Do It Yourself

This article is going to be different. Instead of dropping a bunch of research, today we will get into conducting your own research. Specifically, how to go about filing freedom of information (or access to information) requests. FOI/ATI are essentially the same thing, a request for documents.

You don’t have to be a journalist, reporter, or researcher to file these requests. Anyone who is curious or concerned with what’s going on, or if they have a personal issue, can file one.

Now, this is just general information of filing such requests, and how it works. Take this article as a starting place, rather than as some gospel.

Depending on the jurisdiction and/or information sought, there may or may not be a fee. Also, the fee can go up if the the search is overly broad. As a general guideline: Government bodies will typically give a person their own information for free, but may charge for general information. Also, they typically won’t hand over SOMEONE ELSE’S private information without a signed waiver or agreement.

Depending on many factors, an FOI can take anywhere from a few days, to several months for a response. There’s no one answer for how long you will wait. Now, what will the agency you file with do?

In short, a few different outcomes can happen:
(a) Government body discloses records being sought
(b) Government body ignores or delays the request
(c) Government body admits that it has no such records
(d) Government body admits having records, but refuses to release them, for some reason. More on that later.

All 4 outcomes have happened to FOI requests from here. The success rate at getting meaningful data has (anecdotally) been about 50%. That being said, these are still a valuable tool for truth seekers. If nothing else, these are quite easy to file.

A tip for making FOI requests: write it up in such a way that it’s clear you are asking for records. You likely won’t get a helpful response if this involves open ended questions. As an example:

Instead of: “Has anyone studied the physical or psychological consequences of forcing young children to wear masks?”

Try this: “I request records of any studies involving the physical or psychological effects of forcing young children to wear masks”

This may sound nitpicky and silly, but the wording does make a difference. If records are sought on a controversial topic, this could be used as an excuse to deny it, or at least delay it.

What kinds of documents can be requested?

Records of meetings, minutes
Names of people involved in a committee, study, or research
Conflict of interest disclosures
Studies or research conducted
Amounts of money paid to people or groups
Sources of funding
Reports filed publicly

Now, this should be commonsense, but if you wish to post your findings, consider scrubbing — removing — your personal details beforehand. At a minimum, don’t have your address splashed all over the internet, but even your name is important.

It’s worth pointing out that filing a formal FOI request may not always be necessary. Sometimes, if the information is already posted (or easy to find), just calling or emailing the Ministry or group in question may be enough to get it sent to you.

Also, if you don’t want to pay fees, or just don’t want to wait for a formal reply, see if someone has already made a similar request. In some jurisdictions, FOI results get posted online, in order to avoid duplication. If you do find what you want (from someone else), use that data. If you’re going to publish it, go ahead. Now, their personal info shouldn’t be disclosed, however, if it is, removing it would be appreciated. Their earlier work did you a favour after all.

Section 12: Cabinet confidences
Section 13: Advice or recommendations
Section 14: Legal advice
Section 15: Harm to law enforcement
Section 16: Harm to intergovernmental relations or negotiations
Section 17: Harm to financial or economic interests of a public body
Section 18: Harm to conservation of heritage sites
Section 19: Harm to individual or public safety
Section 20: Information to be published or released within 60 days
Section 21: Harm to business interests of a third party
Section 22: Harm to personal privacy
Section 22.1: Information relating to abortion services

It’s worth mentioning that Governments can (and often do) either refuse to release records, or redact parts of it. Using the BC FOIPP Act as an example, many items have exclusions (at least partially). Now, just because it’s a reason stated, doesn’t mean it’s legitimate.

When you get the results of the FOI request back, this might not be the end. There will almost always be some wording at the bottom saying that you can appeal, or request a review. Take this opportunity — especially if you’ve paid money or waited a long time — and ask for clarification on anything not understood.

As a closing thought, any readers who get something worthwhile are always welcome to submit their findings to Canuck Law. Results will be posted, with personal info removed.

P.S. Go check out Fluoride Free Peel for an extreme case on how to use FOIs to disprove a scam sprung onto the public.

ALBERTA
(a) Contact FOIP TO See If Records Already Available
(b) Service Alberta: Making A FOIP Request
(c) Alberts eServices: Make FOIP Request
(d) Freedom Of Information & Privacy Protection Act

BRITISH COLUMBIA
(a) Previously Released FOI Responses
(b) Getting Started With FOI Requests
(c) Submit General FOI Request
(d) Freedom Of Information & Protection Of Privacy Act

MANITOBA
(a) Listings Of Previously Received FOI Requests
(b) Freedom Of Information Main Portal
(c) Freedom Of Information & Privacy Protection Act

NEW BRUNSWICK
(a) Getting Started Searching For Information
(b) List Of Bodies Subject To FOI Requests
(c) Right To Information & Protection Of Privacy Act

