Category: Canadian Bills

Posted on

Bill C-11: CPC National Secretary Lobbied For Big Pharma To Get Easier Access To Your Medical Data

Bill C-11, the Digital Charter Implementation Act, is currently before Parliament. At the time of writing this, it has still only undergone the first reading. Some of the more disturbing sections of it were covered previously.

Contrary to what the name may imply, “Digital Charter” doesn’t refer to antiviolence activity, spawned by the Christchurch psy-op. Instead, this is an end run around privacy as we know it.

This piece will focus on big pharma getting its hands on Canadians’ medical information. If this were to pass, then potentially all of this, minus your name and address, would be available to anyone will to purchase it.

What’s particularly disturbing is that one of the people pushing for this is Amber Ruddy, the Secretary of the National Council of the Conservative Party of Canada. She’s also CURRENTLY an employee at Counsel Public Affairs, the lobbying firm, and has Emergent BioSolutions, the company making the AstraZeneca vaccines, as a client.

A November 23, 2020 press release by the Federal Government summarized what it expected to accomplish with Bill C-11. Very interestingly, there will be new exceptions to requiring consent in order to obtain personal information.

CPPA will also promote responsible innovation by reducing regulatory burden. A new exception to consent will address standard business practices; a new regime to clarify how organizations are to handle de-identified personal information, and another new exception to consent to allow organizations to disclose personal information for socially beneficial purposes, such as public health research, for example.

There is nothing ambiguous about this. Public health research could be considered a “socially beneficial purpose” and your records handed over. But in fairness, this has probably been happening for a long time already. This Bill would make it a specifically permitted reason.

Among other things, Ruddy (and her colleagues) wanted to make it easier for drug companies to access “anonymized health data”. What this would mean is that your medical records could be send off to third parties, with the only caveat being that your personal information is removed.

Items like date of birth (showing age), and postal code (showing region) would likely still be included. As would the details of your visits, procedures, medications, and dates performed. Keep in mind, even anonymized accounts can be re-identified based on just a few clues.

Search “GlaxoSmithKline” and “Digital Charter”, it shows 35 registrations over the last few years, including Ruddy.

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.

Public Interest
Individual’s interest
29 (1) An organization may collect an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if the collection is clearly in the interests of the individual and consent cannot be obtained in a timely way.
Use
(2) An organization may use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if the information was collected under subsection (1).

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.

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.

The entire Bill is quite long, but those are a few points. While claiming that this legislation gives members of the public wide control over their information, it lays out ways that same private info can be shared with 3rd parties, without the knowledge or consent of that person.

It’s interesting that Conservatives pretend to care about free speech and Bill C-10, but are silent about the erosion of privacy with Bill C-11. Have to wonder if their Secretary is the reason for this.

This is hardly the first such privacy intrusion has been brought forward. A decade ago, Vic Toews gaslighted Canadians who opposed warrantless seizures of their internet data as “standing with the child pornographers”. Seems not much has changed.

For more on Emergent BioSolutions, and other lobbying, check the links below. It’s quite the cesspit, and Ruddy is up to her neck in it.

(1) https://www.conservative.ca/
(2) https://www.conservative.ca/team-member/amber-ruddy/
(3) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=10950130
(4) https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/bill/C-11/first-reading#ID0E0XB0BA
(5) https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/062.nsf/eng/00120.html
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=367534&regId=908352
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?V_SEARCH.command=navigate&time=1624013972454
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/bill-c-11-digital-charter-implementation-act-of-canada/

Posted on

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 May 6, 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

Posted on

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 160 (which Wynne and Ford never fully enacted), would have forced disclosure of payments when it came to pushing medications. It’s been in limbo since 2017. 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

Posted on

Bill C-10 And “Conservative” Hypocrisy On Free Speech And Human Rights

So-called “conservatives” in Canada claim that they oppose Bill C-10, which has the potential to seriously erode free speech protections. While this is certainly true, the grandstanding comes across as hollow. This is because of their repeated refusal to protect the rights of Canadians.

Never forget that this party tried (only a decade ago) to make warrantless seizure of internet information legal with Bill C-30. Now, one might argue that they still support free speech, even if not privacy rights. Nope, it gets worse from here.

