Category: Canadian Bills

Posted on

Bill C-11: Digital Charter Implementation Act Of Canada

Remember that proposed Digital Charter from 2019, in response to a shooting in New Zealand? Well, it’s finally come to Canada. Also, this sounds silly, but is DCIA a euphamism for “Dee CIA”?

1. Free Speech Is Under Constant Threat

Check here for the series free speech. It’s a crucial topic, and is typically intertwined with other categories. Topic include: hate speech laws, Digital Cooperation; the IGF, or Internet Governance Forum; ex-Liberal Candidate Richard Lee; the Digital Charter; Dominic LeBlanc’s proposal. There is also collusion, done by UNESCO, more UNESCO, Facebook, Google, and Twitter lobbying.

2. The Media Is Not Loyal To The Public

Truth is essential in society, but the situation in Canada is worse than people imagine. In Canada (and elsewhere), the mainstream media and fact-checkers are subsidized, though they deny it. Post Media controls most outlets in Canada, and many “independents” have ties to Koch/Atlas. Real investigative journalism is needed, and some pointers are provided.

3. Important Links

The Christchurch Call
Fact Sheet: Digital Charter Implementation Act
https://archive.is/0QioZ
Bill C-10: CRTC Amending Broadcast Act
Bill C-11 Introduced As HoC Legislation (November 2020)
Office Of The Lobbying Commissioner Of Canada
Mastercard’s Lobbying Information
Visa Canada’s Lobbying Information
American Express Canada’s Lobbying Information
PayPal’s Lobbying Information
GlaxoSmithKline’s Lobbying Information

4. Digital Charter Bait-And-Switch

Originally, the proposed “Digital Charter” was formed as part of the Christchurch Call, in response to a mass shooting in New Zealand on March 15, 2019. This was promoted as fighting violent extremism. However, the DC Implementation Act seems to be much more broadly applied.

5. Pitching The Digital Charter Implementation Act

What does the Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020 mean for me?
.
[A] Meaningful consent: Modernized consent rules would ensure that individuals have the plain-language information they need to make meaningful choices about the use of their personal information.
.
[B] Data mobility: To further improve their control, individuals would have the right to direct the transfer of their personal information from one organization to another. For example, individuals could direct their bank to share their personal information with another financial institution.
.
[C] Disposal of personal information and withdrawal of consent: The accessibility of information online makes it hard for individuals to control their online identity. The legislation would allow individuals to request that organizations dispose of personal information and, in most cases, permit individuals to withdraw consent for the use of their information.
.
[D] Algorithmic transparency: The CPPA contains new transparency requirements that apply to automated decision-making systems like algorithms and artificial intelligence. Businesses would have to be transparent about how they use such systems to make significant predictions, recommendations or decisions about individuals. Individuals would also have the right to request that businesses explain how a prediction, recommendation or decision was made by an automated decision-making system and explain how the information was obtained.
.
[E] De-identified information: The practice of removing direct identifiers (such as a name) from personal information is becoming increasingly common, but the rules that govern how this information is then used are not clear. The legislation will clarify that this information must be protected and that it can be used without an individual’s consent only under certain circumstances.

All of these items sound perfectly reasonable on the surface. Who WOULDN’T want greater privacy and transparency? Reading a bit further on the webpage, it becomes a bit concerning.

Simplifying consent: In the digital economy, the use of personal information is often core to the delivery of a product or service, and consumers can reasonably expect that their information will be used for this purpose. Currently, organizations are required to seek consent for such uses, making privacy policies longer and less accessible and creating burden. The legislation would remove the burden of having to obtain consent when that consent does not provide any meaningful privacy protection.

Data for good: Greater data sharing and access between the public and private sectors can help to solve some of our most important challenges in fields such as public health, infrastructure and environmental protection. The legislation would allow businesses to disclose de-identified data to public entities (under certain circumstances) for socially beneficial purposes.

Recognition of codes of practice and certification systems: To help organizations understand their obligations under the CPPA and demonstrate compliance, the legislation would allow organizations to ask the Privacy Commissioner to approve codes of practice and certification systems that set out rules for how the CPPA applies in certain activities, sectors or business models.

So the requirement to obtain consent can be removed if the consent “would not provide any meaningful privacy protection”? What standards would be applied to determine if it’s meaningful? Or would it all be subjective?

Greater sharing of data between public and private sectors? Such as what? Bank records? Health information? Political beliefs? And coupled with watering down the need for consent, that’s unsettling.

It would allow also allow for private organizations to contact the Privacy Commissioner and ask to have certain practices permitted. Interesting.

6. Digital Charter IA Guts Privacy

Exceptions to Requirement for Consent
Business Operations
Business activities
18 (1) An organization may collect or use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if the collection or use is made for a business activity described in subsection (2) and
(a) a reasonable person would expect such a collection or use for that activity; and
(b) the personal information is not collected or used for the purpose of influencing the individual’s behaviour or decisions.
,
List of activities
(2) Subject to the regulations, the following activities are business activities for the purpose of subsection (1):
(a) an activity that is necessary to provide or deliver a product or service that the individual has requested from the organization;
(b) an activity that is carried out in the exercise of due diligence to prevent or reduce the organization’s commercial risk;
(c) an activity that is necessary for the organization’s information, system or network security;
(d) an activity that is necessary for the safety of a product or service that the organization provides or delivers;
(e) an activity in the course of which obtaining the individual’s consent would be impracticable because the organization does not have a direct relationship with the individual; and
(f) any other prescribed activity.
.
Transfer to service provider
19 An organization may transfer an individual’s personal information to a service provider without their knowledge or consent.
.
De-identification of personal information
20 An organization may use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to de-identify the information.
.
Research and development
21 An organization may use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent for the organization’s internal research and development purposes, if the information is de-identified before it is used.

Think that’s bad? It’s about to get even worse. More exceptions to the requirement for consent are written into Bill C-11. It’s like the Do-Not-Call lists about 15-20 years ago. Is there anything that doesn’t make the list of exceptions?

Information produced in employment, business or profession
23 An organization may collect, use or disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if it was produced by the individual in the course of their employment, business or profession and the collection, use or disclosure is consistent with the purposes for which the information was produced.
.
Employment relationship — federal work, undertaking or business
24 An organization that operates a federal, work or business may collect, use or disclose an individual’s personal information without their consent if
(a) the collection, use or disclosure is necessary to establish, manage or terminate an employment relationship between the organization and the individual in connection with the operation of a federal work, undertaking or business; and
(b) the organization has informed the individual that the personal information will be or may be collected, used or disclosed for those purposes.
.
Disclosure to lawyer or notary
25 An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to a lawyer or, in Quebec, a lawyer or notary, who is representing the organization.

How is any of this fighting violent extremism?

An organization can share a person’s personal information –without their knowledge or consent — if they deem it necessary for their business functions. They can also share the data of 3rd parties, if they don’t have a direct business relationship with that person.

Organizations can provide (sell?) data to research and marketing firms, with the caveat being that items that would identify a person must be removed. However, even with that, people can be re-identified from partial profiles.

Employers and Governments can also share a person’s private information without their knowledge or consent if it’s regarded as needed in their business operations. What else?

Statistical or scholarly study or research
35 An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if
(a) the disclosure is made for statistical purposes or for scholarly study or research purposes and those purposes cannot be achieved without disclosing the information;
(b) it is impracticable to obtain consent; and
(c) the organization informs the Commissioner of the disclosure before the information is disclosed.
.
Records of historic or archival importance
36 An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to an institution whose functions include the conservation of records of historic or archival importance, if the disclosure is made for the purpose of such conservation.
.
Disclosure after period of time
37 An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent after the earlier of
(a) 100 years after the record containing the information was created, and
(b) 20 years after the death of the individual.
.
Journalistic, artistic or literary purposes
38 An organization may collect an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if the collection is solely for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes.
.
Socially beneficial purposes
39 (1) An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if
(a) the personal information is de-identified before the disclosure is made;
(b) the disclosure is made to
(i) a government institution or part of a government institution in Canada,
(ii) a health care institution, post-secondary educational institution or public library in Canada,
(iii) any organization that is mandated, under a federal or provincial law or by contract with a government institution or part of a government institution in Canada, to carry out a socially beneficial purpose, or
(iv) any other prescribed entity; and
(c) the disclosure is made for a socially beneficial purpose.
.
Definition of socially beneficial purpose
(2) For the purpose of this section, socially beneficial purpose means a purpose related to health, the provision or improvement of public amenities or infrastructure, the protection of the environment or any other prescribed purpose.

