Oversight For Human Pathogens and Toxins Act, Quarantine Act Removed, Slipped Into Budget Bill

There are few things more nefarious than when politicians pass laws to strip your rights away, or undermine democracy. It’s even worse when this isn’t openly debated, but instead slipped into a larger Bill, and it goes almost unnoticed.

This was done in the Spring of 2019, and pushed through right before an election. Have to wonder why.

In the interest of fairness, Diverge Media broke this story yesterday. A great piece of research, showing that a major regulatory check had been scrapped without any public discussion.

Looking at the timing, it’s hard to plausibly believe that the politicians weren’t aware that something was going to happen. And if they didn’t know, why not speak up now?

The NDP did make a passing objection, but it seemed to be more in the context of having an omnibus Bill pushed. She listed: “Seventh, subdivision K of division 9 of part 4 repeals provisions of the Quarantine Act. Eighth, subdivision L of division 9 of part 4 repeals provisions of the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act.” There were no specific details given as to why these were bad.

This was the public “discussion” on May 6, 2019.
A 90 second speech.

Mr. Chair, I’ll speak to subdivision K, as well as subdivision L, given their similarities.
.
The proposed legislative amendment to the Quarantine Act and to the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act would streamline the regulatory process under both acts by repealing the requirement for the Minister of Health to table proposed regulations before both Houses of Parliament prior to making new or updated regulations. This will allow the minister to proceed through the standard Governor in Council process, including prepublication and public consultation in the Canada Gazette. New or updated regulations under both of these acts would continue to comply with the cabinet directive on regulations.
.
The proposed amendments would put the Public Health Agency of Canada on level footing with other Canadian regulators and we will be more responsive to stakeholder needs for nimble, agile regulations that are kept up to date by facilitating the removal of outdated or ineffective regulations that may not be adequately protecting the public health and safety or may hinder innovation and economic growth.
.
Our ability to have up-to-date regulations will be a benefit for the Canadian public, for the travel and transportation sectors, and for the biotech and medical resource sectors.

On March 19, 2019, Cindy Evans told a Parliamentary Committee that a provision of Bill C-97 would remove the requirement for legislative checks and balances before issuing orders under the Quarantine Act. Keep in mind, this was a BUDGET Bill, and this was buried in an obscure section.

Proposed regulations to be laid before Parliament
.
66.1 (1) Before a regulation is made under section 66, the Minister shall lay the proposed regulation before each House of Parliament.
.
Marginal note: Report by committee
.
(2) A proposed regulation that is laid before Parliament shall be referred to the appropriate committee of each House, as determined by the rules of that House, and the committee may review the proposed regulation and report its findings to that House.
.
Marginal note: Standing Committee on Health
.
(2.1) The committee of the House of Commons referred to in subsection (2) shall be the Standing Committee on Health or, in the event that there is not a Standing Committee on Health, the appropriate committee of the House.
.
Marginal note: Making of regulations
.
(3) A regulation may not be made before the earliest of
(a) 30 sitting days after the proposed regulation is laid before Parliament,
(b) 160 calendar days after the proposed regulation is laid before Parliament, and
(c) the day after each appropriate committee has reported its findings with respect to the proposed regulation.
.
Marginal note: Explanation
.
(4) The Minister shall take into account any report of the committee of either House. If a regulation does not incorporate a recommendation of the committee of either House, the Minister shall lay before that House a statement of the reasons for not incorporating it.
.
Marginal note: Alteration
.
(5) A proposed regulation that has been laid before Parliament need not again be so laid prior to the making of the regulation, whether it has been altered or not.

Exceptions
.
66.2 (1) A regulation may be made without being laid before either House of Parliament if the Minister is of the opinion that
.
(a) the changes made by the regulation to an existing regulation are so immaterial or insubstantial that section 66.1 should not apply in the circumstances; or
.
(b) the regulation must be made immediately in order to protect the health or safety of any person.
.
Marginal note: Notice of opinion
.
(2) If a regulation is made without being laid before Parliament, the Minister shall lay before each House of Parliament a statement of the Minister’s reasons.

