Data & Governance
Dr. Yuval Noah Harari, WEF Advisor & Spokesperson
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/yuval-noah-harari-technology-tyranny/568330/

“We tend to think about the conflict between democracy and dictatorship as a conflict between two different ethical systems, but it is actually a conflict between two different data-processing systems.  Democracy distributes the power to process information and make decisions among many people and institutions, whereas dictatorship concentrates information and power in one place.  [...]   However, artificial intelligence may soon swing the pendulum in the opposite direction.  AI makes it possible to process enormous amounts of information centrally.  In fact, it might make centralized systems far more efficient than diffuse systems, because machine learning works better when the machine has more information to analyze.”
 

The Fourth Industrial Revolution; What it Means & How to Respond
Klaus Schwab, Founder and Chairman of the Board of Trustees, World Economic Forum
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-how-to-respond/  
[The Impact on Government | Agile Regulation]
 

“As the physical, digital, and biological worlds continue to converge, new technologies and platforms will increasingly enable citizens to engage with governments, voice their opinions, coordinate their efforts, and even circumvent the supervision of public authorities. Simultaneously, governments will gain new technological powers to increase their control over populations, based on pervasive surveillance systems and the ability to control digital infrastructure.  On the whole, however, governments will increasingly face pressure to change their current approach to public engagement and policy making, as their central role of conducting policy diminishes owing to new sources of competition and the redistribution and decentralization of power that new technologies make possible.

Ultimately, the ability of government systems and public authorities to adapt will determine their survival.  If they prove capable of embracing a world of disruptive change, subjecting their structures to the levels of transparency and efficiency that will enable them to maintain their competitive edge, they will endure. If they cannot evolve, they will face increasing trouble.

This will be particularly true in the realm of regulation.  Current systems of public policy and decision-making evolved alongside the Second Industrial Revolution, when decision-makers had time to study a specific issue and develop the necessary response or appropriate regulatory framework.  The whole process was designed to be linear and mechanistic, following a strict “top down” approach.

But such an approach is no longer feasible. Given the Fourth Industrial Revolution’s rapid pace of change and broad impacts, legislators and regulators are being challenged to an unprecedented degree and for the most part are proving unable to cope.

How, then, can they preserve the interest of the consumers and the public at large while continuing to support innovation and technological development?  By embracing “agile” governance, just as the private sector has increasingly adopted agile responses to software development and business operations more generally.  This means regulators must continuously adapt to a new, fast-changing environment, reinventing themselves so they can truly understand what it is they are regulating. To do so, governments and regulatory agencies will need to collaborate closely with business and civil society.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution will also profoundly impact the nature of national and international security, affecting both the probability and the nature of conflict.  The history of warfare and international security is the history of technological innovation, and today is no exception.  Modern conflicts involving states are increasingly “hybrid” in nature, combining traditional battlefield techniques with elements previously associated with non-state actors.  The distinction between war and peace, combatant and noncombatant, and even violence and nonviolence (think cyberwarfare) is becoming uncomfortably blurry.

As this process takes place and new technologies such as autonomous or biological weapons become easier to use, individuals and small groups will increasingly join states in being capable of causing mass harm.  This new vulnerability will lead to new fears.  But at the same time, advances in technology will create the potential to reduce the scale or impact of violence, through the development of new modes of protection, for example, or greater precision in targeting.”
 

In Canada, Follow the Money & the Ideas
Terence Corcoran for the Financial Post
https://financialpost.com/opinion/terence-corcoran-in-canada-follow-the-money-the-ideas

“In a short 2017 video clip circulating on YouTube, Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum and the global promoter of corporatist stakeholder capitalism, outlines how his subversive WEF movement has, to use his word, “infiltrated” governments all over the world.  He makes special note of Canada. “I have to say, when I mention now names, like Mrs. (Angela) Merkel and even Vladimir Putin, and so on, they all have been Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum.  But what we are very proud of now is the young generation like Prime Minister (Justin) Trudeau … We penetrate the cabinet.  So yesterday I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau and I know that half of his cabinet, or even more than half of his cabinet, are actually Young Global Leaders.  [...]  Schwab and the WEF had help in setting up their Canadian infiltration mission, including from Trudeau’s former chief of staff, Gerald Butts, a participant in the WEF’s Davos conferences and a leading backroom organizer of the Trudeau government’s ideological gambits.  When it comes to subversive plans to overthrow the free-world economy, few are larger in scope than the WEF’s global scheme to remake the world and install a new form of “capitalism” based on the recruitment of corporate leaders into the role of government.  The WEF infiltration of Ottawa has never been a secret, nor has Butts’ involvement.  But it is far from being common knowledge among voters that the ideological model behind the Liberal policy machine, the steering mechanism that guides decisions and policies, is subversive and authoritarian.  It also covers a massive policy territory, from climate to COVID-19.”
 