As long as it’s claimed that the information was needed for research, historical work, some vaguely-defined social benefit, personal information can be disclosed without the person’s knowledge or consent. They do mention stripping the information from details that would lead to the identity of the person, but it’s still easy to reestablish who it was.

“Impractical to obtain consent” refers to companies disclosing person data not of THEIR customers, but the customers of other people. In fact, an obvious loophole is not to do any of this yourself, but simply to partner with another organization who can do the dirty work.

And after 20 years after a person’s death, information can be disclosed anyway. No reason or pretense is needed to pretend to justify it.

Now we get to disclosures to Government Institutions. Presumably, this was the original content considered with the Digital Charter.

7. DCIA: Disclosure To Government Institutions

Disclosures to Government Institutions
.
Administering law
43 An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to a government institution or part of a government institution that has made a request for the information, identified its lawful authority to obtain the information and indicated that the disclosure is requested for the purpose of administering federal or provincial law.
.
Law enforcement — request of government institution
44 An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to a government institution or part of a government institution that has made a request for the information, identified its lawful authority to obtain the information and indicated that the disclosure is requested for the purpose of enforcing federal or provincial law or law of a foreign jurisdiction, carrying out an investigation relating to the enforcement of any such law or gathering intelligence for the purpose of enforcing any such law.
.
Contravention of law — initiative of organization
45 An organization may on its own initiative disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to a government institution or a part of a government institution if the organization has reasonable grounds to believe that the information relates to a contravention of federal or provincial law or law of a foreign jurisdiction that has been, is being or is about to be committed.
.
Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act
46 An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to the government institution referred to in section 7 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act as required by that section.
.
Request by government institution — national security, defence or international affairs
47 (1) An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to a government institution or part of a government institution that has made a request for the information, identified its lawful authority to obtain the information and indicated that it suspects that the information relates to national security, the defence of Canada or the conduct of international affairs.
Collection
(2) An organization may collect an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent for the purpose of making a disclosure under subsection (1).
Use
(3) An organization may use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if it was collected under subsection (2).
.
Initiative of organization — national security, defence or international affairs
48 (1) An organization may on its own initiative disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to a government institution or a part of a government institution if the organization suspects that the information relates to national security, the defence of Canada or the conduct of international affairs.
Collection
(2) An organization may collect an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent for the purpose of making a disclosure under subsection (1).
Use
(3) An organization may use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if it was collected under subsection (2).

The Government may collect personal information without your knowledge or consent if it believes (or claims to believe), that it’s done for a legitimate purpose, or may help with the investigation of Government affairs.

Furthermore, institutions can, on their own free will, simply choose to hand over personal information without knowledge or consent. All that is required is a vague standard that they believe a crime has been, or is about to be committed.

Getting back to the topic of the Christchurch Call: the original purpose of the proposed Digital Charter was to combat online extremism, before violence broke out. Under this Bill, can Governments simply seize data, or can companies just provide it on a whim? Could having incorrect opinions be viewed as a public security risk?

Could telling the truth about the Covid-19 hoax be grounds for detaining or de-platforming people, under the guise of “public health and safety”?

8. Lobbying Registry Search: “Digital Charter”

Entering “Digital Charter” into the Lobbing Registry website flags 84 hits: 80 registrations, and 4 communications reports. Let’s take a look into that.

The 4 communications were with Facebook Canada, and took place between April 15, 2020, and December 17, 2020. They involved: Facebook, the Prime Minister’s Office and the Policy Advisor on Canada’s Digital Charter.

Small aside: Official Opposition Leader, Erin O’Toole. was a lobbyist for Facebook when he worked for the law firm, Heenan Blaikie. Could explain why he’s silent on this issue.

9. More “Digital Charter” In Lobbying Registry

Want to do banking of rely on credit for your business or personal life? It may become much harder if these institutions refuse to associate with you, for whatever reason.

10. GlaxoSmithKline, “Digital Charter” Lobbying

Seems pretty strange that GSK (GlaxoSmithKline), is involved in discussions concerning the Digital Charter. On the surface, it also looks like a conflict of interest.

11. What’s Really Going On Here?

The idea of a “Digital Charter” was shoved onto the Canadian public, under the pretense that it would be used to stop violent and unstable people from committing serious crimes. Instead, it seems like an open invitation to throw out privacy protections altogether.

It’s quite stunning the reasons and ways that personal information can be shared “without knowledge or consent” of the people involved. Far from ensuring privacy protections, it codifies the right to share others’ data. The reasons for doing so are also (intentionally?) defined in very vague ways. This ensures that loopholes will always exist.

Posted on

Bill C-405: Erin O’Toole Tried To Make It Easier For Companies To Transfer Employee Pensions In 2018

In 2018, the CPC MP for Durham, Erin O’Toole, introduced C-405, a Private Member’s Bill to make changes regarding employee pension plans. While touted as some great overhaul for workers, things are not what they appear to be.

1. Pensions, Benefits, Worker Entitlements

The public is often unaware of what is happening with their pensions and other social benefits. Often, changes are made with little to no input from the people who are directly impacted by it. Unfortunate, but we need to constantly be on top of these things.

2. Important Links

Private Member’s Bill C-405 Introduced By Erin O’Toole
Text Of Bill C-405 (First Reading)
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985
Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act
Open Parliament: Announcement From Erin O’Toole
Open Parliament: Debate On Bill C-405

3. Bill C-405 Introduced In June 2018

Bill for Private Members rarely get far in the House of Commons, let alone pass. Often, they are just a way to signal to the sponsor that efforts are being made. O’Toole’s Bill didn’t get anywhere in Parliament, but it’s unclear how serious he was about pushing it.

4. Pension Benefits Standards Act

Termination and Winding-up of Pension Plans
Marginal note:Deemed termination
.
29 (1) The revocation of registration of a pension plan shall be deemed to constitute termination of the plan.

Effect of termination on assets
.
(8) On the termination of the whole of a pension plan, all assets of the plan that are to be used for the purpose of providing pension benefits or other benefits continue to be subject to this Act.

The language of section 29(8) of the Pension Benefits Standards Act is quite clear. Once a pension plan is terminated, the funds must be dispersed to those who have contributed to the plan. Here is part of what O’Toole wanted to add.

Amendment — liquidation, assignment or bankruptcy of the employer
(8.‍1) If an employer is the subject of proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act or Part III of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the amount required to permit a pension plan to satisfy all obligations with respect to pension benefits and other benefits to be provided under the plan is greater than the assets of the plan, the administrator may
.
(a) despite subsection 10.‍1(2) and the terms of the plan, amend the plan to change the nature or form of the pension benefits and other benefits to be provided under the plan; or
.
(b) apply to the Superintendent for permission to transfer or permit the transfer of any part of the assets or liabilities of the pension plan to another pension plan.
Consent to amendment
.
(8.‍2) Before a pension plan may be amended or part of its assets or liabilities transferred in accordance with subsection (8.‍1),
.
(a) the administrator must provide any prescribed information, in the prescribed manner, to the members or former members, to any other persons entitled to pension benefits and to the representatives of the members or former members and of any other persons entitled to pension benefits; and
.
(b) the amendment or transfer must be approved by more than one third of the members or former members and of any other persons entitled to pension benefits or by the representatives of more than one third of the members or former members and of any other persons entitled to pension benefits.
.
No action against administrator
(8.‍3) No action lies against any administrator for amending a plan or for transferring or permitting the transfer of any part of the assets or liabilities of a pension plan to another pension plan in compliance with subsections (8.‍1) and (8.‍2).

