirectly benefit women.
"This relative disparity reflects the fact that men are over-represented in certain sectors benefiting from many of the climate and infrastructure related measures in this budget," the report reads.
"Although these measures will ultimately benefit all Canadians, the workforce in these sectors are predominantly men, who, in turn, will indirectly benefit from the increased economic opportunities associated with these investments."
According to the report, the construction and clean technology sectors will benefit indirectly from the low-carbon-economy fund expansion, which will invest up to $2 billion in green projects. Similarly, the agricultural sector — another male-dominated industry — will benefit from the expansion of the agricultural clean-technology program, which is meant to foster the changes required to achieve a low-carbon economy.
The report also notes that while it can be argued that increased defence spending benefits all Canadians equally, the country's military is still predominantly male.
Freeland stands behind 'feminist' budget
In an interview that will air on Rosemary Barton Live on Sunday, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Christina Freeland defended the budget tabled on Thursday, pointing to the $30 billion the Liberal government is putting toward early learning and child care.
"This budget is year two of Canada's revolutionary early learning and child care program," she said. "In fact, we tabled this budget less than two weeks after concluding a deal with the final Canadian province to come on board. So I would definitely say this is a feminist budget."
But men win out in other ways. As the report notes, they continue to have higher incomes on average than women. That means more are able to afford zero-emission vehicles and can benefit from certain incentives as a result.
A lack of gender parity in the business world also plays a role, since certain male business owners and shareholders will benefit from various tax credits.
"This highlights that gender segregation in the workforce and an imbalance in control of and ownership over resources is still prevalent in Canada," the report reads.
Since coming to office, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, a self-proclaimed feminist, has spoken a lot about the goal of levelling the playing field between men and women. He's also the first prime minister to appoint a gender-balanced cabinet.
But Trudeau's feminist credentials have come under fire in recent years.
Frances Woolley, a Carleton University economics professor with expertise in gender and intra-household inequality, said gender-based analysis plus — an analytical process used to create budgets — is meant to explore the impact of government policies on diverse groups.
"Sure, sometimes in the end a government will end up adopting a policy that has more direct benefits for men than for women," Woolley wrote in an email. "Indeed, this will happen almost any time that a government decides to increase defence spending, for example.
"It will also happen when a government decides to devote resources to policies that reduce high school drop-out rates, or prevent prostate cancer."
Measures benefit women in some ways
She said it's important to understand a policy's full implications for diverse communities before it's adopted, and that policies need to be as inclusive as possible.
And while the budget appears to disproportionately benefit men, it does benefit women specifically in some ways, according to the federal report.
"Women comprise nearly eight out of ten workers in the dental sector and are therefore expected to indirectly benefit from investments in Dental Care for Canadians," it states. "Other Budget 2022 measures include features that will serve to achieve greater gender equality over time."
Women also have made progress in government in other ways: 47 per cent of heads of missions were women in 2021, up from 32 per cent in 2015. Heads of missions include ambassadors, high commissioners and consuls general.
Woolley said that, overall, government spending tends to help women, noting that the majority of workers in health care, education and public administration are women. She said a progressive tax system — where higher income earners pay more — also helps since more men tend to be high-income earners and therefore pay a substantial amount in taxes.
"So the fact that there were a significant number of new initiatives benefiting men in the most recent budget doesn't change the fact that the overall budget package — including already existing spending programs and taxes — benefits women as much as, if not more than, men," Woolley said.
The Liberal government has made gender equality a top priority, but its latest federal budget benefits men more than women because many of its spending initiatives target male-dominated sectors.
© Olivier Hyland/CBCA stack of the 2022 budget books in Ottawa on Thursday.
A statement and impacts report on gender and diversity that accompanied the budget says nearly half of the budget's measures — 44 per cent — are expected to benefit women and men in equal proportions, while 42 per cent are expected to directly or indirectly benefit men.
Only a considerably smaller share of the budget measures — roughly 14 per cent — will directly or indirectly benefit women.
"This relative disparity reflects the fact that men are over-represented in certain sectors benefiting from many of the climate and infrastructure related measures in this budget," the report reads.
"Although these measures will ultimately benefit all Canadians, the workforce in these sectors are predominantly men, who, in turn, will indirectly benefit from the increased economic opportunities associated with these investments."