Although the “exceptions” clause did provide some wiggle room, forcing Cabinet Ministers to bring proposed changes through the legislative process is actually a good check. It ensures that at least there is open discussion. However, given how quickly these changes passed in Parliament, their effectiveness is questionable.

Proposed regulations to be laid before both Houses of Parliament
.
62.1 (1) The Governor in Council may not make a regulation under section 62 unless the Minister has first caused the proposed regulation to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
.
Marginal note: Report by committee
.
(2) A proposed regulation that is laid before a House of Parliament is deemed to be automatically referred to the appropriate committee of that House, as determined by the rules of that House, and the committee may conduct inquiries or public hearings with respect to the proposed regulation and report its findings to that House.
.
Marginal note: Making of regulations
.
(3) The Governor in Council may make a regulation under section 62 only if
.
(a) neither House has concurred in any report from its committee respecting the proposed regulation before the end of 30 sitting days or 160 calendar days, whichever is earlier, after the day on which the proposed regulation was laid before that House, in which case the regulation may be made only in the form laid; or
.
(b) both Houses have concurred in reports from their committees approving the proposed regulation or a version of it amended to the same effect, in which case the regulation may be made only in the form concurred in.
.
Marginal note: Meaning of “sitting day”
.
(4) For the purpose of this section, “sitting day” means a day on which the House in question sits.

Exceptions
.
62.2 (1) A regulation may be made without being laid before each House of Parliament if the Minister is of the opinion that
.
(a) the changes made by the regulation to an existing regulation are so immaterial or insubstantial that section 62.1 should not apply in the circumstances; or
.
(b) the regulation must be made immediately in order to protect the health or safeguard the safety of the public.
.
Marginal note: Explanation
.
(2) If a regulation is made without being laid before each House of Parliament, the Minister shall cause to be laid before each House a statement of the reasons why it was not.

The Quarantine Act also had legitimate safety mechanism stripped out, buried as a seeming afterthought in an omnibus budget Bill.

The “Budget Bill” did pass along Party lines. At the time, the Liberals held a majority, so they needed no support in ramming this through. While the NDP and Conservatives voted against it, these provisions were very unlikely to have contributed, since their was no real debate. Even now, they don’t speak up.

With hindsight, things are much clearer.

(1) https://divergemedia.ca/2021/06/14/no-debate-required-quarantine-act-changed-in-2019-to-allow-for-no-debate-before-its-use/
(2) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=10404016
(3) https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-97/third-reading
(4) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/FINA/meeting-208/evidence
(5) https://archive.is/WXhI8
(6) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/FINA/Evidence/EV10460698/FINAEV208-E.PDF
(7) https://openparliament.ca/
(8) https://openparliament.ca/debates/2019/4/10/jenny-kwan-1/
(9) https://openparliament.ca/search/?q=Date%3A%20%222019-04%20to%202019-11%22%20Quarantine
(10) May 6 2019 Quarantine Act Amendment
(11) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/Q-1.1/page-6.html#docCont
(12) https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/H-5.67/page-7.html#h-255451

Ontario Pharmacists Association: Getting Handouts From Ford, As They Push Bills 160/132

Melissa Lantsman helped get Doug Ford elected in 2018. She lists her position as the “War Room Director & Spokesperson” for the campaign. She left shortly after, and began lobbying the very Government she helped install. There are others who are in similar positions, as this topic has been addressed before.

The organization of interest here is the Ontario Pharmacists Association. They were involved in 2 pieces of legislation.

The first, Bill 160, was passed by the Wynne Government but never implemented. It would have forced disclosure of financial interests of doctors who received money to push certain drugs. While passed in Parliament, it was never given Royal Proclamation, and hence, has no legal effect. This was covered previously.

The second, Bill 132, repealed annual disclosure requirements for the Health Minister concerning drug programs. These reports were to be made publicly available. More on this later.

In recent years, there have been 6 documented meetings between the Ontario Government (both Liberal and Conservative Administrations), and the Ontario Pharmacists Association. According to the Registry, the OPA has also been receiving grants from the Government. This included $190,604 in the fiscal year of 2018, and another $381,200 in 2020.