Bill C-405 would have allowed employers to transfer the pension funds rather than pay out if the company were in serious financial difficulties.

As for the consent, that is an extremely low threshold. Forget a super majority, or even a simple majority. Only 1/3 would have to approve for this to happen. Even worse, the “representatives”, or people claiming to represent the workers could simply approve on their behalf. This seems ripe for abuse.

While transferring pension funds to another company may make that more solvent, the reality is, those employees did not sign up for it initially. An argument can be made that they should simply be allowed to collect on their entitlements, and walk away. If an opt-out were provided so individual members could cash out, it would nullify a lot of the criticism.

5. Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act

Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act
.
3 The Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act is amended by adding the following after section 11.‍52:
.
Limitation — pension plans
11.‍53 No order may be made under this Part respecting the approval of a plan offering incentives to certain directors, officers or employees to remain in the employ of the debtor company for the period during which the com­pany is expected to be subject to proceedings under this Act unless the court is satisfied
.
(a) if the debtor company participates in a prescribed pension plan for the benefit of its employees, that the relevant parties have entered into an agreement, approved by the relevant pension regulator, respecting the payment of the amounts referred to in subparagraphs 6(6)‍(a)‍(ii) and (iii);
.
(b) that the directors, officers or employees are necessary for the successful restructuring or liquidation of the debtor company or for the protection and the maximization of the value of the company’s property;
.
(c) that the directors, officers or employees have received a job offer from another person than the debtor company and the offering of the incentives is necessary for their retention in the employ of the debtor company; and
.
(d) that the amount of the incentive offer
.
(i) is not greater than ten times the amount of a similar incentive offer given to an employee of the debtor company for any purpose during the previous calendar year; or
.
(ii) if no incentive referred to in subparagraph (i) was offered, is not greater than an amount equal to 25% of the amount of any similar incentive given to a director or officer of the debtor company for any purpose during the previous calendar year.

Incentives and bonuses (primarily aimed at officers and directors), would still be allowed to be offered, and not be vulnerable to a court order. However, those incentives would be capped. Seems strange that heads of failing companies should be offered any type of incentives.

6. Does This Bill Benefit Workers?

If a company is failing, and going under, the right thing to do is to pay out its pension holdings to the people who have contributed to it. Transferring elsewhere, especially with such a low threshold, seems like shifting the goal posts. At a minimum, those who have contributed should be able to just take a pay out and leave.

People who run failing companies shouldn’t be getting bonuses, even if they are capped. This just rewards incompetence, often at the cost of other assets of the company.

The legislation was promoted as a way to protect pensions and to keep them going. However, such transfers (possible with just a minority of support), potentially remove all control from workers. And as with everything, the devil is in the details.

For now, it appears to be dead.

Posted on

Reminder, Bill S-240 Didn’t Pass, Would Criminalize Leaving Canada For Trafficked Organs

Senate Bill S-240 would make it a crime to go abroad for the purposes of receiving trafficked organs. The rationale being, if it’s illegal here, leaving to do it should be treated the same way. In part, Bill S-240 has been in response to revelations that China has been involved in forced organ harvesting.

This is the 4th version of the idea to come forward. Yet again, it did not pass before the session ended.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

2. Important Links

Senate Introduces Bill S-240, Criminal Code, Organ Trafficking
Bill S-240 Transcript Of Hearings
Senate Bill S-240: Going Abroad To Obtain Illegal Organs
Open Parliament On MP Speeches, Quotes
House Committee Hearings On Bill S-240
The Conversation: Canada Complicit In Chinese Organ Trafficking
EndTransplantAbuse.Org

3. From 2018 Senate Hearings

Bills don’t always have to originate in the House of Commons. Many come from the Senate as well, and Bill S-240 is just one of them. It would have amended the Criminal Code to make it a crime to go abroad to obtain an organ where there has been no informed consent. It’s already a crime to leave the country to participate in terrorism or child sex offences, so it’s not much of a stretch.

The Senate adopted it on June 14, 2018. However, it would be another year before the House of Commons would hold hearings on it.

4. Audio From Parliamentary Hearings

February 26, 2019 — House Committee

February 27, 2019 — House Committee


From the House of Commons hearings.

5. Most Recent Text Of Bill S-240

BILL S-240
An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs)
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
.
R.‍S.‍, c. C-46
Criminal Code
1 (1) Section 7 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (4.‍11):
Offence outside Canada
.
(4.‍2) Despite anything in this Act or any other Act, a person who commits an act or omission outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be an offence under section 240.‍1 is deemed to commit that act or omission in Canada if the person is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
.
(2) Subsection 7(4.‍3) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Consent of Attorney General
.
(4.‍3) Proceedings with respect to an act or omission deemed to have been committed in Canada under subsection (4.‍1) or (4.‍2) may only be instituted with the consent of the Attorney General.
.
2 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 240:
Trafficking in Human Organs
Removal without informed consent
.
240.‍1 (1) Everyone commits an offence who
(a) obtains an organ to be transplanted into their body or into the body of another person, knowing that the person from whom it was removed did not give informed consent to the removal, or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave informed consent;
.
(b) carries out, participates in or facilitates the removal of an organ from the body of another person, knowing that the person from whom it was removed did not give informed consent to the removal, or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave informed consent; or
.
(c) acts on behalf of, at the direction of or in association with a person who removes an organ from the body of another person, knowing that the person from whom it was removed did not give informed consent to the removal, or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave informed consent.

The Bill underwent some changes along the way, but that is the latest version. Not only would a person receiving a trafficked organ be exposed to prosecution for leaving Canada, but others involved in facilitating it would be as liable as well.

6. S-204 A Response To China’s Trafficking

The clock is ticking on Canada’s chance to enact important measures against organ trafficking.

For the past two decades, the Chinese regime has been killing prisoners of conscience for their organs. The purchase and sale of human lives has become an industry, and Canada, among other developed countries, has been supporting it.

Bill S-240 seeks to put a stop to Canadian complicity by criminalizing organ tourism. The bill has received unanimous consent from both the Senate and the House of Commons, and is awaiting final Senate approval before the end of the parliamentary session before it can be passed.

This is a critical moment of decision for Canada.

As a member of the Canadian Committee of the International Coalition To End Transplant Abuse In China, I have been among those advocating for Bill S-240, an act that brings important changes to the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in order to combat organ tourism.

Several articles available call this what is: fighting back largely against the forced organ harvesting that China is involved with.

This should be a pretty straightforward issue to get on board with. But like the other times this was introduced, it never quite made it through Parliament. Plenty of lesser and symbolic pieces of legislation have, but not this.

Posted on

Euthanasia #3: Bill C-7 To Expand Scope Of Assisted Suicide Beyond “Reasonably Foreseeable Death”

Bill C-7, the expanded version of the assisted suicide bill (or “euthanasia 2.0), is currently being discussed in the Canadian Parliament. It broadens the scope laid out in Bill C-14, from the previous Parliament. A Quebec Court ruled that Bill C-14’s requirement that a death be “reaso

1. Assisted Suicide (MAiD), Euthanasia

CLICK HERE, for #1: Court says referral or service must be provided.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Bill C-14, Medical Assistance in Dying (euthanasia).