According to the report, the construction and clean technology sectors will benefit indirectly from the low-carbon-economy fund expansion, which will invest up to $2 billion in green projects. Similarly, the agricultural sector — another male-dominated industry — will benefit from the expansion of the agricultural clean-technology program, which is meant to foster the changes required to achieve a low-carbon economy.
The report also notes that while it can be argued that increased defence spending benefits all Canadians equally, the country's military is still predominantly male.
Freeland stands behind 'feminist' budget
In an interview that will air on Rosemary Barton Live on Sunday, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Christina Freeland defended the budget tabled on Thursday, pointing to the $30 billion the Liberal government is putting toward early learning and child care.
"This budget is year two of Canada's revolutionary early learning and child care program," she said. "In fact, we tabled this budget less than two weeks after concluding a deal with the final Canadian province to come on board. So I would definitely say this is a feminist budget."
But men win out in other ways. As the report notes, they continue to have higher incomes on average than women. That means more are able to afford zero-emission vehicles and can benefit from certain incentives as a result.
A lack of gender parity in the business world also plays a role, since certain male business owners and shareholders will benefit from various tax credits.
"This highlights that gender segregation in the workforce and an imbalance in control of and ownership over resources is still prevalent in Canada," the report reads.
Since coming to office, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, a self-proclaimed feminist, has spoken a lot about the goal of levelling the playing field between men and women. He's also the first prime minister to appoint a gender-balanced cabinet.
But Trudeau's feminist credentials have come under fire in recent years.
Frances Woolley, a Carleton University economics professor with expertise in gender and intra-household inequality, said gender-based analysis plus — an analytical process used to create budgets — is meant to explore the impact of government policies on diverse groups.
"Sure, sometimes in the end a government will end up adopting a policy that has more direct benefits for men than for women," Woolley wrote in an email. "Indeed, this will happen almost any time that a government decides to increase defence spending, for example.
"It will also happen when a government decides to devote resources to policies that reduce high school drop-out rates, or prevent prostate cancer."
Measures benefit women in some ways
She said it's important to understand a policy's full implications for diverse communities before it's adopted, and that policies need to be as inclusive as possible.
And while the budget appears to disproportionately benefit men, it does benefit women specifically in some ways, according to the federal report.
"Women comprise nearly eight out of ten workers in the dental sector and are therefore expected to indirectly benefit from investments in Dental Care for Canadians," it states. "Other Budget 2022 measures include features that will serve to achieve greater gender equality over time."
Women also have made progress in government in other ways: 47 per cent of heads of missions were women in 2021, up from 32 per cent in 2015. Heads of missions include ambassadors, high commissioners and consuls general.
Woolley said that, overall, government spending tends to help women, noting that the majority of workers in health care, education and public administration are women. She said a progressive tax system — where higher income earners pay more — also helps since more men tend to be high-income earners and therefore pay a substantial amount in taxes.
"So the fact that there were a significant number of new initiatives benefiting men in the most recent budget doesn't change the fact that the overall budget package — including already existing spending programs and taxes — benefits women as much as, if not more than, men," Woolley said.
Federal budget for child care good start, but more needed: advocates
OTTAWA — Feminist advocates say the federal budget doesn't fully account for the challenges in scaling up child-care systems across the country.
© Provided by The Canadian Press
Morna Ballantyne, executive director of advocacy group Child Care Now, said she's pleased the government created a fund for building new child-care spaces.
"It shows that the federal government recognizes that the funding agreements that they've reached with the provinces and territories don't provide sufficient funding for physical infrastructure," Ballantyne said in an interview.
Even so, the government's fund for building new child-care spaces will only pay for 3,125 new spots each year, said Ballantyne in a feminist budget briefing Friday.
The federal Liberal budget for 2022 said it would give $625 million over four years to help provinces and territories invest in child care, including building new facilities.
Creating new child-care spaces involves high capital costs that aren't accounted for in the funding agreements with the provinces, and the new budget's fund wouldn't be enough to build the number of spaces it has estimated, Ballantyne said.
The budget said its funding would create just over 276,000 child-care spaces across the country.
In 2019, there were enough child-care spaces in Canada for about 27 per cent of kids aged five years old and younger, according to a report from the Childcare Resource and Research Unit.
Another challenge government faces in getting expanded child-care facilities off the ground is recruiting the workers to run them, said Amar Nijhawan, policy specialist at Oxfam Canada.
Between 52,000 to 63,000 early childhood educator jobs will be created as a result of Canada's early learning and child-care agreements between the federal government, provinces and territories, according to the budget.