  • Jonathan Sampson
  • Melissa Lantsman
  • Katie Heelis
  • Abid Malik
  • Morvarid Rohani
  • Carly Martin

Now, who are these people?

Jonathan Sampson was a high ranking bureaucrat with the Office of the Attorney General in Ontario, under both the Wynne and Ford Governments. He then joined Sussex Strategy Group and became a lobbyist.

Melissa Lantsman is currently a Director at the Michael Garron Hospital. This is where Michael Warner, the infamous lockdown doctor, also works.

Lantsman spent 3 years as a spokeswoman for the Foreign Affairs Office of Canada, and another 2 in the Finance Ministry, before getting into Ontario politics. She helped get Doug Ford elected in 2018, and is now running to be a Federal Candidate in the next election, whenever that is.

She was also one of several lobbyists for Walmart in 2020. She was trying to keep the retail giant open while others were allowed to die.

It doesn’t appear that Lantsman’s switching between politics and lobbying will be any issue. Amber Ruddy, the Secretary of the National Council of the CPC is an active pharma lobbyist. Erin O’Toole used to be a lobbyist for Facebook.

Katie Heelis used to be the “Issues Manager” for the Ontario Minister of Health, back under the regime of Kathleen Wynne. Afterwards, she became a lobbyist, taking on clients such as Shoppers Drug Mart.

Abid Malik spent several years working for the Ministry of Health under the regimes of McGuinty and Wynne. He moved on to lobbying, and is now an official at the Ontario Medical Association.

Carly Martin sort of went the other way. She a lobbyist, and later came to work for the Ford Government. Since July 2020, she has worked in the Cabinet Office, and presumably has direct access to Ford.

Getting back to the issue of Bill 132, what were the effects of passing it?

Bill 132 was an omnibus Bill (aren’t they all?) but buried in Schedule 11 was the notice that a part of the Ontario Drug Benefit Act would be repealed. This isn’t some minor thing, but has huge implications.

Lobbying Activity
Tell us about your current lobbying activity. Complete all that apply. You must choose at least one option:

Legislative proposal Yes

Describe your lobbying goal(s) in detail. What are you attempting to influence or accomplish as a result of your communications with Ontario public office holders?

OPA will be advocating for the removal of unnecessary regulatory burden in the pharmacy sector as defined as the goal through Bill 132, Better for People, Smarter for Business Act, 2019

Going through the records of the Lobby Registry, it’s explicitly stated that this was a reason for speaking to Public Officials. There’s no guesswork involved.

Executive officer
.
1.1 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall appoint an executive officer for the Ontario public drug programs. 2006, c. 14, s. 7.
.
Functions and powers
.
(2) Subject to this Act and the regulations, it is the function of the executive officer, and he or she has the power, to perform any functions or duties that he or she may have under this Act and the regulations, under the Drug Interchangeability and Dispensing Fee Act and its regulations and under any other Act or regulation, and without in any way restricting the generality of the foregoing,
.
(a) to administer the Ontario public drug programs;
(b) to keep, maintain and publish the Formulary;
(c) to make this Act apply in respect of the supplying of drugs that are not listed drug products as provided for in section 16;
(d) to designate products as listed drug products, listed substances and designated pharmaceutical products for the purposes of this Act, and to remove or modify those designations;
(e) to designate products as interchangeable with other products under the Drug Interchangeability and Dispensing Fee Act, and to remove or modify those designations;
(f) to negotiate agreements with manufacturers of drug products, agree with manufacturers as to the drug benefit price of listed drug products, negotiate drug benefit prices for listed substances with suppliers, and set drug benefit prices for designated pharmaceutical products;
(g) to require any information that may or must be provided to the executive officer under this Act or the regulations or any other Act or regulation to be in a format that is satisfactory to the executive officer;
(h) to make payments under the Ontario public drug programs;
(i) to establish clinical criteria under section 23; and
(j) to pay operators of pharmacies for professional services, and to determine the amount of such payments subject to the prescribed conditions, if any. 2006, c. 14, s. 7.
.
Report
.
(3) In every year,
(a) the executive officer shall make a report in writing to the Minister concerning the Ontario drug programs; and
(b) the Minister shall publish the report within 30 days of receiving it. 2006, c. 14, s. 7

This is how the Ontario Drug Benefit Act used to look. See the archive. However, the passage of Bill 132 repealed 1.1(3) which would have forced annual reporting to the Health Minister.