2. Important Links

Bill C-14 Introduced In Parliament (2016)
Bill C-14 Committee Hearings

Truchon V AG Of Canada, 2019 QCCS 3792 (CanLII)
Truchon V. AG, Quebec Superior Court Ruling
Bill C-7 Introduced Into Parliament (Feb 2020)
Bill C-7 Re-Introduced Into Parliament (Oct 2020)
Bill C-7 Committee Hearings

C-7 Canadian Bar Association
C-7 Canadian Conference Of Catholic Bishops
C-7 Coelho Ramona
C-7 Commission On End Of Life Care
C-7 DawsTanja
C-7 Jointly1
C-7 Living With Dignity
C-7 Physicians Alliance Against Euthanasia
C-7 Protection Of Conscience Project
C-7 Wickenhesier Alizee

Bill C-7 Evidence November 3
Bill C-7 Evidence November 5

3. Quebec Court Says Changes Needed In MAiD

MEDICAL AID IN DYING
26. Only a patient who meets all of the following criteria may obtain medical aid in dying:
(1) be an insured person within the meaning of the Health Insurance Act (chapter A-29);
(2) be of full age and capable of giving consent to care;
(3) be at the end of life;
(4) suffer from a serious and incurable illness;
(5) be in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability; and;
(6) experience constant and unbearable physical or psychological suffering which cannot be relieved in a manner the patient deems tolerable.
.
The patient must request medical aid in dying themselves, in a free and informed manner, by means of the form prescribed by the Minister. The form must be dated and signed by the patient.
.
The form must be signed in the presence of and countersigned by a health or social services professional; if the professional is not the attending physician, the signed form is to be given by the professional to the attending physician.

28. A patient may, at any time and by any means, withdraw their request for
medical aid in dying.
.
A patient may also, at any time and by any means, request that the
administration of medical aid in dying be put off.

31. A physician practising in a centre operated by an institution who refuses are quest for medical aid in dying for a reason not based on section 29 must, as soon as possible, notify the executive director of the institution or any other person designated by the executive director and forward the request form given to the physician, if that is the case, to the executive director or designated person. The executive director of the institution or designated person must then take the necessary steps to find, as soon as possible, another physician willing to deal with the request in accordance with section 29.
.
If the physician who receives the request practises in a private health facility and does not provide medical aid in dying, the physician must, as soon as possible, notify the executive director of the local authority referred to in section 99.4 of the Act respecting health services and social services (chapter S-4.2) that serves the territory in which the patient making the request resides, or notify the person designated by the executive director. The physician forwards the request form received, if that is the case, to the executive director or designated person and the steps mentioned in the first paragraph must be taken.
.
If no local authority serves the territory in which the patient resides, the notice referred to in the second paragraph is forwarded to the executive director of the institution operating a local community service centre in the territory or the person designated by the executive director.

In this case, the Applicant, Jean Truchon, had suffered from spastic cerebral palsy with triparesis since birth. In March 2012, he was diagnosed with severe spinal stenosis (narrowing of the spinal canal) as well as myelomalacia (spinal cord necrosis). This is a degenerative condition for which no surgical or pharmacological treatment exists that caused the gradual paralysis of his only working limb. As a result, in 2012, Mr. Truchon permanently lost the use of his left arm and became fully paralyzed, with no hope of improvement. This new condition was accompanied by significant physical pain in the arms and neck, with intense burning sensations and painful spasms.

While clearly not about to die soon, he seems fully aware of his condition, which has no reasonable prospect of improving. So can he request medically assisted suicide on this basis?

The Quebec Court said there is no reason to deny it.

[375] First, the Court is astounded by the fact that the experts for the Attorney General of Canada had not even a basic knowledge of the practice of medical assistance in dying in Canada, which has nonetheless been legal throughout the country since 2016. None of them has participated in the request process for medical assistance in dying, either by assessing a patient or by providing such medical assistance. None of them has done any research on the subject or even tried to consult the data available in Canada.

[376] Therefore, when they all state that there is no difference between suicide and medical assistance in dying, they are considering and presenting only one side of the story, one part of the equation. They compare the two issues without ever having analyzed, learned, or addressed the specifics of medical assistance in dying, its parameters, its eligibility criteria, or how it is practised in Canada.

As an aside, the Government presented “experts” who had no experience of knowledge whatsoever in medical assistance in dying. Either they couldn’t find better experts, or didn’t even try.

4. Bill C-7 Re-Introduced In Parliament

A point of clarification: Bill C-7 was actually introduced in February 2020, and only got as far as first reading. It died when Parliament was prorogued. It has been re-introduced (again, as Bill C-7), in the latest session.

SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) repeal the provision that requires a person’s natural death be reasonably foreseeable in order for them to be eligible for medical assistance in dying;
(b) specify that persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness are not eligible for medical assistance in dying;
(c) create two sets of safeguards that must be respected before medical assistance in dying may be provided to a person, the application of which depends on whether the person’s natural death is reasonably foreseeable;
(d) permit medical assistance in dying to be provided to a person who has been found eligible to receive it, whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable and who has lost the capacity to consent before medical assistance in dying is provided, on the basis of a prior agreement they entered into with the medical practitioner or nurse practitioner; and
(e) permit medical assistance in dying to be provided to a person who has lost the capacity to consent to it as a result of the self-administration of a substance that was provided to them under the provisions governing medical assistance in dying in order to cause their own death.

Preamble
Whereas the Government of Canada has committed to responding to the Superior Court of Québec decision in Truchon v. Attorney General of Canada;
.
Whereas Parliament considers that it is appropriate to no longer limit eligibility for medical assistance in dying to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable and to provide additional safeguards for those persons whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable;
.
Whereas under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms every individual has the right to life, liberty and security of the person without being deprived of them except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination;
.
Whereas Canada is a State Party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and recognizes its obligations under it, including in respect of the right to life;
.
Whereas Parliament affirms the inherent and equal value of every person’s life and the importance of taking a human rights-based approach to disability inclusion;
.
Whereas Parliament recognizes the need to balance several interests and societal values, including the autonomy of persons who are eligible to receive medical assistance in dying, the protection of vulnerable persons from being induced to end their lives and the important public health issue that suicide represents;
.
Whereas it is desirable to have a consistent approach to medical assistance in dying across Canada, while recognizing the provinces’ jurisdiction over various matters related to medical assistance in dying, including the delivery of health care services and the regulation of health care professionals, as well as insurance contracts and coroners and medical examiners;
.
Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to having a federal monitoring regime that provides a reliable national dataset and that promotes accountability under the law governing medical assistance in dying and improve the transparency of its implementation;
.
Whereas, while recognizing the inherent risks and complexity of permitting medical assistance in dying for persons who are unable to provide consent at the time of the procedure, Parliament considers it appropriate to permit dying persons who have been found eligible to receive medical assistance in dying and are awaiting its provision to obtain medical assistance in dying even if they lose the capacity to provide final consent, except if they demonstrate signs of resistance to or refusal of the procedure;
.
Whereas further consultation and deliberation are required to determine whether it is appropriate and, if so, how to provide medical assistance in dying to persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness in light of the inherent risks and complexity of the provision of medical assistance in dying in those circumstances;
.
And whereas the law provides that a committee of Parliament will begin a review of the legislative provisions relating to medical assistance in dying and the state of palliative care in Canada in June 2020, which review may include issues of advance requests and requests where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition;
Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

One of the main takeaways in Bill C-7 is that is removes a requirement from Bill C-14 that a person receiving medical assistance in dying have a death that is “reasonably foreseeable”. Now, a person can get a doctor or nurse to help with euthanasia for a wide array of reasons.

A worthwhile note: it includes language which prevents assisted suicide if the only reason for doing so is a mental illness.

5. Clips From Bill C-7 Parliamentary Hearings

The hearings, of course, last much longer, but those are a few clips of it. An interesting claim (from Roger Foley), about the father of the Judge in the Truchon ruling gave evidence in the case. If true, a huge conflict of interest.

It’s rather strange to see Iqra Khalid, who presented M-103 (the Islamic blasphemy Motion), heading up the hearings on medically assisted suicide. Curious to know what her views are.