The WEF Casts a Long Shadow Across Canada
Chris George for the Niagara Independent
https://niagaraindependent.ca/the-wef-casts-a-long-shadow-across-canada/

“The WEF’s Davos conference is designed to bring the world’s decision makers into closed-door meetings to discuss coordination in global affairs and WEF initiatives.  It is an overt effort to influence global agendas and decision making, and lobby for public-private cooperation.  Conspiracy theorists purport Klaus Schwab and the WEF have a manipulative and direct control over participating government leaders.  That is not so.  Rather, it is an indirect pressure being applied at these WEF gatherings for participants to “join in” and commit to implementing global action plans.  Canadians are mostly unaware of how Trudeau, Freeland, and others in the Liberal cabinet are purposely advancing the WEF agenda in Canada.  They do so without any sharing of details.  Legacy media obscures any available facts.  [...]  The WEF and its global agenda for 2030 casts a long shadow across Canada.  The WEF’s ambitious global agenda is well documented, and it is publicized at events like the annual Davos conference.  Less public are the actions of the Trudeau government in relation to the commitments made to the WEF global agenda.  Still, the desired outcomes of the Canadian government’s policy and actions can be assessed by the end goals enunciated by Klaus Schwab and WEF spokespeople.”
 

2030 Canada Agenda National Strategy
https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/agenda-2030/national-strategy.html 

“In September 2015, Canada and all United Nations Member States adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (the 2030 Agenda), a shared blueprint for partnership, peace and prosperity for all people and the planet, now and into the future.  The 2030 Agenda focuses on the commitment to leave no one behind.”
 

UN Sustainable Development Agenda
https://news.un.org/en/story/2015/09/509732
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2015/09/historic-new-sustainable-development-agenda-unanimously-adopted-by-193-un-members/
 

“The new agenda is a promise by leaders to all people everywhere.  It is a universal, integrated and transformative vision for a better world.  It is an agenda for people, to end poverty in all its forms – an agenda for the planet, our common home,” declared Mr. Ban as he opened the UN Sustainable Development Summit which kicked off today and wraps up Sunday.”
 

UN Decade of Action
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/decade-of-action/

“In September 2019, the UN Secretary-General called on all sectors of society to mobilize for a decade of action on three levels: global action to secure greater leadership, more resources and smarter solutions for the Sustainable Development Goals; local action embedding the needed transitions in the policies, budgets, institutions and regulatory frameworks of governments, cities and local authorities; and people action, including by youth, civil society, the media, the private sector, unions, academia and other stakeholders, to generate an unstoppable movement pushing for the required transformations.”

Note:  https://knowledge.insead.edu/strategy/power-stakeholder-media
Note:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksb3KD6DfSI
“Scholars predicted the rise of media controlled by purposeful communities in the early 2000s.”
 

UN Declaration: Agenda 2030
https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda

At paragraph 50; “Today we are also taking a decision of great historic significance.  We resolve to build a better future for all people, including the millions who have been denied the chance to lead decent, dignified and rewarding lives and to achieve their full human potential.  We can be the first generation to succeed in ending poverty; just as we may be the last to have a chance of saving the planet.  The world will be a better place in 2030 if we succeed in our objectives.”

Note concerning the underlined text:  Planet Earth is 4.543 billion years old.  Science would not support a read of this text concerning the physical environment.
 

UN Declaration: Agile Nations Charter
https://www.canada.ca/en/government/system/laws/developing-improving-federal-regulations/modernizing-regulations/agile-nations.html

“In October 2021, member nations approved the first Agile Nations work programme of 10 projects.  Under this workplan, Canada will work with Agile Nations partners to address issues ranging from cyber security and digital technologies to the use of regulatory experimentation.  These projects involve sharing ideas, testing new solutions and identifying opportunities for regulators to better support innovative industries in introducing and scaling new technologies.  Participating departments and agencies include; Health Canada, Innovation Science & Economic Development Canada, Standards Council of Canada, Transport Canada, & Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.”
 

Regulatory Experimentation
https://www.canada.ca/en/government/system/laws/developing-improving-federal-regulations/modernizing-regulations/regulatory-experimentation.html

“Regulators are required to make decisions in the face of uncertainty.  Regulators use regulatory experimentation to generate evidence and information that can be used in decision making to help reduce that uncertainty.  A regulatory experiment is a trial or test of a new product, service, approach or process designed to generate evidence or information that can inform the design or administration of a regulatory regime.  Regulatory experiments are unique in that they are specifically designed to support regulatory decision making.”
 

UPDATED: 'Why the secrecy?'  Leslyn Lewis questions Canada's signing of WEF's Agile Nations Charter
https://www.westernstandard.news/news/updated-why-the-secrecy-leslyn-lewis-questions-canadas-signing-of-wefs-agile-nations-charter/article_cad45eca-999f-11ed-9798-431415585187.html

“Two years after Canada signed on to the World Economic Forum-initiated Agile Nations Charter, Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis is blowing the whistle on the "secrecy" surrounding the program.  "The Liberals chose to enter into a World Economic Forum (WEF) initiated Charter without parliamentary input," Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk, ON) said.  "The unelected WEF is not our government.  Canadians didn’t sign up for the WEF’s plan to create agile rule making in a post-pandemic world and the 4th Industrial Revolution."
 