Also noteworthy: those annual reports would have been made public by law. That is not the case, as the pharmaceutical industry seems to oppose such transparency. Of course, this is done under the guise of eliminating burdens on businesses. The truth is never clearly stated.

And Bill 132 (which Wynne and Ford never fully enacted), would have forced disclosure of payments when it came to pushing medications. Have to wonder who they really work for.

(1) http://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/Pages/Public/PublicSearch/
(2) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?V_SEARCH.command=navigate&time=1623728162394
(4) https://archive.is/cZVsT
(5) https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonathan-sampson/
(6) https://www.linkedin.com/in/melissalantsman/
(7) https://archive.is/VsG0V
(8) https://www.linkedin.com/in/katieheelis/
(9) https://archive.is/GIOQ0
(10) https://www.linkedin.com/in/abidmalikto/
(11) https://archive.is/7P9lC
(12) https://www.linkedin.com/in/carly-martin/
(13) https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-42/session-1/bill-132#BK14
(14) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-o10/132589/rso-1990-c-o10.html
(15) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-o10/latest/rso-1990-c-o10.html

Media Silent On “Babbling Bonnie” Henry’s Incoherence On Masks

Note: Thank you to whoever compiled this video. It is a pretty detailed track of how BCPHO Bonnie Henry had repeatedly told the Province that there was no benefit to wearing masks for prolonged periods. She then abruptly changed her tune in late 2020.

For more on the lack of science behind what Bonnie does, here are some other examples.

1 Year Later, Media Silent On Christine Elliott’s Admission Deaths “With Covid” And Deaths “From Covid” Conflated

One year ago, Ontario Health Minister, Christine Elliott, was asked in a press conference about the death of a woman who died “from Covid”, as it was officially listed. The interesting thing was that she tested positive for the coronavirus, but that wasn’t acually the cause of her death. Nonetheless, it was formally written up as if it were.

The obvious conclusion one could draw from that was that Ontario (and other jurisdictions) were deliberately conflating the 2 in order to artificially drive up the death toll. In other words, this “pandemic” was being manufactured, at least in part. See this for more examples.

This video was pulled off a Facebook page in early June, which is now unavailable.

To my knowledge, there has never been any follow-up on this, by anyone in any “mainstream” outlet in Canada.

Elliott’s main qualification for being in Cabinet seems to be her being the widow of the late Jim Flaherty, former Ontario Finance Minister.

British Fertility Society Promotes Vaccines, Funded By Big Pharma

A few months ago, the British Fertility Society published a paper saying that there were no concerns about vaccination pregnant women, or women who were soon to become pregnant. Or even egg or sperm donors.

Should people of reproductive age receive a Covid-19 vaccine?
.
Yes.
People of reproductive age are advised to have the vaccine when they receive their invitation for vaccination. This includes those who are trying to have a baby as well as those who are thinking about having a baby, whether that is in the near future or in a few years’ time.

Can any of the Covid-19 vaccines affect fertility?
.
No.
There is absolutely no evidence, and no theoretical reason, that any of the vaccines can affect the fertility of women or men.

Can I have a Covid-19 vaccine during my fertility treatment (IVF, Frozen Embryo Transfer, Egg Freezing, Ovulation Induction, Intra-Uterine Insemination, using donated gametes or not)?
.
Yes.
You may wish to consider the timing of having a Covid-19 vaccine during your fertility treatment, taking into account that some people may get bothersome side effects in the few days after vaccination that they do not want to have during treatment. These include for example, tenderness at the injection site, fever, headache, muscle ache or feeling tired. It may be sensible to separate the date of vaccination by a few days from some treatment procedures (for example, egg collection in IVF), so that any symptoms, such as fever, might be attributed correctly to the vaccine or the treatment procedure. Your medical team will be able to advise you about the best time for your situation.

Should I delay my fertility treatment until after I have had the Covid-19 vaccine?
.
The only reason to consider delaying fertility treatment until after you have been vaccinated would be if you wanted to be protected against Covid-19 before you were pregnant. The chance of successful treatment is unlikely to be affected by a short delay, for example of up to 6 months, particularly if you are 37 years of age or younger. However, delays of several months may affect your chance of success once you are over 37 and especially if you are 40 years of age or older.

How soon after having a Covid-19 vaccine can I start my fertility treatment?
.
Immediately – you do not need to delay your fertility treatment, unless you wish to have your second dose before pregnancy (see above).

I had a positive pregnancy test today. Can I still have a Covid-19 vaccine?
.
If you are in a risk category for Covid-19, either because of the potential for exposure at work or medical issues, you can still have the vaccine in pregnancy. If you have no increased risks for Covid-19, the Joint Committee on Vaccination & Immunisation (JCVI) have advised that you delay it until after pregnancy. There is no reason to believe that any of the Covid-19 vaccines would be harmful, but their effects in pregnancy have not yet been fully investigated. The information that is known is reassuring. None of the vaccines contain live virus and so there is no risk that the pregnant woman or her baby could get Covid-19 from the vaccine. For further information on vaccination in pregnancy, see the information produced by the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists [https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/news/updated-adviceon-covid-19-vaccination-in-pregnancy-and-women-who-are-breastfeeding/]. The health care professional looking after you in pregnancy will be able to advise you taking into account your individual risk.

I am donating my eggs/sperm for the use of others. Can I still have a Covid-19 vaccine?
.
Yes.
Covid-19 vaccines do not contain any virus and so you cannot pass on Covid-19 by receiving the vaccine. The Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority have stated that you must allow at least 7 days from the most recent vaccination prior to donating eggs or sperm. If the donor feels unwell after the vaccination, they must not donate for 7 days after their symptoms have got better [https://www.hfea.gov.uk/treatments/covid-19-and-fertility-treatment/].

Not only can prospective couples get the vaxx, they can donate eggs and sperm as well, with no risk to the new hosts. While that certainly sounds strange enough, the document is ended with the following disclaimer. Of course, it’s in the fine print, and is difficult to read.

Disclaimer
This FAQ document represents the views of ARCS/BFS, which were reached after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the Executive teams and other members has been obtained. ARCS/BFS are not liable for damages related to the use of the information contained herein. We cannot guarantee correctness, completeness or accuracy of the guidance in every respect. Please be aware that the evidence and advice for COVID-19 vaccines for those trying to achieve a pregnancy or those who are pregnant already is rapidly developing and the latest data or best practice may not yet be incorporated into the current version of this document. ARCS and BFS recommend that patients always seek the advice of their local centre if they have any concerns.

This group hedges its statements as well. They claim that there is no risk (or even theoretical risk) to a pregnant woman, while still saying more research needs to be done. That alone should be enough reason to walk away.

Apparently, there is no theoretical reason to be worried about vaccines and pregnancy, however, the evidence is always changing. And these people assume no liability for anything they say to you. Things start to become clear when it’s known who funds the BFS. It’s even more transparent in that BFS had some of their work signal boosted by the Vaccine Confidence Project.

In fact, there are a lot of groups working together to promote the mass vaccination agenda globally. These are just a few of them:

  • World Health Organization
  • Imperial College London
  • Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium
  • London School Of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
  • Vaccine Confidence Project
  • GAVI – Global Vaccine Alliance
  • IFFIm – International Finance Facility for Immunization
  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • UN Verified Initiative
  • Team Halo

Team Halo partially explains the relationship between the groups as follows:

Team Halo was established as part of the United Nations Verified Initiative in partnership with The Vaccine Confidence Project at the University of London’s School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It is proud to collaborate with the Vaccine Alliance and GAVI. Support is provided by Luminate and IKEA Foundation.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation directly (or indirectly) finances: WHO; GAVI; Imperial College London; London School for Hygiene & Tropical Medicine; Vaccine Confidence Project; Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium; the BBC; the US CDC; and countless drug companies.