6. Roger Foley, Assisted Life Website

My name is Roger Foley. I am the patient who has been in Victoria Hospital for over 4-years being pressured into assisted dying by the hospital and Government while they prevent my access to care options I need to live 1, 2. I have important public interest updates.

The Hospital is currently billing me $1800 dollars per day and continuing to coerce me to Assisted Dying during the Covid-19 pandemic when they threatened me with that and offered me Assisted Dying. Instead of protecting the lives of the elderly, the disabled and the vulnerable, the Hospital and Government are taking advantage, by further exploiting and abusing persons who are vulnerable before and during Covid-19 and not protecting their lives across the Country. So many persons are dying unnecessary deaths, when robust self-directed home care would make all Canadians safer in their own homes.

The Government cannot be trusted and they admitted rather than preparing for the Covid-19 pandemic, they were selling their exploitation and abuse of vulnerable Canadians to Assisted Dying rather than calling China to learn about the threat, ordering ventilators, protecting those in Long-Term Care facilities and Group Homes, and ordering Personal Protecting Equipment for Health Care workers to make sure frontline Health Care workers were safe. They also during the Pandemic in March, when thousands of people were dying, released their bias propaganda assisted dying expansion survey to continue to abuse, exploit and end the lives of vulnerable disabled and elderly Canadians. I am continuing to be attacked through my care, being denied basic necessities of life, and being denied proper and dignified health care. I am very scared, and the Government and the Health Care systems want to end my life rather than help me to live with dignity and compassion.

Assisted Life is documenting and chronicling the problems and conflicts of interests in proceedings. This is too long to cover in a single article, but it’s worth a good read.

7. Protection Of Conscience Project

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)
.
I.1 The Protection of Conscience Project does not take a position on the acceptability of euthanasia or physician assisted suicide. The Project supports legislation that ensures that health care workers who object to providing or participating in homicide and suicide for reasons of conscience or religion are not compelled to do so or punished or disadvantaged for refusal.

One of the valid topics that needs to be discussed is the conscience rights of health care professionals who believe that participating in assisted suicide (or legalized murder) is wrong, and goes against their oath.

8. Physicians Alliance Against Euthanasia

To the Committee,
The danger of universal euthanasia access is similar to the passive, everpresent danger of drowning. A few people will die voluntarily by jumping in the water. But others will simply stumble. And yet others may be pushed.
.
Similarly, while some people will truly die by choice, others may “choose” euthanasia on a whim born of passing despair. But worse still: all people eligible for euthanasia become automatically vulnerable to pressure from others who cannot bear to see them suffer, are exhausted by their care, or will in some way benefit from their death, be they health professionals, caregivers or heirs.

Clearly, the most egregious harm of Bill C-7 lies in the extension of euthanasia to those who are not dying. The Carter decision specified that any legalization of euthanasia must include effective safeguards, of which the reasonably foreseeable death criterion was one.

In addition, Bill C-7 only requires that patients be informed of real alternatives to death in order to relieve suffering. That is clearly insufficient, given the scarcity of medical, psychological, and social resources for the many groups of people who might contemplate death as a solution to their troubles. It is essential that such alternatives be actually available to all patients considering euthanasia.

“Bill C-7 does not just expand MAiD; it fundamentally redefines it. No longer limited to hastening death, Bill C-7 embraces MAiD as a means of terminating an otherwise viable life – but only the life of someone with an illness or disability (italics added).
.
Bill C-7 (therefore) undermines our constitutional commitment to the equal and inherent value of all lives”

Other issues mysteriously bundled in Bill C-7
.
Whereas the end-of-life provision is of greatest importance, certain other elements of Bill C-7 have nothing to do with the requirements of Truchon/Gladu and their effects go far beyond compliance with that judgment. Two of these involve weakening euthanasia safeguards in cases where natural death is reasonably foreseeable: It is proposed that the existing ten-day waiting period be eliminated for all patients; and that the number of witnesses to the request be lowered from two to only one (who may also be a health care professional involved in the patient’s care).

The Physicians Alliance Against Euthanasia raises a number of valid points about Bill C-14, including:
(a) people may choose death in a moment of despair
(b) death may be promoted be interested parties
(c) Bill C-7 redefines MAiD, not just expands it
(d) eliminating the 10 day waiting period
(e) reducing the 2 witness threshold to 1

9. Was Bill C-14 Just A Gateway?

This is a fair question to ask: was Bill C-14 just a stepping stone to more widespread euthanasia. By allowing medically assisted suicide for terminally ill people, Parliament unwittingly, (or perhaps wittingly), set a precedent to broader implementation. How do we determine that the right person — the one whose life would end — is actually making the decision, and in a fully informed way?

While the prospect of relatives hastening death in anticipation of an inheritance seems like a movie script, it is a realistic possibility. Greed makes some people do horrible things.

Standards also have to be set to ensure the person has fully thought out the consequences, and is not just suffering from a bad day (or series or days).

It’s also been mentioned by Roger Foley, and AssistedLife.ca, that these court decisions have been influenced by conflicts of interest. The research done is quite impressive. That will be addressed separately.

Of course, there are a lot of legitimate concerns and questions (such as being used to outright murder) that will likely never be fully addressed.

Posted on

Bill C-10; Censorship; Theresa Tam Openly Admits Social Media Collusion

What a goldmine this short video clip is. Theresa “the Apple” Tam openly admits that there is collusion on social media, (see 3:55), such as: (a) automatically forwarding searches to specific sites; (b) demonetizing certain accounts; and (c) algorithm manipulation to prevent certain information from being seen.

Tam also parrots the UNESCO narrative regarding misinformation. At 6:00, Tam asks people to create videos and testimonials promote the Covid narrative. At 7:00, Tam uses “Vaccine Confidence“, which is actually a global psychological effort to get people vaccinated.

And while Trudeau denies internment camps are being built, Brampton Mayor, a “conserative” Patrick Brown thanks people for receiving the funding to build an internment camp.
https://twitter.com/patrickbrownont/status/1325997706943352832

1. Free Speech Is Under Constant Threat

Check here for the series free speech. It’s a crucial topic, and is typically intertwined with other categories. Topic include: Digital Cooperation; the IGF, or Internet Governance Forum; ex-Liberal Candidate Richard Lee; the Digital Charter; Dominic LeBlanc’s proposal. There is also collusion, done by UNESCO, more UNESCO, Facebook, Google, and Twitter lobbying.

2. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy is thoroughly compromised, as shown: here, here, here, and here.

3. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Trudeau/Tam casually admitting to censorship.
CLICK HERE, for Tam looking for ways to vaccinate more people.
CLICK HERE, for great censorship piece by INFORRM.ORG.
CLICK HERE, for social media firms “catching misinformation”.
CLICK HERE, for Dominic LeBlanc considering “misinformation” law.
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-10 introduced in Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for openparliament.ca, Bill C-10 entry.

CLICK HERE, for Google censorship “keeping the public safe”.
CLICK HERE, for Google meeting Canadian Gov’t.
https://archive.is/2NNky
WayBack Machine Archive

CLICK HERE, for information on Twitter platform censorship.
CLICK HERE, for Twitter lobbying Canadian Government.
https://archive.is/L67ID

CLICK HERE, for Facebook promoting censorship.
CLICK HERE, for Facebook influence/lobbying Gov’t.
https://archive.is/3Mwny
WayBack Machine Archive

4. Tam: Duties For Social Media Companies

Tam and Deputy Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Howard Njoo warned against misinformation about vaccine safety online and explained why social media giants have a role to play in sharing trusted material.

“This is the first pandemic in the age of the Internet and social media. This is an area of significant work because we have an overload of information through which many Canadians can’t sort out what is credible and what is not,” she said.

“I look towards different partners, government departments coming together to look at how we better address some of the myths and misinformation that is in that space. I think fundamentally it’s a massive challenge.”

The Statistics Canada report also shows that nearly 58 per cent of respondents said that they were very likely to get the COVID-19 vaccine, a majority being 65 and older.