The top image is Liberal Dominic LeBlanc openly musing about passing laws to combat “misinformation”, which is anything the Government objects to. The bottom is “Conservative” Erin O’Toole demanding emergency measures to limit the freedoms of Canadians locally.

Opposing Bill C-10 under the current circumstances comes across as crass political opportunism. The “right wing” in Canada seems content to let freedom die, so what’s the point here? Perhaps a few more examples for clarity:

The Conservative Party of Canada, and Provincial counterparts, remain silent on basic rights being stripped away. However, O’Toole takes the time to pander over atrocities committed 80 years ago — across the globe. There’s no way to be this tone deaf.

Conservatives are openly condemning China for human rights violations which include forced sterilizations. However, they support pressuring mass vaccination on the Canadian public, even though high levels of sterilization is quite possible.

Jason Kenney panders by celebrating the 1945 victory over Germany in World War 2. However, he’s silent on the increasing human rights abuses at home, like freedom of religion and assembly.

Condemning Tamil genocide comes across as hollow here. After all, Ford is willing to let seniors be trapped in homes, shut down people’s livelihoods, impose stay-at-home orders, deny preventative care, and let the Province collapse.

Lets stop pretending that any of them care about free speech or human rights. Anyone willing to play along with this martial law program is an enemy of the Canadian public.

Lest anyone think that this is a partisan issue, the enemies of free speech must be called out, wherever they are. In Nova Scotia, Iain Rankin the Premier, just banned public gatherings altogether. That’s one way to shut down dissenting views.

While not directly related to free speech, BCPHO Bonnie Henry deserves a dishonourable mention. She allowed indoor wine tasting to continue. Seems like an odd exemption, until you realize she co-owns a winery in Keremeos. This isn’t about public safety, but about protecting her business interests.

It’s also worth pointing out that at these daily “press conferences”, the callers and questions are screened ahead of time. This ensures that no one will be rocking the boat.

Freedom to assemble, gather and protest is being erased, mostly by “Conservative” Premiers. Now, the Trudeau Liberals are about to censor the internet. Does it seem like these people actually oppose each other?

These people all need to go.
None of them are on our side.

(1) https://www.conservative.ca/cpc/stop-bill-c10/
(2) https://nationalpost.com/opinion/vic-toews-draws-line-on-lawful-access-youre-with-us-or-the-child-pornographers
(3) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/covid-misinformation-disinformation-law-1.5532325
(4) https://toronto.citynews.ca/2020/03/16/otoole-calls-for-war-footing-mackay-suggests-tax-changes-to-address-covid-19/
(5) https://thenationaltelegraph.com/opinion/erin-otoole-and-conservatives-silence-on-grace-life-is-deafening
(6) https://twitter.com/erinotoole/status/1384154709343162374
(7) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56163220
(8) https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/opinon-i-wanted-the-liberals-to-succeed-on-vaccines-sadly-theyre-now-failing-us
(9) https://www.facebook.com/kenneyjasont/videos/177369714168773/
(10) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/judge-rules-alberta-pastor-accused-of-violating-health-orders-to-remain-in-jail-1.5938362
(11) https://twitter.com/fordnation/status/1394697084482342914
(12) https://canadians.org/analysis/mike-harris-raking-profits-long-term-care-system-he-helped-create
(13) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/province-gets-injunction-to-block-planned-anti-mask-rally-1.6026894
(14) https://www.keremeosreview.com/news/similkameen-winery-co-owned-by-dr-bonnie-henry/
(15) https://globalnews.ca/news/7732090/indoor-wine-tastings-bc-covid-restrictions/

Posted on

Public Health Ontario A Semi-Autonomous Corporation, Whose Leaders Sit With ON Science Table

According to the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion Act, 2007, the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion was created, which is now referred to as Public Health Ontario. The timing is interesting, given that its creation aligns with the 2005 Quarantine Act, which itself is the result of the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations from the World Health Organization.

For some background information, here is more on the WHO-IHR, the Quarantine Act, and Ontario‘s own Health Act. It’s worth also addressing PHAC, and its self-proclaimed advisor, Robert Steiner, who also sits on OST. These are not independent events, but are directly linked.

This entity (referred to as Public Health Ontario, or PHO), is set up and structured as a corporation. It’s a Crown Corporation, mostly autonomous from the Government.