"How are we expected to build so many new child-care spaces … when there's no workforce strategy to address early childhood educators?" asked Nijhawan.
"The real crisis in the care economy that we're seeing around wages, poor working conditions, burnout, labour shortages, recruitment, were not referenced in this budget document at all," she said.
In 2015, median annual income for early childhood educators and assistants in child care was $34,192, according to the research unit.
Many who are qualified to work as early childhood educators are not working in the sector in order to pursue jobs that are better paid, Ballantyne said.
To make sure that enough workers are attracted and retained in the sector, they need to be offered better compensation, she said.
That means that the operational funding the government gives to the sector has to be enough to pay higher wages, since providers will no longer rely as much on parent fees to cover their costs, said Ballantyne.
Bonnie Brayton, CEO of the Disabled Women's Network of Canada, said disability as it intersects with the child-care sector continues to feel like an afterthought.
The government pledged $141.1 million to make disability programs, workplaces and child-care centres more accessible, but didn't provide further detail.
"We're going to build ramps, and then what are we going to do? Send children and parents off to the maybe accessible child-care centre and hope that there are properly trained and disabled child-care workers there to teach them and their colleagues about inclusion and ableism?" Brayton asked.
Brayton said in the context of intersectional budgeting, there has to be a stronger focus on disability.
The office of Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published April 8, 2022.
---
This story was produced with the financial assistance of the Meta and Canadian Press News Fellowship.
Erika Ibrahim, The Canadian Press
OTTAWA — Feminist advocates say the federal budget doesn't fully account for the challenges in scaling up child-care systems across the country.
© Provided by The Canadian Press
Morna Ballantyne, executive director of advocacy group Child Care Now, said she's pleased the government created a fund for building new child-care spaces.
"It shows that the federal government recognizes that the funding agreements that they've reached with the provinces and territories don't provide sufficient funding for physical infrastructure," Ballantyne said in an interview.
Even so, the government's fund for building new child-care spaces will only pay for 3,125 new spots each year, said Ballantyne in a feminist budget briefing Friday.
The federal Liberal budget for 2022 said it would give $625 million over four years to help provinces and territories invest in child care, including building new facilities.
Creating new child-care spaces involves high capital costs that aren't accounted for in the funding agreements with the provinces, and the new budget's fund wouldn't be enough to build the number of spaces it has estimated, Ballantyne said.
The budget said its funding would create just over 276,000 child-care spaces across the country.
In 2019, there were enough child-care spaces in Canada for about 27 per cent of kids aged five years old and younger, according to a report from the Childcare Resource and Research Unit.
Another challenge government faces in getting expanded child-care facilities off the ground is recruiting the workers to run them, said Amar Nijhawan, policy specialist at Oxfam Canada.
Between 52,000 to 63,000 early childhood educator jobs will be created as a result of Canada's early learning and child-care agreements between the federal government, provinces and territories, according to the budget.
"How are we expected to build so many new child-care spaces … when there's no workforce strategy to address early childhood educators?" asked Nijhawan.
"The real crisis in the care economy that we're seeing around wages, poor working conditions, burnout, labour shortages, recruitment, were not referenced in this budget document at all," she said.
In 2015, median annual income for early childhood educators and assistants in child care was $34,192, according to the research unit.
Many who are qualified to work as early childhood educators are not working in the sector in order to pursue jobs that are better paid, Ballantyne said.
To make sure that enough workers are attracted and retained in the sector, they need to be offered better compensation, she said.
That means that the operational funding the government gives to the sector has to be enough to pay higher wages, since providers will no longer rely as much on parent fees to cover their costs, said Ballantyne.
Bonnie Brayton, CEO of the Disabled Women's Network of Canada, said disability as it intersects with the child-care sector continues to feel like an afterthought.
The government pledged $141.1 million to make disability programs, workplaces and child-care centres more accessible, but didn't provide further detail.
"We're going to build ramps, and then what are we going to do? Send children and parents off to the maybe accessible child-care centre and hope that there are properly trained and disabled child-care workers there to teach them and their colleagues about inclusion and ableism?" Brayton asked.
Brayton said in the context of intersectional budgeting, there has to be a stronger focus on disability.
The office of Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published April 8, 2022.
---
This story was produced with the financial assistance of the Meta and Canadian Press News Fellowship.
Erika Ibrahim, The Canadian Press
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)