Theresa Tam openly says that social media has a role to play in advancing the vaccination agenda, and in countering information that contradicts the official narrative. Also, take a look into the issue of “vaccine hesitancy“, or vaccine confidence.

5. YouTube/Google Openly Censor Critics Online

Canuck Law was given a strike and had a video removed for contradicting the official narrative on YouTube. The video was based on Part 29 in the series: lies of public health officials. As such, it has become clear that real discussion on the platform will never be permitted.

If you’re posting content
Don’t post content on YouTube if it includes any of the following:
.
Treatment Misinformation: Discourages someone from seeking medical treatment by encouraging the use of cures or remedies to treat COVID-19.
.
-Claims that COVID-19 doesn’t exist or that people do not die from it
-Content that encourages the use of home remedies in place of medical treatment such as consulting a doctor or going to the hospital
-Content that encourages the use of prayer or rituals in place of medical treatment
-Content that claims that a vaccine for coronavirus is available or that there’s a guaranteed cure
-Claims about COVID-19 vaccinations that contradict expert consensus from local health authorities or WHO
-Content that claims that any currently-available medicine prevents you from getting the coronavirus
-Other content that discourages people from consulting a medical professional or seeking medical advice
-Prevention Misinformation: Content that promotes prevention methods that contradict local health authorities or WHO.
.
Diagnostic Misinformation: Content that promotes diagnostic methods that contradict local health authorities or WHO.
.
Transmission Misinformation: Content that promotes transmission information that contradicts local health authorities or WHO.
.
-Content that claims that COVID-19 is not caused by a viral infection
-Content that claims COVID-19 is not contagious
-Content that claims that COVID-19 cannot spread in certain climates or geographies
-Content that claims that any group or individual has immunity to the virus or cannot transmit the virus
-Content that disputes the efficacy of local health authorities’ or WHO’s guidance on physical distancing or self-isolation measures to reduce transmission of COVID-19

Educational, documentary, scientific or artistic content
We may allow content that violates the misinformation policies noted on this page if that content includes context that gives equal or greater weight to countervailing views from local health authorities or to medical or scientific consensus. We may also make exceptions if the purpose of the content is to condemn or dispute misinformation that violates our policies. This context must appear in the images or audio of the video itself. Providing it in the title or description is insufficient.

Examples
Here are some examples of content that’s not allowed on YouTube:
.
–Denial that COVID-19 exists
-Claims that people have not died from COVID-19
-Claims that there’s a guaranteed vaccine for COVID-19
-Claims that a specific treatment or medicine is a guaranteed cure for COVID-19
-Claims that certain people have immunity to COVID-19 due to their race or nationality
-Encouraging taking home remedies instead of getting medical treatment when sick
-Discouraging people from consulting a medical professional if they’re sick
-Content that claims that holding your breath can be used as a diagnostic test for COVID-19
-Videos alleging that if you avoid Asian food, you won’t get the coronavirus
-Videos alleging that setting off fireworks can clean the air of the virus
-Claims that COVID-19 is caused by radiation from 5G networks
-Videos alleging that the COVID-19 test is the cause of the virus
-Claims that countries with hot climates will not experience the spread of the virus
-Videos alleging that social distancing and self-isolation are not effective in reducing the spread of the virus
-Claims that the COVID-19 vaccine will kill people who receive it

These are the rules that YouTube (which is actually owned by Google), now have in place. The actual truth or research of the videos are irrelevant. The deciding factor is whether or not it contradicts the official narrative.

Google, the parent company of YouTube, has been meeting with Federal officials for a variety of issues, including media manipulation regarding the “pandemic”.

6. Twitter Censorship, Meeting With Gov’t

In serving the public conversation, our goal is to make it easy to find credible information on Twitter and to limit the spread of potentially harmful and misleading content. Starting today, we’re introducing new labels and warning messages that will provide additional context and information on some Tweets containing disputed or misleading information related to COVID-19.

In March, we broadened our policy guidance to address content that goes directly against guidance on COVID-19 from authoritative sources of global and local public health information. Moving forward, we may use these labels and warning messages to provide additional explanations or clarifications in situations where the risks of harm associated with a Tweet are less severe but where people may still be confused or misled by the content. This will make it easier to find facts and make informed decisions about what people see on Twitter.

New labels and warnings
.
During active conversations about disputed issues, it can be helpful to see additional context from trusted sources. Earlier this year, we introduced a new label for Tweets containing synthetic and manipulated media. Similar labels will now appear on Tweets containing potentially harmful, misleading information related to COVID-19. This will also apply to Tweets sent before today.

Twitter has updated their policies a few times this year, but it falls along the same idea as YouTube: information that openly contradicts the official position and recommendation of the World Health Organization and its proxies is at risk of being censored.

People like Theresa Tam and Justin Trudeau aren’t alarmed at the blatant censorship going on in the online sphere. On the contrary, they fully support it, as it undermines attempts to disprove their claims.

Subject Matter Details
Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution
–Bill C-10, An Act to Amend the Broadcasting Act and make related and consequential amendments to other acts
-Broadcasting and Telecommunications Review with regard to proposals to regulate online content.
-Income Tax Act, with regard to digital tax proposals.
-Intellectual property proposals and legislation with regard to copyright and online content.
-National Data Strategy consultations with regard to innovation, trust and privacy.
-Privacy legislation or proposals such the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) with regard to data collection, safety, and use.

Policies or Program
-Internet advertising policy, specifically the adoption of digital media and advertising by government.
-Working with government agencies to help them understand how social media companies create their own rules and policies.
-Working with government agencies to help them understand how to use social media during elections.

Twitter has also been meeting with the Federal Government on issues such as Bill C-10, and regulating online content. This screams of efforts to crack down on free speech and censor unpleasant truth.

7. Facebook Censorship/Collusion Over Covid

Ever since COVID-19 was declared a global public health emergency in January, we’ve been working to connect people to accurate information from health experts and keep harmful misinformation about COVID-19 from spreading on our apps.

We’ve now directed over 2 billion people to resources from the WHO and other health authorities through our COVID-19 Information Center and pop-ups on Facebook and Instagram with over 350 million people clicking through to learn more.

But connecting people to credible information is only half the challenge. Stopping the spread of misinformation and harmful content about COVID-19 on our apps is also critically important. That’s why we work with over 60 fact-checking organizations that review and rate content in more than 50 languages around the world. In the past month, we’ve continued to grow our program to add more partners and languages. Since the beginning of March, we’ve added eight new partners and expanded our coverage to more than a dozen new countries. For example, we added MyGoPen in Taiwan, the AFP and dpa in the Netherlands, Reuters in the UK, and others.

Facebook is quite open about the fact that they are trying to alter the narrative and prop up official versions of events. They also have no qualms about censoring so-called “misinformation”.

Facebook has also been meeting with the Federal Government, on a variety of issues. It would be nice to actually have the minutes of these meetings, not just a vague description.

8. CBC Promotes Limiting Free Speech

Social media platforms have taken unprecedented steps to fight misinformation online because of the COVID-19 pandemic, but some critics say they could still do more.

Facebook, Twitter and Google/YouTube have ramped up their efforts to police content that contains incorrect or harmful information, taking down the worst offenders, attaching warnings to content that has been fact-checked and linking to official sources, such as the Public Health Agency of Canada.

That includes posts such as a viral video by an American doctor on disciplinary probation in which he claims 5G technology causes coronavirus (it does not) or a false post implying the Canadian Armed Forces were in Toronto, but which turned out to be a photo of a tank taken during a festival in 2016.

On Thursday, Facebook said it has attached warnings to 40 million posts about COVID-19, and that 95 per cent of the time, users did not click through to see the content. Twitter says it has taken down over 2,000 tweets related to COVID-19 and “challenged” 2.8 million accounts, which can mean limiting who sees certain tweets, requiring a tweet to be removed or placing a warning on tweets that violate rules but are in the public interest to leave up.