Powers
7 (1) Except as limited by this Act, the Corporation has the capacity, rights and powers of a natural person for carrying out its objects. 2007, c. 10, Sched. K, s. 7 (1).

This group is to have the same rights and powers as an actual person which is not weird at all. The Act also indemnifies any employees or officers or directors from any liability, as long as they claim to be acting in good faith.

IMMUNITY AND UNPAID JUDGMENTS
No actions or proceedings against Crown
26 No proceeding for damages or otherwise shall be commenced against the Crown, the Minister or any person employed by the Crown with respect to any act done or omitted to be done or any decision of the Corporation, a director or officer of the Corporation, a member of a standing committee or a person employed by the Corporation. 2007, c. 10, Sched. K, s. 26.

Immunity from civil action
27 (1) No proceeding for damages or otherwise shall be commenced against the Minister, a director or officer of the Corporation, a member of a standing committee, or any person employed by the Crown or the Corporation, with respect to any act done or omitted to be done or any decision under this Act that is done in good faith in the execution or intended execution of a power or duty under this Act. 2007, c. 10, Sched. K, s. 27 (1); 2011, c. 1, Sched. 6, s. 7 (1).

Nothing shows that people take responsibility for their actions quite like giving them a pass for the possible consequences. There are limited provisions for taking action against the Crown itself, but not members involved.

Anyhow, that Act specifies that this corporation is to act as an autonomous and mostly independent group from the Government. This would be similar to Alberta Health Services operates.

Now, PHO is structured as a corporation, and is designed to be an arm’s length operation from the Crown. Okay. But looking at who runs it, some familiar faces appear.

  • Brian Schwartz is Vice President of PHO
  • Vanessa Allen is Chief, Microbiology and Laboratory Science at PHO
  • Jessica Hopkins, Chief Health Protection and Emergency Preparedness Officer at PHO
  • Samir Patel, Deputy Chief, Microbiology and Laboratory Science at PHO

Some interesting names in the Leadership of Public Health Ontario. Why should we care about who any of them are? There’s a really simple reason.

In case it wasn’t clear, here is the point: several high ranking members of Public Health Ontario are also members of the Ontario Science Table. Keep in mind, the OST presents itself as neutral and independent expert advice. At the same time, officials from a Crown Corporation in that same Province are part of their organization.

Considering that PHO functions as an extension of the World Health Organization, and implements their dictates, what kind of perspectives will these people bring to OST? Will they simply implement the same ideas, cloaked as “science”, or will they offer radically different policies? So far, it seems to be the former.

When these people speak at OST events and gatherings, are they talking as scientists working independently for the health of Ontarians overall? Or, are they acting in the capacity of Public Health Ontario representatives? Unless the OST is an extension of PHO, there are bound to be conflicts of interest.

It’s a bit like Theresa Tam, who has a page as the Public Health Officer of Canada, but who also as a page for a World Health Organization Advisory Committee. These people even use the same photographs.

On a related note: Deputy Prime Minister, and Finance Minister, Chrystia Freeland is also a Trustee at the World Economic Forum. Other prominent politicians are also involved with that organization.

The mess that is the covered before, and more is likely to be added. Far from being independent, OST is rotten to the core with conflicts of interests, and members who have side ventures.

Do the OST and Trillium Health Partners really think that mask mandates are in the public’s best interest? Or did a $5 million donation from a mask manufacturer change their minds? Does Michael Warner‘s side business influence his support for lockdowns? What About Kumar Murty‘s business interests? Or Kwame McKenzie‘s 2017 Ontario UBI project?

Final thoughts to readers in Ontario: do you have any clue who is really running health care in Ontario? Do you know who is actually running the Province? Who’s behind the martial law masked as medical necessity? Think Doug Ford or Christine Elliott are anything but puppets?

Posted on

Public Health Agency Of Canada Created As Branch Of WHO; Bill C-12 PHAC Act

This will sound controversial, but PHAC, the Public Health Agency of Canada, is essentially a branch of the World Health Organization. It’s therefore logical that Theresa Tam (or whoever that person is), would actually hold dual roles.

From 2004 to 2006, there were a few significant developments in Canadian politics. The effects of which would finally be felt in 2020, with this fake “pandemic”.