Imperial College London became notorious for the doomsday modelling of Neil Ferguson, nicknamed “Dr. Lockdown”, owing to his wild predictions about death waves that never materialize.

GAVI was started up in 1999, in large part because of a $750 million grant from the Gates Foundation. GAVI coordinates spreading its concoctions around the world. It also coordinates a funding scam with the International Finance Facility for Immunizations (IFFIm). Here countries make pledges of donations, which are then converted into “vaccine bonds“.

The Vaccine Confidence Project is part of the London School for Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. In addition to getting money from Gates, they receive contributions from major pharmaceutical companies.

These examples are by no means exhaustive, but they show just how interconnected these groups are. We are at the point where fertility organizations are funded by pharmaceutical companies, and advise that there is no risk to their future children. Remember: they are all in this together.

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98NA3nQBBLc
(2) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVQJ9BADJ9btFc8G0eNE9wg
(3) https://twitter.com/BritFertSoc
(4) https://www.britishfertilitysociety.org.uk/
(5) https://www.britishfertilitysociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Covid19-Vaccines-FAQ-1_3.pdf
(6) British Fertility Society Recommends Vaccines
(7) https://www.britishfertilitysociety.org.uk/about/sponsorship/
(8) https://www.britishfertilitysociety.org.uk/about/corporate-membership/
(9) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org
(10) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/partners-funders
(11) https://www.un.org/en/coronavirus/%E2%80%98verified%E2%80%99-initiative-aims-flood-digital-space-facts-amid-covid-19-crisis
(12) https://www.un.int/news/un%E2%80%99s-verified-initiative-encourages-us-take-%E2%80%98pause%E2%80%99
(13) https://covidtrials.ca/
(14) https://archive.is/VKc0M
(15) https://www.thinkresearch.com/ca/
(16) https://www.thinkresearch.com/ca/2021/01/18/think-research-announces-appointment-of-dr-eric-hoskins-former-ontario-health-minister-to-board-of-directors/
(17) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-18-ottawa-sends-iffim-money-for-vaccine-bonds-gavi-gpei-grants/
(18) https://airmedtrials.com/
(19) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24-gates-financing-of-imperial-college-london-and-their-modelling/
(20) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24b-london-school-of-hygiene-tropical-medicine-more-modelling-financed-by-gates/
(21) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24c-vaccine-impact-modelling-consortium-more-bogus-science/
(22) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24d-heidi-larson-lshtm-vcp-vaxxing-pregnant-women-financed-by-big-pharma/
(23) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-27c-share-verified-uses-emotional-manipulation-selective-truth-to-promote-narrative/

Expanded Drone Use Coming To Canada And Other Countries

Drones are about to become far more common and not just in Canada. Companies and countries are seeing what options there are in using this technology, but only for “safe” purposes.

One company, Drone Delivery Canada is trying to change the laws here so that it can carry larger loads, and for longer distances. They seem to think that drone use is going to become mainstream very soon.

While most of the applications specified by Drone Delivery Canada seem harmless enough, a few of are sure to raise eyebrows:

HEALTHCARE
The current situation as related to COVID-19, as unfortunate and challenging as it is, demonstrates that delivery drones are an ideal solution to limit person-to-person contact in healthcare. Drone Delivery Canada is committed to helping Canada effectively manage the current situation and potentially help stop the pandemic, especially in remote communities.

Of course, if people weren’t able to get certain supplies (such as for being forcibly quarantined), this could also serve as a form of prisoner feeding system. Depending on the setup, it could reduce the chances people have to break out.

OTHER APPLICATIONS
While our focus is predominantly on moving cargo, Drone Delivery Canada has proven experience in carrying specialized electronic equipment. Payloads can also be specialized cameras, sensors or other instruments for various applications such as – infrastructure inspection, military (C3I – command, control, communications, intelligence), border security, crowd monitoring, mining, oil & gas, surveying, mapping, crop spraying, etc.