This should alarm people. Twitter, Google and Facebook have all decided what shall constitute the truth, and are intentionally limiting access to information that doesn’t fit the narrative. Let’s not forget that the Liberals are considering laws to ban what they call “misinformation”.

9. Trudeau/Erin O’Toole Both Compromised

Trudeau: His Chief-Of-Staff, Katie Telford, is married to Rob Silver, co-founder of Crestview Strategy. Crestview has long lobbied for GAVI (which is Gates funded). Andrew Scheer was also lobbied by GAVI.

O’Toole: His Chief-Of-Staff, Walied, Soliman, is a director for Sick Kids Hospital in Toronto (which is also Gates funded).

Also: Erin O’Toole, who is currently the head of the Conservative Party of Canada, was previously a lobbyist for Facebook, when he worked for Heenan Blakie. Blakie is the now defunct law firm which Jean Chretien and Pierre Trudeau both worked at.

10. Bill C-10: Online Censorship, Licensing

In early February, Steven Guilbeault, the Heritage Minister announced that the Government wanted mandate that all media outlets to have a license. He (sort of) backtracked after a public backlash. While this may have just been viewed as a tax grab at the time, it takes on a whole new look in light of the censorship attitude in this “pandemic”.

It’s official: Bill C-10 has now been introduced in the House of Commons. It’s been marketed as an effort to force media giants to spend money on Canadian content. Let’s take a look.

SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Broadcasting Act to, among other things,
(a) add online undertakings — undertakings for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet — as a distinct class of broadcasting undertakings;
(b) update the broadcasting policy for Canada set out in section 3 of that Act by, among other things, providing that the Canadian broadcasting system should serve the needs and interests of all Canadians — including Canadians from racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds — and should provide opportunities for Indigenous persons, programming that reflects Indigenous cultures and that is in Indigenous languages, and programming that is accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities;
(c) specify that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (the “Commission”) must regulate and supervise the Canadian broadcasting system in a manner that
(i) takes into account the different characteristics of Indigenous language broadcasting and the different conditions under which broadcasting undertakings that provide Indigenous language programming operate,
(ii) is fair and equitable as between broadcasting undertakings providing similar services,
(iii) facilitates the provision of programs that are accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities, and
(iv) takes into account the variety of broadcasting undertakings to which that Act applies and avoids imposing obligations on a class of broadcasting undertakings if doing so will not contribute in a material manner to the implementation of the broadcasting policy;
(d) amend the procedure relating to the issuance by the Governor in Council of policy directions to the Commission;
(e) replace the Commission’s power to impose conditions on a licence with a power to make orders imposing conditions on the carrying on of broadcasting undertakings;
(f) provide the Commission with the power to require that persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings make expenditures to support the Canadian broadcasting system;
(g) authorize the Commission to provide information to the Minister responsible for that Act, the Chief Statistician of Canada and the Commissioner of Competition, and set out in that Act a process by which a person who submits certain types of information to the Commission may designate the information as confidential;
(h) amend the procedure by which the Governor in Council may, under section 28 of that Act, set aside a decision of the Commission to issue, amend or renew a licence or refer such a decision back to the Commission for reconsideration and hearing;
(i) specify that a person shall not carry on a broadcasting undertaking, other than an online undertaking, unless they do so in accordance with a licence or they are exempt from the requirement to hold a licence;
(j) harmonize the punishments for offences under Part II of that Act and clarify that a due diligence defence applies to the existing offences set out in that Act; and
(k) allow for the imposition of administrative monetary penalties for violations of certain provisions of that Act or of the Accessible Canada Act.
The enactment also makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Part (b) would require providers to pander to all groups under the sun, although not aiming content at Europeans would probably be considered okay.

Does (i) specify that online content (such as videos and websites) would be excluded from any media licensing requirement?

Although the Government (now) says specifically that news outlets would be exempt from being required to get a license, one has to wonder if this will actually be the case. It’s also unclear if access to social media will be limited to only the approved parties. After all, they seem pretty pro censorship. As with many things, the devil is in the details.

Bill C-10 deserves a stand-alone piece, which will be coming soon. This hardly does it justice.

11. “Misinformation-Fighting” Efforts Online

https://pledgetopause.org/
https://www.shareverified.com/en
https://en.unesco.org/fightfakenews

A few of the sites popping up to stop people from asking the questions that need to be asked.

12. Will IHR Make Censorship Mandatory?

Risk communication and community engagement
-Continue risk communications and community engagement activities through the WHO Information Network for Epidemics (EPI-WIN) and other platforms to counter rumours and misinformation.
-Continue to regularly communicate clear messages, guidance, and advice about the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic, how to reduce transmission, and save lives.
-Work with partners and countries to articulate potential long-term consequences of COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing the need for strengthened cross-sectoral preparedness, transparency and global coordination.

The International Health Regulations that the WHO puts out are legally binding. Considering that WHO supports efforts to “combat misinformation”, one has to wonder if laws to censor certain views will be imposed.

Posted on

CV #28(D): CPC; O’Toole; Rempel Act As Gatekeepers In “Pandemic” Opposition

This is a screenshot from November 3rd from Health Canada. It states that 200,000 people in Canada have already recovered from this virus. Yet, this is will never be mentioned by Conservatives, nor will they ever question the bogus science behind the pandemic narrative.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here.

2. Opposition Motion Entirely Just For Show

MOTION TEXT
That the Standing Committee on Health be instructed to undertake a study on the emergency situation facing Canadians in light of the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that this study evaluate, review and examine any issues relevant to this situation, such as, but not limited to:
.
(a) rapid and at-home testing approvals and procurement process and schedule, and protocol for distribution;
.
(b) vaccine development and approvals process, procurement schedules, and protocol for distribution;
.
(c) federal public health guidelines and the data being used to inform them for greater clarity on efficacy;
.
(d) current long-term care facility COVID-19 protocols as they pertain solely to federal jurisdiction;
.
(e) the availability of therapeutics and treatment devices for Canadians diagnosed with COVID-19;
.
(f) the early warning system, Global Public Health Intelligence Network (GPHIN);
.
(g) the government’s progress in evaluating pre- and post-arrival rapid testing for travellers;
.
(h) the availability of paid sick leave for those in need, including quarantine and voluntary isolation;
.
(i) the adequacy of health transfer payments to the provinces, in light of the COVID-19 crisis;
.
(j) the impact of the government’s use of World Heath Organization (WHO) advice in early 2020 to delay the closure of borders and delay in the recommendation of wearing of masks on the spread of COVID-19 in Canada;
.
(k) the Public Health Agency of Canada’s communication strategy regarding COVID-19;
.
(l) the development, efficacy and use of data related to the government’s COVID Alert application;
.
(m) Canada’s level of preparedness to respond to another pandemic;
.
(n) the availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) in Canada and a review of Canada’s emergency stockpile of PPE between 2015 and present;
.
(o) the government’s contact tracing protocol, including options considered, technology, timelines and resources;
.
(p) the government’s consideration of and decision not to invoke the federal Emergencies Act;
.
provided that,
.
(q) this study begin no later than seven days following the adoption of this motion;
.
(r) the committee present its findings to the House upon completion and, notwithstanding Standing Order 109, that the government provide a comprehensive response to these findings within 30 days;
.
(s) evidence and documentation received by the committee during its study of the Canadian response to the outbreak of the coronavirus, commenced during the first session of the 43rd Parliament, be taken into consideration by the committee in the current study;
.
(t) that each party represented on the committee be entitled to select one witness per one-hour witness panel, and two witnesses per two-hour witness panel;
.
(u) an order of the House do issue for all memoranda, emails, documents, notes or other records from the Office of the Prime Minister, the Privy Council Office, the office of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the office of the Minister of Health, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada, concerning options, plans and preparations for the GPHIN since January 1, 2018;
.
(v) an order of the House do issue for a record of all communications between the government and the WHO in respect of options, plans or preparations for any future operation, or absence thereof, of the GPHIN, since January 1, 2018;
.
(w) an order of the House do issue for all memoranda, emails, documents, notes and other records from the Office of the Prime Minister, the Privy Council Office, the office of the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, the office of the Minister of Health, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada, concerning plans, preparations, approvals and purchasing of COVID-19 testing products including tests, reagents, swabs, laboratory equipment and other material related to tests and testing applications used in the diagnosis of COVID-19, since March 19, 2020;
.
(x) an order of the House do issue for all memoranda, emails, documents, notes and other records from the Prime Minister’s Office, the Privy Council Office, the office of the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, the office of the Minister of Health, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada concerning plans, preparations and purchasing of PPE, including gowns, gloves, masks, respirators, ventilators, visors and face shields, since March 19, 2020;
.
(y) an order of the House do issue for all memoranda, e-mails, documents, notes and other records relating to the COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force and its subcommittees;
.
(z) an order of the House do issue for all memoranda, e-mails, documents, notes and other records relating to the Government of Canada’s COVID-19 vaccine distribution and monitoring strategy, including, but not limited to anticipated timelines for the distribution of an approved COVID-19 vaccine across Canada and the prioritization of population groups for vaccination;
.
(aa) minutes of meetings of the cabinet and its committees be excluded from this order and all documents issued pursuant to this order (i) be organized by department and be provided to the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel as soon as is practicable in light of the pandemic, but, in any event, not later than November 30, 2020, and, if this is not possible, the Clerk of the Privy Council may request an extension of no more than seven days, by writing a letter to the committee, (ii) be vetted for matters of personal privacy information and national security, and, with respect to paragraph (y) only, be additionally vetted for information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to interfere with contractual or other negotiations between the Government of Canada and a third party, by the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel within seven days of the receipt of the documents, (iii) be laid upon the table by the Speaker, at the next earliest opportunity, once vetted, and permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Health; and
.
(bb) within seven days after all documents have been tabled pursuant to paragraph (aa), the Minister of Health, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry be ordered to appear separately as witnesses before the Standing Committee on Health, for at least three hours each.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/votes/43/2/13