(1) Creation of Public Health Agency of Canada by Order In Council
(2) International Health Regulations, 3rd Edition, Take Effect
(3) Passing of Quarantine Act, based on WHO-IHR
(4) Passing of PHAC Act, giving the Agency real teeth

These events are connected. The 2005 Quarantine Act is domestic implementation of the International Health Regulations. The Provincial Health Acts are derivatives of that. PHAC is a branch of WHO that masquerades as part of the Canadian Government. It was created to fulfill obligations under WHO-IHR.

Far from being a rogue administration, this was advanced by successive Liberal and Conservative Governments. Maybe one of the reasons the Canadian media spent so much time on the Paul Martin/Stephen Harper drama was to divert attention from what was really going on. It may also explain why Erin O’Toole is so blase about martial law being imposed these days.

1. Timeline: PHAC Act/Quarantine Act/IHR 3rd Ed

  • Jan 23, 2004 – WHO decides to update IHR
  • 2004 to 2005 – WHO begins process of creating IHR 3rd Edition
  • Sept 23, 2004 – OIC 2004-1068, amend Financial Administration Act
  • Sept 23, 2004 – OIC 2004-1070, amend PS Staff Relations Act
  • Sept 23, 2004 – OIC 2004-1071, amend Public Service Employment Act
  • Sept 23, 2004 – OIC 2004-1072/1073, amend Privacy Act
  • Sept 23, 2004 – OIC 2004-1074/1075, amend Access To Info Act
  • Sept 23, 2004 – OIC 2004-1076, amend CSIS Act
  • Sept 23, 2004 – OIC 2004-1076, amend Auditor General Act
  • Oct 8, 2004 – 1st Reading of Quarantine Act
  • Oct 26, 2004 – 2nd Reading of Quarantine Act
  • Oct 28, 2004 – Parliamentary Hearing of Quarantine Act
  • Nov 4 2004 – Parliamentary Hearing of Quarantine Act
  • Nov 18, 2004 – Parliamentary Hearing of Quarantine Act
  • Nov 23, 2004 – Parliamentary Hearing of Quarantine Act
  • Nov 25, 2004 – Parliamentary Hearing of Quarantine Act
  • Dec 7, 2004 – Parliamentary Hearing of Quarantine Act
  • Dec 7, 2004 – Parliamentary Hearing of Quarantine Act
  • Dec 8, 2004 – Parliamentary Hearing of Quarantine Act
  • Feb 10, 2005 – 3rd Reading of Quarantine Act
  • Feb 10, 2005 – 1st Reading of Quarantine Act (Senate)
  • Mar 9, 2005 – 2nd Reading of Quarantine Act (Senate)
  • Apr 14, 2005 – 3rd Reading of Quarantine Act (Senate)
  • May 13, 2005 – Royal Assent of Quarantine Act
  • May 8, 2006 – 2nd Reading of PHAC Act Passed in HoC
  • May 11, 2006 – Parliamentary Hearing on PHAC Act
  • May 16, 2006 – Parliamentary Hearing on PHAC Act
  • June 20, 2006 – 3rd Reading of PHAC Act Passed in HoC
  • June 20, 2006 – 1st Reading of PHAC Act (Senate)
  • June 28, 2006 – 2nd Reading of PHAC Act (Senate)
  • Nov 3, 2006 – 3rd Reading of PHAC Act (Senate)
  • Dec 12, 2006 – Royal Assent of PHAC Act
  • Dec 15, 2006 – OIC 2006-1587, PHAC Act Active

2. PHAC Is Canada’s “Focal Point” For IHR

Article 4 Responsible authorities
1. Each State Party shall designate or establish a National IHR Focal Point and the authorities responsible within its respective jurisdiction for the implementation of health measures under these Regulations.
.
2. National IHR Focal Points shall be accessible at all times for communications with the WHO IHR Contact Points provided for in paragraph 3 of this Article. The functions of National IHR Focal Points shall include:
(a) sending to WHO IHR Contact Points, on behalf of the State Party concerned, urgent communications concerning the implementation of these Regulations, in particular under Articles 6 to 12; and
(b) disseminating information to, and consolidating input from, relevant sectors of the administration of the State Party concerned, including those responsible for surveillance and reporting, points of entry, public health services, clinics and hospitals and other government departments.
.
3. WHO shall designate IHR Contact Points, which shall be accessible at all times for communications with National IHR Focal Points. WHO IHR Contact Points shall send urgent communications concerning the implementation of these Regulations, in particular under Articles 6 to 12, to the National IHR Focal Point of the States Parties concerned. WHO IHR Contact Points may be designated by WHO at the headquarters or at the regional level of the Organization.
.
4. States Parties shall provide WHO with contact details of their National IHR Focal Point and WHO shall provide States Parties with contact details of WHO IHR Contact Points. These contact details shall be continuously updated and annually confirmed. WHO shall make available to all States Parties the contact details of National IHR Focal Points it receives pursuant to this Article.

