Remember the hype in 2022 about a a proposed Global Pandemic Treaty? This was supposed to be an agreement that would give the World Health Organization binding legal authority over elected Governments. That seems to have stalled, at least to the casual observer.
Of course, the W.H.O. already has binding legal authority over Member States, which includes Canada. Anyone who’s ever read their Constitution would know that. That said, it doesn’t stop politicians from slipping in their rules in domestic legislation.
Most Private Bills don’t become law. However, their content may become embedded into other legislation, and rammed through without proper debate and consideration.
Erskine-Smith isn’t a big player in Canadian politics. So, it’s strange that he would introduce something like this. Have to wonder if he wrote any of it.
Whereas the costs of prevention and preparedness measures are insignificant in comparison to the human and economic costs of a pandemic;
Whereas Parliament is committed to making efforts to prevent the risk of and prepare for future pandemics and to promote transparency and accountability in relation to those efforts;
Whereas it is critical to build on the lessons learned from previous outbreaks of serious diseases, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Ebola virus disease (EVD), Zika virus disease, tuberculosis, H1N1 flu and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19);
Whereas a One Health approach — a multisectoral and multidisciplinary collaborative approach that focuses on the human, animal, plant and ecosystem health and welfare interface — is central to preventing the risk of future pandemics;
And whereas this approach requires sustained collaboration among various ministers, all levels of government and Indigenous communities;
Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
There is something of a bait-and-switch here. While the Bill is presented as cooperation between various Governments in Canada, it’s clear that it also involves supra-national control.
Should we just state the obvious? They aren’t preparing for future outbreaks. Instead, this is laying the groundwork to erase more of people’s rights under the pretext of an outbreak.
Contact tracing is just a means to implement mass surveillance.
Expect more taxpayer money to be pumped into “building up reserves”, regardless of whether such items would ever be used. Think of the millions of vaccines that are going to waste.
Building the infrastructure for electronic monitoring of “infected” people?! Canada already has a system in place to track people on parole and probation. Why would such an expansion be necessary, unless they were anticipating a massive influx?
Going back to the 2017 Federal Budget, millions were pumped into the “alternative protein” industry. Considering that this Bill also talks about reducing natural agriculture, a cynic may wonder if this is done to force citizens to take these alternative “foods”.
The suggestion has been made many times before, that this can be used as an excuse to attack the food supply. As such, the public would be forced to starve, or seek other alternative foods.
This is essentially merging the U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda with the W.H.O.’s goals. Sorts of sounds like the GREAT RESET, which was just a conspiracy theory.
Phase out live animal markets? Is this a way to help manufacture a food shortage? Could this be done by claiming that entire farms are “at risk”, and then culling them to protect the public?
Here’s where it hits home. This will not simply be a Canadian system. Instead, it will be done in collaboration with:
- Foreign Governments
- World Health Organization
- United Nations Environment Programme
- U.N. Animal Health and the Food and Agriculture Organization
Read the entire Bill to make sure that nothing is being taken out of context. But this looks like a way to slip even more draconian measures onto the public.
And again, there has been — to my knowledge — any debate or reporting on this Bill. Why exactly is that? Isn’t this in the public interest?
1908: International Public Health Office to be created
1926: International Sanitary Convention was ratified in Paris.
1946: WHO’s Constitution was signed, and it’s something we’ll get into in more detail.
1951: International Sanitary Regulations adopted by Member States.
1969: International Health Regulations (1st Edition) replaced ISR. These are legally binding on all Member States.
2005: International Health Regulations 3rd Edition of IHR were ratified.
Without regurgitating the whole thing, the W.H.O. Constitution has been covered before, including the fact that it’s legally binding on Member States.
As has been outlined here before, the 2005 Quarantine Act, Bill C-12, was really just domestic implementation of the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations.
We’ve also gone heavily into the creation of PHAC, which is essentially just a branch of the World Health Organization. It was created at WHO’s instigation. It takes over (to a large degree) what Health Canada had been doing. The timeline is laid out, and worth a read.
Why does an unknown like Nathaniel Erskine-Smith introduce such a Bill? According to his Wikipedia page, he’s actually brought forward several pieces. This included (in the last Parliament) Bill C-235 to delete the drug possession offence from the Criminal Code. He also brought Bill C-236, to expand diversion alternatives for criminal cases involving drugs.
Whether or not this “Pandemic Treaty” ever goes ahead, this legislation seems designed to carry out the goals it was intended for. Perhaps this should be put to a public debate.
Again, why is this being done quietly in a Private Member’s Bill?
(2) WHO Constitution, Full Document