Toronto Star Editorial on AI & Agile Regulation

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/artificial-intelligence-doesn-t-need-agile-governance-it-needs-firm-regulation/article_4ec92949-dab4-5b5a-9f70-24ebd8838556.html

“Society is one big AI experiment right now: we’re the testing ground for a massive techno-economic transformation we’ve not consented to and that most of us don’t even understand properly.  AI is being deployed across society with little input into what we actually want from it.  Our experimental status is evidenced, for example, in the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal: our very personal political decisions, choices, and discussions have been distorted and trashed with little comeuppance for the Big Tech companies intent on making a buck at the expense of spreading misinformation, disinformation, and outright lies. And it looks like this will be the new normal until we can rein in the algorithms developed by Facebook, YouTube, Google, and others.  A key policy approach for addressing this AI roll-out is something called “agile governance,” promoted especially by international institutions like the World Economic Forum.  In this framework, we, as individuals and a society, are supposed to adapt to the emerging AI technologies that we don’t understand, and aren’t even expected to bother understanding. It entails shifting oversight of new technologies from the government to the private sector, and comes across as another term for “leave it to the market” — which today really means leave it to a Big Tech monopoly.  Instead of this state of affairs, we need a more nuanced approach to emerging AI technologies in order to understand how they’re going to reconfigure our societies, yes, but also how our societies configure these technologies in our own image.  AI, in particular, is often premised on taking our personal data — usually with our (un)informed consent — and using it to train algorithms, claiming any resulting inferences (data on our data) derived from that training as proprietary.”
 

200+ Groups Denounce UN-WEF Agreement That Entrenches Corporate Interests Driving Global 'Social and Environmental Crises

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/09/27/200-groups-denounce-un-wef-agreement-entrenches-corporate-interests-driving-global

“Over 200 civil society groups this week voiced their firm opposition to a recently-inked agreement between the United Nations and World Economic Forum that stands to further entrench transnational corporations and their interests in global governance.  "It moves the world dangerously towards a privatized and undemocratic global governance," said Gonzalo Berron of Transnational Institute.  At issue is the "strategic partnership agreement" between the U.N. and WEF for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.  The agenda purports to be "a plan of action for people, planet, and prosperity."  Signed in June, the agreement says the U.N. and WEF will "strengthen their partnership by focusing on jointly selected priorities and pursuing a more strategic and coordinated collaboration."  But, according to the groups, the agreement threatens to "de-legitimize the United Nations and provide transnational corporations preferential and deferential access to the U.N. system”
 

Concerning the 2019 UN/WEF Strategic Agreement
https://www.fian.org/en/press-release/article/wef-takeover-of-un-strongly-condemned-2273

“This agreement between the UN and WEF formalizes a disturbing corporate capture of the UN.  It moves the world dangerously towards a privatized and undemocratic global governance.”
- Gonzalo Berron, Transnational Institute

“This strategic agreement is a coup for the corporate leaders at Davos, but what does it offer the UN and the international community?  This gives some of the most controversial corporations unprecedented access to the heart of the UN, yet it has not even been properly discussed by the UN’s country members and certainly not by the broader public.” 
- Harris Gleckman, Former UN Official & Senior Fellow at the Univ. of Massachusetts
 

“The UN should acknowledge the different roles of private interest and of rights-holders that look after common goods and benefits.  [...]  The WEF represents the interests of those who destroy the environment and abuse our human rights.  It can not be considered a strategic partner in solving the world’s crises."
- Sofia Monsalve, FIAN International Secretary-General
 

Having a Politically Partisan CEO Can Lead to More Company Misconduct, Study Finds
https://www.wsj.com/business/c-suite/partisan-ceo-company-results-65ec91a2

“Companies with stridently political CEOs are more likely to engage in corporate misconduct, according to new research.  And that’s true regardless of whether the leader leans conservative or liberal.   [...]   After excluding some firms due to missing data, the study’s final sample consisted of 498 companies and 831 CEOs.  The analysis found instances of misconduct at 365 companies, nearly three-quarters of the sample, with a median of four violations that triggered monetary penalties per company.  Firms led by the most-partisan CEOs—whether liberal or conservative—were almost 50% more likely to engage in misconduct than companies led by less-partisan peers, they concluded.”
 

CEO Political Partisanship and Corporate Misconduct
https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amj.2022.0909

“This study unearths the ideological bases of misconduct by distinguishing the values and identity perspectives of political ideology.  Rather than attributing misconduct to liberal or conservative values, we introduce and examine CEO political partisanship—that is, the strength of a CEO’s identification with political and ideological groups.  We hypothesize and find robust evidence for a positive relationship between CEO political partisanship and corporate misconduct in a sample of Fortune 500 CEOs from 2010 to 2018.  Our findings thus contribute to the conversation on the role of political ideology in organizations by unearthing the organizational implications of political identities.  As CEOs increasingly engage in political discussions and political divisions grow stronger, our study offers a timely warning about the harmful link between CEO political partisanship and corporate misconduct.”