IHR 3rd Edition Full Text 2005 (See highlighted version)

The 2005 Edition of the International Health Regulations specifies that each State Party (which is each country) shall establish a “focal point”. These points shall be responsible for implementing the Regulations, and answer to WHO.

And who is that focal point? The Public Health Agency of Canada. It was created specifically for the purpose of implementing WHO’s directives on global public health.

Who better to head PHAC than Theresa Tam? This person acted in a 2010 film supporting martial law, and already works for WHO anyway.

3. Timeline Of PHAC/IHR Implemented

January 19 to 23, 2004, at the 113th Session of the Executive Board of the World Health Organization, it was decided that the International Health Regulations were to receive an updated edition. See here, here and the archive.

Mr AISTON (Canada) said that the International Health Regulations were a key component of Canada’s approach to the management and containment of communicable diseases, and also central to the role and function of WHO. The approach proposed was good: while a case could be made for accelerating the process, revision required careful consideration and the timetable put forward was therefore probably realistic. Having been a participant in the negotiations on the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, he suggested that the process should be concluded in one or two negotiating sessions at most. Canada was preparing a domestic approach to the revision of the International Health Regulations and would keep WHO informed of developments.

Page 41 starts to address proposed changes to the IHR, and states that it was widely supported by Member States. There seems to be no concern with just how much sovereignty is given up.

In fact, discussions for what changes to make to the International Health Regulations continued throughout 2004, and into 2005. That’s when things started to happen in Canada, although this was not discussed publicly.

In September 2004, a series of Orders In Council were signed to retroactively include the Public Health Agency of Canada into existing legislation. PHAC was also a recent creation that had not yet received any sort of legislative legitimacy. That would later change.

This is not some conspiracy theory. In fact, PHAC itself writes “was created in 2004 in response to growing concerns about the capacity of Canada’s public health system to anticipate and respond effectively to public health threats”. This is posted on its own website. It’s under the section titled WHY WAS THE AGENCY CREATED?

PHAC’s creation was in part of the larger Federal Strategy. Part of that (Pillar 3) promoted the idea of a Pan-Canadian Public Health Network. “Pan-Canadian” seems to be a euphemism for global.

October 8, 2004, just 2 weeks later, Bill C-12 was introduced into the House of Commons. This was the Quarantine Act, and was to be based on the World Health Organization’s regulations. By the end of October, it had passed Second Reading and was before the HESA Committee.

The November 4 hearing, the second hearing, is quite an interesting one. Below are quotes from the transcript of that session.

The Quarantine Act is passed in 2005, and the 3rd Edition of IHR took effect that year. In 2006, “Conservative” Prime Minister Stephen Harper brings in the PHAC Act, to give some legislative legitimacy to PHAC.

4. Bill C-12, Quarantine Act, IHR Implementation

[Page 5]
Mr. Colin Carrie: I have a question about Canada’s quarantine laws. Are we in touch with the World Health Organization and other international organizations? If there’s an outbreak, can we have any influence on quarantining people in other areas, or vice versa, the sharing of information in that way?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: During an outbreak we certainly would communicate with the countries involved. During SARS we had close collaboration with the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, for example, as required, to share intelligence. In terms of utilization of their legislation, such as quarantine acts, we feel that our relationship with WHO, which is closer, and also clarification of WHO’s powers under the international health regulations will, I think, further ensure there is consistency in terms of response from individual member states as a result of that. Does that answer your question?
.
Mr. Colin Carrie: Yes.
Are you aware of international standards for quarantine?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: The international health regulations would be the regulations that individual states would then use to design their quarantine acts. I don’t know of any other standards out there or best practices to look at quarantine acts, but the IHRs really have been used over the years as the starting point. Now, with the improvement of the international health regulations, maybe, as is the case in Canada, changes will occur to quarantine acts in other countries in order to better comply with the international health regulations.