Seems lovely on the surface, until you stop to think about it. There are many meaningful questions that simply don’t make it into the motion. The Conservatives only complain about the handling and implementation of this so-called pandemic. They have no criticism or questions for the declaration, or premeditation. This Motion is done to divert attention from the real issues.

3. Questions Conservatives Should Be Asking

[1] Why was modelling from Imperial College London even used in the first place? Why wasn’t his connections to Gates discussed openly, and his record for failures?

[2] Why are we still relying on doomsday modelling that is at best unreliable?

[3] Has this virus even been properly isolated and purified? If not, then how can any progress be made at all?

[4] Why isn’t the error rate of these PCR tests being discussed? Or the admitted lies and fabrications? It’s not much of a secret that they are unreliable at best. So why use them at all? Why is the focus simply on getting them faster?

[5] Why no mention of the fact that there is no real evidence that masks work? Even the World Health Organization has come forward and admitted that?

[6] What science is there is telling people to remain 2 meters apart, when even the WHO only ever lists 1 meter on their website?

[7] How are the “group sizes” determined? BCPHO Bonnie Henry openly admits there’s no science behind it, so how are these decisions made?

[8] Does the Government really find it legal and justified to order entire industries to close down? How are so-called non-essential businesses determined anyway?

[9] Why is Theresa Tam’s involvement with WHO being swept under the rug? Why is there no mention that Chrystia Freeland is a Trustee at the World Economic Forum? Does the talk about the “GREAT RESET” not set off any alarm bells with anyone?

[10] Instead of pushing for a vaccine, why is there no mention about the side effects going on in various trials? Or that this virus has a 99.9% survival rate anyway?

[11] Why is there no concern over the monetization of the vaccine trials, or of the extensive lobbying that has gone on behind the scenes?

[12] Why did Dominic LeBlanc openly suggest in April that laws should be passed to combat misinformation?

[13] Why is Canada subjected to the legally binding International Health Regulations of the WHO, and why did WHO write the 2005 Quarantine Act for Canada?

[14] Why are all other causes of death, and preventative care being ignored in favour of an overblown pandemic?

[15] Why is there no discussion (or even mention) about the various legal challenges filed against these arbitrary pandemic measures?

[16] Why no inquiry into the media’s complicity and willingness to be used as propaganda outlets, promoting an obviously false narrative? They obviously have a price.

[17] Why no mention of the social media collusion?

[18] Why have politicians (Provincially and Federally), abdicated their duties to govern and just handed everything over to unelected bureaucrats?

[19] Why is CANZUK still being pushed?

[20] Why is increased immigration still being pushed?

[21] Why are fake refugees from the U.S. still coming into Canada, and why has Roxham Road almost disappeared from media coverage? Is this coordinated?

[22] Are coronavirus internment camps coming, and if not, why put out requests for proposals?

[23] Are forced curfews/lockdowns coming?

There are more of course. But by refusing to ask these kinds of questions, it becomes clear that the Conservative motion claiming to hold the Government accountable is entirely for show.

4. Rempel Deflects With Minor Issues


https://twitter.com/MichelleRempel/status/1320516639662788611

On some level these “gotchya” moments are entertaining to see. Hypocrisy by a public official is always noteworthy. However, in light of the hard questions that AREN’T being asked (see above items), it seems a cheap way to score points.

Notice that’s there’s no pointed questions about why masks are being pushed on the public in the first place. No real inquiry into how necessary these restrictions are in the first place. These tweets don’t mean much when the difficult issues are not being advanced.

5. Conservatives Are Token Opposition

Cathy’s Secretary (October 23, 2020)

Cathy’s Response (October 30, 2020)

From 2 recent conversations with my MP’s secretary. Note: the Member of Parliament calls herself a “conservative” and claims to oppose the Trudeau Liberals. A few takeaways here.

[A] Canada is in fact subject to the dictates of the World Health Organization. Article 21(A) of the WHO Constitution specifies quarantine measures, and Article 22 says it’s binding unless a country opts out early enough. Also, the International Health Regulations, (IHR), are legally binding. Either the CPC is being deceitful, or are absolutely clueless.

[B] Apparently Erin O’Toole has backed off on his stance supporting the use of the Emergencies Act. The claim is that he only supported it because so little was known. Assuming that’s true, then why the demand to know why the Government didn’t use it? And why the instinct to be an authoritarian?

[C] The CPC still supports flooding Canada with large numbers of people in the middle of a “pandemic”. How exactly can we ensure safety, when there is a 2 week gap before infection shows? And why have immigration at all when Canada has its highest unemployment ever?

6. Conservatives Are Globalists At Heart

https://twitter.com/erinotoole/status/1323275336335974401

It’s also sickening that O’Toole and the Conservatives continue pushing for CANZUK, which is a literally erasure of borders. O’Toole recently tried to justify is as a way to stand up to Communist China. That falls flat, however, when it’s pointed out that the CPC enthusiastically supports FIPA. This party is not, and will never be, anything more than the illusion of opposition, to ward off and co-opt real populist alternatives.

O’Toole also complains that Trudeau was 2 months late closing the border, but the border was never actually closed. Moreover, he seems fine with even higher levels of immigration.

And while complaining that the borders should have been closed (in regards to the pandemic), O’Toole is on record saying that he wants to expand CANZUK, to “let more and more countries in”. There’s no indication that he has changed his mind at all on this. Then we get to this little gem:

By the way, it’s not just 300,000 or 400,000 people coming into Canada each year. That’s not even close.

This issue has been addressed countless times here, but the amount of people entering Canada is much, much higher than what the public is lead to believe.

Open borders, while in the middle of a pandemic.
And all while irrelevant things are argued in Parliament