NEWFOUNDLAND
(a) Previously Released ATIPP Results
(b) Filing Your Own Access To Information Requests
(c) ATIPP Coordinators
(d) Access To Information & Protection Of Privacy Act

NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
(a) ATIPP Reviews Posted
(b) ATIPP Main Page
(c) Access To Information request Forms
(d) Access To Information And Protection Act

NOVA SCOTIA
(a) Searching Previously Disclosed Access To Information Results
(b) Getting Started With Access To Information
(c) Guidelines For FOI And Privacy Requests
(d) Freedom Of Information & Protection Of Privacy Act

NUNAVIT
(a) How To Place ATIPP Request

ONTARIO
(a) Directory Of Records
(b) Access To Information Forms
(c) Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Provincial
(d) Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Municial

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
(a) Making A Request Under FOIPP
(b) List Of Public Bodies Covered Under Act
(c) Freedom Of Information & Protection Of Privacy Act

QUEBEC
(a) Previous ATIPP Disclosures — French Only
(b) How To Make An Access Request
(c) General Information On ATIPP
(d) Act Respecting Access to Documents Held By Public Bodies

SASKATCHEWAN
(a) Access To Information — Provincial And Municipal Acts

YUKON
(a) Searching Archives Of ATIPP Requests
(b) Access to Information Registry
(c) ATIPP Request For Access To Information
(d) ATIPP Coordinators

FEDERAL
(a) Search Existing Access To Information Requests
(b) Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Online Request
(c) Complete List Of Institutions
(d) List Of ATIP Coordinators

The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), is a partner of the Ontario Science Table, or OST. However, CADTH is also a working group for the World Health Organization, Health Evidence Network. Now, OST “claims” to be a neutral and independent body giving scientific and medical advice. Question, is CADTH compromised, or can this do really serve 2 (or more) masters?

The Health Evidence Network describes itself in the following way:

Recognizing that public health, health care and health systems policy-makers need access to timely, independent and reliable health information for decision-making, WHO/Europe started HEN in 2003. It acts as a platform, providing evidence in multiple formats to help decision-making.

The Health Evidence Network also claims to be independent, much the way OST does. Interestingly, they always have the exact same recommendations to make.

Previously Theresa Tam got flack for being on a World Health Organization Committee, while simultaneously claiming to represent Canada as the Public Health Officer. It seems these kinds of conflicts of interest are normal, and not the exception.

CADTH, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, claims to be

an independent, not-for-profit organization responsible for providing health care decision-makers with objective evidence to help make informed decisions about the optimal use of health technologies.

Created in 1989 by Canada’s federal, provincial, and territorial governments, CADTH was born from the idea that Canada needs a coordinated approach to assessing health technologies. The result was an organization that harnesses Canadian expertise from every region and produces evidence-informed solutions that benefit patients in jurisdictions across the country.

CADTH claims to be independent, just like OST claims to be independent. The WHO Health Evidence Network also says that it’s an independent entity. Keep that in mind, as it will become important later on. Now, who actually runs CADTH?

David Agnew: held the position of President and CEO of UNICEF Canada, and was the first head of the organization recruited from outside the international development sector. He is the past Chair of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and of Colleges Ontario. He also serves on numerous other boards and committees, including the Toronto Region Immigrant Employment Council, the Council on Foreign Relations’ Higher Education Working Group on Global Issues, the Sichuan University International Advisory Board, the CivicAction Steering Committee and the Canadian Ditchley Foundation Advisory Board. He is a former member of the federal government’s Science, Technology, and Innovation Council, a former director of ventureLAB and the Empire Club of Canada, and has served on the campaign cabinets of the United Way in Toronto and Peel.
Marcel Saulnier, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Health Canada
Western Provinces, Mitch Moneo, Assistant Deputy Minister, Pharmaceutical Services Division, Ministry of Health, British Columbia
Mark Wyatt, Assistant Deputy Minister, Saskatchewan Ministry of Health
Territories, Stephen Samis, Deputy Minister, Health and Social Services, Government of Yukon
Ontario, Patrick Dicerni, Assistant Deputy Minister, Drugs and Devices Division and Executive Officer, Ontario Public Drug Programs
Atlantic Provinces, Jeannine Lagassé, Associate Deputy Minister of Health and Wellness, Province of Nova Scotia.
Karen Stone, Deputy Minister of Health and Community Services (NL)
Health Systems, Dr. Brendan Carr, President and CEO of the Nova Scotia Health Authority

The Board of Directors of CADTH primarily is made up of high level bureaucrats in Canada, such as Associate Deputy Ministers. Far from being independent, this board is in fact connected to Provincial and Federal Governments.

drugs
diagnostic tests
medical, dental, and surgical devices and procedures

CADTH makes recommendations whether to accept certain medical devices and procedures. They also make recommendations on pharmaceuticals. This is interesting, considering that they don’t seem to do any research themselves. In fact, looking up the term “gene therapy” nets a lot of results.