[Page 6]
The Chair: Madam Demers.
[Translation]
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Madam Chair, my colleague made a reference earlier to international agreements. This is also one of my concerns. You will recall that the fundamental principle established at the First International Sanitary Conference in 1951 was to ensure maximum protection combined with a minimum number of restrictions. This principle still holds sway today. I’m certainly concerned about our future course of action.

[Page 8]
Mrs. Carol Skelton: Why did Health Canada proceed with a separate Quarantine Act at this time?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: Those of us who administered the Quarantine Act over the years always knew there were deficiencies in the old act, and because it was rarely used there wasn’t the inclination to update it. As a result of SARS and utilization of the act, which certainly put it under close scrutiny, and the requirement for the Government of
Canada to respond to the various reports on SARS, it was felt that updating the act sooner rather than later was appropriate. In addition, during discussions about the international health regulations of the World Health Organization, it was felt that it was appropriate to do it and to spend time and energy, which it obviously does require, to do it now, before other parts of legislative renewal, of which Mr. Simard is well aware, were further implemented or further discussion was carried out.

[Page 8]
Mrs. Carol Skelton: I would appreciate that, please. We talked at a previous committee meeting about the newly
created Public Health Agency of Canada. Bill C-12 gives authority to the Minister of Health, with no mention at all of the Chief Public Health Officer. Is there any connection between Bill C-12 and the Public Health Agency headed by our Chief Public Health Officer?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: The minister has the powers and can delegate those powers. The responsibility for the Quarantine Act is a responsibility of the Public Health Agency, which is headed by the Chief Public Health Officer. In effect, the Chief Public Health Officer has responsibility for the act under the minister, because there are certain powers, obviously, that the minister will delegate to the Chief Public Health Officer.

[Page 9]
Ms. Ruby Dhalla: I have one question. In terms of the Quarantine Act for our country, where are we at in terms of best practices models when we look at the international spectrum?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: I don’t know the acts in other countries, but because we are updating our act right now and we’re taking into account the probable revisions to the international health regulations, I believe we would be well in the forefront in terms of having modern legislation.

From the November 4, 2004 Parliamentary Hearings. Bill C-12, the 2005 Quarantine Act, was written as to accommodate anticipated changes in the International Health Regulations. As is spelled out, compliance is mandatory.

It also becomes clear that the newly created Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), will be responsible for carrying out actions in accordance with the Quarantine Act. Keep in mind, in 2004, PHAC had been created by Order In Council. There was no legislative basis for it yet.

5. Bill C-5: Public Health Agency Of Canada Act

WHEREAS the Government of Canada wishes to take public health measures, including measures relating to health protection and promotion, population health assessment, health surveillance, disease and injury prevention, and public health emergency preparedness and response;
WHEREAS the Government of Canada wishes to foster collaboration within the field of public health and to coordinate federal policies and programs in the area of public health;
WHEREAS the Government of Canada wishes to promote cooperation and consultation in the field of public health with provincial and territorial governments;
WHEREAS the Government of Canada also wishes to foster cooperation in that field with foreign governments and international organizations, as well as other interested persons or organizations;
AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada considers that the creation of a public health agency for Canada and the appointment of a Chief Public Health Officer will contribute to federal efforts to identify and reduce public health risk factors and to support national readiness for public health threats;

PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCY OF CANADA
Establishment
3. The Public Health Agency of Canada is established for the purpose of assisting the Minister in exercising or performing the Minister’s powers, duties and functions in relation to public health.

Qualifications required
(2) The Chief Public Health Officer shall be a health professional who has qualifications in the field of public health.
Lead health professional
7. (1) The Chief Public Health Officer is the lead health professional of the Government of Canada in relation to public health.
Communication with governments, public health authorities and organizations
(2) The Chief Public Health Officer may, with respect to public health issues, communicate with governments, public health author-ities or organizations in the public health field, within Canada or internationally.
Communication with the public, voluntary organizations and the private sector
(3) The Chief Public Health Officer may communicate with the public, voluntary organizations in the public health field or the private sector for the purpose of providing information, or seeking their views, about public health issues.

PHAC was created for the purpose of promoting public health, and it serves as a required “focal point” for Canada to fulfill its obligations under the International Health Regulations and the Quarantine Act.

Having Theresa Tam as both the Public Health Officer of Canada and working for the World Health Organization actually makes sense. PHAC effectively acts as a branch of WHO.

PHAC exists to serve a UN function.

6. Government Openly Admits PHAC Is WHO Outpost

How Canada meets its obligations under the IHR
As a signatory to the IHR, Canada is committed to help strengthen global health security. We build capacities to detect, assess, report and respond to public health events here at home and abroad.

Canada has confirmed its ability to meet these public health core capacity requirements under the IHR through the following activities: (a) monitoring and evaluation (such as the Joint External Evaluation (JEE) process)
real-life events; (b) emergency preparedness and response exercises; and (c) Collaboration efforts between federal departments and with provincial and territorial partners improve and strengthen our country’s public health preparedness and response system.

Canada has also established a National IHR Focal Point (NFP), which is required under IHR Article 4 (Responsible authorities). The NFP supports IHR-related communications between Canadian public health authorities, WHO, its regional office in the Americas (care of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO)) and other countries.

Implementing the IHR in Canada
In Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) is the lead organization for implementing the IHR. PHAC is also Canada’s designated National IHR Focal Point (NFP). As the NFP, PHAC coordinates the implementation of the IHR on behalf of the Government of Canada.

IHR activities are a shared responsibility. This means that Canada’s Health Portfolio, other federal departments and provincial/territorial governments support IHR implementation.

Canada implements the IHR under existing legislation, regulations, policies and agreements in place at both the federal and provincial/territorial levels.

The success of IHR implementation in Canada relies on ongoing collaboration by all partners to carry out surveillance, reporting, notification, verification, response and collaboration activities: (a) across the country and (b) at international points of entry (airports, ports and ground crossings)

Because legislation differs among federal and provincial/territorial governments, Canada has mechanisms, agreements and plans in place that enable national coordination. This is particularly important during public health emergencies that require federal involvement.

It’s hardly a conspiracy theory when Ottawa openly admits that PHAC serves as the “focal point” for WHO, and to implement the International Health Regulations.

PREVIOUS CANUCK LAW POSTS
(1) WHO International Health Regulations Legally Binding
(2) A Look At International Health Regulation Statements
(3) Quarantine Act Actually Written By WHO, IHR Changes
(4) Provincial Health Acts Domestic Implementation Of WHO-IHR
(5) Provincial Health Acts Domestic Implementation Of WHO-IHR, Part II
(6) World Health Treaty Proposed, Based On WHO-IHR

WHO/INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS
(1) 113th Session Of World Health Org Executive, January 2004
(2) 113th Session World Health Organization Jaunary 2004
(3) https://apps.who.int/gb/ghs/pdf/A_IHR_IGWG_1-en.pdf
(4) WHO September 2 2004 IHR Meeting
(5) https://apps.who.int/gb/ghs/e/e-igwg.html
(6) https://archive.is/kexzW
(7) https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/corporate/mandate/about-agency/history.html
(8) https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/corporate/mandate/about-agency/federal-strategy.html
(9) WHO 113th Session Revise The IHR
(10) WHO IHR 3rd Edition Full Text 2005 MARKED

PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCY OF CANADA ACT (BILL C-5)
(1) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/
(2) https://openparliament.ca/bills/39-1/C-5/?page=2
(3) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=2162144&View=5
(4) https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/39-1/bill/C-5/first-reading
(5) HESA Committee Study On Bill C-5
(6) May 11 2006 HESA Transcript PHAC Act
(7) May 16 2006 HESA Transcript PHAC Act

QUARANTINE ACT (BILL C-12)
(1) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=1395913
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/HESA/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=981075
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/38-1/HESA/report-2/
(4) Canada Quarantine Act Oct 28 Hearing
(5) Canada Quarantine Act Nov 4 Hearing
(6) Canada Quarantine Act Nov 18 Hearing
(7) Canada Quarantine Act Nov 23 Hearing
(8) Canada Quarantine Act Nov 25 Hearing
(9) Canada Quarantine Act Dec 7 First Hearing
(10) Canada Quarantine Act Dec 7 Second Hearing
(11) Canada Quarantine Act Dec 8 Hearing