These drones can be used to carry specialized equipment, such as cameras, and can be used for military and intelligence gathering. It could also serve in crowd monitoring. While this may sound paranoid, such a thing is already underway elsewhere.

Worth noting: G4S, the firm Brian Pallister hired for Manitoba, also has its foot in the door as far as using drones. The company’s services include intelligence gathering, and arrest and detention.

While these drones (above) supposedly aren’t equipped with facial recognition, it wouldn’t be too hard to implement it. Even without it, the idea of this kind of surveillance is downright nefarious and creepy. These people are unknowingly (or maybe knowingly) helping force a police state.

Even if Drone Delivery Canada (and similar companies) were using these drones primarily for deliveries, it would still require a vast surveillance apparatus to ensure that they were being delivered where they should be. Also, wouldn’t it potentially put many people out of work, as their jobs become obsolete?

DDC describes drone delivery itself as a “disruptive technology“. They seem to be aware of the impacts this could potentially have.

In June 2019 DDC and Air Canada reached an agreement, which would see the airliner promoting the drone company. Tim Strauss is both an Advisor for DDC, and a Vice President for Air Canada.

Incidently, the Canadian Government has put out several tenders recently, looking for suppliers to bid on drone construction. However, that’s probably nothing to worry about.

Recently, Jason Kenney was forced to cancel a proposal to have drones surveilling Albertans on vacation. He claimed it was all a mistake, and he never intended to spy on anyone.

Collaborating with international partners
Canada’s drone industry is part of a broader aviation network, which requires collaboration to support innovation, and ensure the safety of our aviation system. Transport Canada works with other state civil aviation agencies from around the world to share information, align Canadian drone policy, and share best practices.
.
For example, Transport Canada has a strong relationship with the United States Federal Aviation Administration, and has signed a Memorandum of Understanding to share results of RPAS research, such as the effects of icing conditions on drones, given the Canadian climate. Transport Canada is also a participant in the FAA’s International Roundtable on RPAS research which brings together multiple civil aviation authorities and academic institutions from around the world to share information.

The Canadian Government has formed a “Drone Advisory Committee”, to help it understand impacts and potential for flying these everywhere. DDC is on the committee. This is also happening internationally. What a coincidence that we had a global pandemic and needed to “reset” society. And unmanned aircraft has been a topic of discussion for a long time.

A quick look at Sussex Strategy Group, the firm lobbying for Drone Delivery Canada, shows that it has plenty of political ties. This shouldn’t be too surprising.

This is how things are done in Canada. Simply hire political cronies to make the magic handshake, and suddenly, your proposal gets approved.

As for having everything delivered by drones, it’s not like that was predicted by the World Economic Forum, several years ago. You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy. And this seems to be where things are going.

(1) https://dronedeliverycanada.com/
(2) https://dronedeliverycanada.com/applications/
(3) https://dronedeliverycanada.com/about-us/
(4) https://aircanada.mediaroom.com/2019-06-04-Air-Canada-and-Drone-Delivery-Canada-Corp-Announce-a-Sales-Agency-Agreement
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=368514&regId=908727
(6) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5skCHHijcY
(7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdeCV8FesAs
(8) https://buyandsell.gc.ca/
(9) https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-21-00959355
(10) https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/award-notice/PW-QCL-056-18152-001
(11) https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-QCL-056-18152
(12) https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-21-00954577
(13) https://calgarysun.com/news/local-news/after-drawing-flak-province-cancels-plan-to-monitor-campers-with-drones/wcm/52b24f78-f6ee-4269-b98e-1337445cbef6
(14) https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/drone-safety/drone-innovation-collaboration
(15) http://jarus-rpas.org/
(16) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73K6TrkVGKE
(17) https://www.linkedin.com/in/naomishuman/
(18) https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-pellegrini-sussex-4853ba27/
(19) https://www.linkedin.com/in/brett-james-0442482/
(20) https://www.linkedin.com/in/devin-mccarthy-9676543b/
(21) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-25c-brian-pallister-hires-intelligence-detention-firm-g4s-for-security-in-manitoba/
(22) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-25d-meet-capital-hill-group-the-lobbying-firm-pushing-for-g4s-contracts/