Strange, because aren’t the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA “vaccines” really just a form of gene replacement therapy? It seems this technology has been around for a while.

Although this may seem harmless enough, there is another aspect to what these Provincial bureaucrats are doing. It’s not only that they want to review and make recommendations, but they want to PROMOTE cheap pharmaceuticals as well.

The pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance (pCPA) is an alliance of the provincial, territorial and federal governments that collaborates on a range of public drug plan initiatives to increase and manage access to clinically effective and affordable drug treatments.

One of pCPA’s key roles is to conduct joint negotiations for brand name and generic drugs in Canada in order to achieve greater value for publicly funded drug programs and patients through its combined negotiating power. Its objectives are to:

increase access to clinically effective and cost-effective drug treatment options;

achieve consistent and lower drug costs for participating jurisdictions;

reduce duplication of effort and improve use of resources; and

improve consistency of decisions among participating jurisdictions.

(Alberta) Chad Mitchell, Assistant Deputy Minister
(British Columbia) Mitch Moneo, Assistant Deputy Minister (Vice-Chair, Acting)
(Manitoba) Teresa Mrozek, (A) Assistant Deputy Minister
(New Brunswick) Mark Wies, Assistant Deputy Minister
(Newfoundland & Labrador) John McGrath, (A) Assistant Deputy Minister
(Northwest Territories) Derek Elkin, Assistant Deputy Minister
(Nova Scotia) Natalie Borden, Executive Director
(Nunavut) Donna Mulvey, Territorial Director
(Ontario) Patrick Dicerni, Assistant Deputy Minister; Executive Officer
(Prince Edward Island) Lori Ellis, Director of Health Workforce Planning and Pharmacy
(Quebec) Lucie Opatrny, Assistant Deputy Minister
(Saskatchewan) Mark Wyatt, Assistant Deputy Minister (Chair)
(Yukon) Amy Riske, Assistant Deputy Minister
(Federal) Scott Doidge, Director General

Notice anything? Just like with CADTH, the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance is also run by top bureaucrats in the Governments. In fact, Mitch Moneo of B.C., and Mark Wyatt of Saskatchewan sit on both groups. the goal of this group is getting cheap, generic drugs available to all Canadians.

Now, these bureaucrats, and their colleagues, are also involved with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, which approves drugs, procedures, and medical devices.

And CADTH is a partner of the Ontario Science Table, which is pushing: mass vaccination, drugs for other health issues, mandatory masks, and lockdowns which will drive up the use of internet and virtual health care.

The pCPA site explains the process like this:
Health Canada reviews the drugs, which is not the same as actually testing them. Then CADTH and INESSS (the Quebec counterpart), review it to see if this is a cost effective way to go. Then pCPA tries to negotiate for cheaper and more affordable drug prices. Eventually it gets worked into public and private drug plans.

Back to the original point: the Ontario Science Table claims to be an independent group. But it’s partnered with (among others) CADTH, who plays a major role in advancing big pharma in Canada.

IMPORTANT LINKS
(a) https://www.euro.who.int/en/data-and-evidence/evidence-informed-policy-making/health-evidence-network-hen/technical-members/current-technical-members/canadian-agency-for-drugs-and-technologies-in-health-cadth,-canada
(b) https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/our-partners/
(c) https://www.cadth.ca/about-cadth
(d) https://www.cadth.ca/about-cadth/who-we-are/board-of-directors
(e) https://www.pcpacanada.ca/
(f) https://www.pcpacanada.ca/governance
(g) https://www.pcpacanada.ca/faq
(h) https://www.pcpacanada.ca/about

EARLIER IN THIS SERIES
(a) Michael Warner Financially Benefits From Prolonged Lockdowns
(b) Who Is Ontario Deputy Medical Officer, Barbara Yaffe?
(c) OST, Monopoly From The University Of Toronto Connected
(d) OST, University Of Toronto, Look At Their Members And Partners
(e) OST’s Robert Steiner Claims To Be Behind PHAC Canada Creation
(f) OST’s Kwame McKenzie Headed 2017 UBI Pilot Project
(g) OST UofT Prelude Actually Set Out In May 2019
(h) OST’s Murty Has Tech Firm That Benefits From Lockdowns
(i) Como Foundation Gives Trillium Health Partners $5M
(j) Current PHO Officials Also Sitting On Ontario Science Table

Category: Do It Yourself

Getting Started With Your Own Freedom Of Information/Access To Information Requests

Like this:

OST; WHO; Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), Pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance

Recognizing that public health, health care and health systems policy-makers need access to timely, independent and reliable health information for decision-making, WHO/Europe started HEN in 2003. It acts as a platform, providing evidence in multiple formats to help decision-making.

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Recognizing that public health, health care and health systems policy-makers need access to timely, independent and reliable health information for decision-making, WHO/Europe started HEN in 2003. It acts as a platform, providing evidence in multiple formats to help decision-making.

Share this:

Like this: