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.
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.
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.
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.
Bill Gates and Justin Trudeau seem to agree that normal life will not proceed until there is mass vaccination done. Of course, it raises the question: will this become mandatory?
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. Previous Solutions Offered
A response that frequently comes up is for people to ask what to do about it. Instead of just constantly pointing out what is wrong, some constructive suggestions should be offered. This section contains a list of proposals that, if implemented, would benefit society. While the details may be difficult to implement, at least they are a starting point.
3. Disclaimer In This Article
Consider the following information to be just that — information. There is no guarantee offered that this will actually work in a person’s circumstances. They are simply options being given, so make your own decision. Yes, just presenting choices.
This scenario is still (for now) hypothetical, but let’s address it. Many people are understandably upset at the prospect (however remote) that forced vaccinations may one day come to Canada. Here are some ideas to fight back.
Granted, some of the ideas will involve deceit and trickery. However, the priority should be looking after your own health, and the health of family members. Honesty is of not the priority here.
As a last resort, consider to what degree you are willing to inflict on another person in order to protect your body from foreign chemicals. This must be a personal decision.
4. Conservative Weakness: Double Edged
Most Provinces in Canada have Conservative governments, and conservatives in general are weaklings. In practice, they function as a sort of “controlled opposition”. This can be a positive or a negative, depending on context. Let’s go through what this means.
The downside to conservative weakness is that they are unable or unwilling to actually stand up for anything. If Ottawa were to impose measures, they would likely give very tepid opposition.
However, there is a benefit to conservatives being spineless: you may be able to run roughshod over them. They are often to timid to fight back, so take advantage of it. Additionally, calling them a bigot may cause them to capitulate faster.
Is this stereotyping? Absolutely it is, but it’s very often true, so don’t disregard it.
5. Argue Over Jurisdiction
Section 91 and 92 of the Constitution outline what is Federal jurisdiction, and what is Provincial jurisdiction. If the Federal Government were to ever order mass vaccinations take place, argue that this encroaches on Section 92(7) of the Constitution, which is health care. Health care is a Provincial matter, and Ottawa cannot intrude.
Of course, if a Province were to insist that everyone were to be vaccinated, challenge it under Section 91(27), which is criminal law. Criminal law can only be made by the Federal Government. If a Province were to make laws that could result in people being detained, then it is an end run around imposing criminal penalties.
Yes, this is deliberately making contradictory arguments, and that is the point. Any forced vaccination scheme needs to be ground to a halt by whatever means are available.
6. Canadian Charter Of Rights
Some other options may be found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Here are some sections of it that may be useful to look
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
Rights and freedoms in Canada
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
In any Charter challenge, if it is found that there is a Charter breach, it comes back to Section 1. This section asks if the breach can be reasonably justified. Now, let’s explore a few grounds to refuse.
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Early in his time as Ontario Premier, Doug Ford gave an exemption to Sikhs who want to ride motorcycles without helmets. British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba have such exemptions as well. This is idiotic, as gravity won’t care that your inadequately protected head is covered by a religious piece.
If health and safety regulations take a backseat to pandering to religious groups, then take advantage of it.
Life, liberty and security of person
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
If abortion and euthanasia can be protected under the guise of “security of the person”, then certainly preventing unknown chemicals form being put into your body can as well. in fact, the same arguments that the SJW types make can be applied here.
Search or seizure
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
While the prohibition against search and seizure typically applies to people suspected of, or accused of committing crimes, there is another way to look at it. If a person is forced to produce proof of vaccination, or have their freedoms restricted, you could argue that it does an end run around Section 8.
Treatment or punishment
12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
This is pretty obvious.
Several options exist within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to stop, or at least slow down any vaccination agenda. This would, at a minimum, violate:
Your right to religious freedom (if your faith doesn’t allow it)
Your right to be secure in your person (pretty self explanatory)
Your right against unreasonable search (such as med history)
Your right to not receive cruel, inhumane punishment
Would these be successful? Who knows? At a minimum they would delay any such measure for months, if not years.
Broadly speaking, here are three paths to follow:
One is to straight up sue the Government (and potentially any people involved). This is commenced by filing a Statement of Claim.
Two is to file a formal request for exemption with whatever health officials are involved. If that is denied, file and Application for Judicial Review.
Three is to proceed with a complaint with your Human Rights Tribunal. Interesting note: human rights are a Provincial matter, so this may void any Federal order.
The details for each are outside the scope of this article. However, consult your Provincial Human Rights Code, or Rules of Civil Procedure (or Courts of Justice Act), for more specific information.
7. Claim To Be On Other Medications
Are you on anti-depressants? Hormone regulators? Oxycontin for back problems? Antibiotics for a previous infection? Guess what, you are now. Don’t be ashamed about being dependent on the pharmaceutical industry.
While this is perhaps the easiest to pull off, it also requires some research to be believable. Do some online research about the ailment(s) you have, including common medications. Most sources will also list side effects of various drugs (and they are plentiful). Remember to ask probing questions about the cross reactions of various medications.
Also, if you can get ahold of the vaccine ingredients — or the list for a similar vaccine — you should do so. Search online to see what these ingredients will react with, and what medications will be fatal to mix with. There’s no need to ACTUALLY be taking these meds. Instead just CLAIM to be taking them.
Murder isn’t murder if it’s self defence. In that same line of reasoning, lying isn’t wrong if it prevents unwarranted harm from coming to you.
8. Fake Being Trans If Needed
This is a subgroup of the last solution.
And yes, this is a serious proposal.
Ever since Bill C-16 passed, which modified both the Criminal Code and the Human Rights Codes, “gender identity and expression” have been considered protected grounds. While this poorly defined expression has caused problems, there is a solution here.
If a person of authority ever insists that you need to be vaccinated, immediately ask how the vaccine will react with the hormones you are taking. This should cause most people to back off. But if the person doesn’t, then demand answers. If need be, threaten to lodge a human rights complaint against them.
Since Bill C-16 protects people who aren’t even transgender, it is okay to use it to throw your weight around. File formal complaints if need be. Sure, the other person(s) will have an enormous amount of aggravation heaped on them, but your well being comes first.
If this vaccine risks you being forced to stop taking hormones, then clearly that is transphobic. If the other person probes for details, there is always the option of bullying them into silence.
9. Weaponize Human Rights Codes
Really, this should be an absolute last resort, although there are people who would choose to do it first. The choice is your to make.
This option involves fully weaponizing the human rights codes (and any other such acts your area may have). It involves making completely bogus complaints of discrimination based on the most harmless or innocuous things, such as a joke taken out of context. Yes, this is going full-SJW. Accuse the person of racism, sexism, or whatever may tangentially apply.
Normally, I would not even suggest such a method, since it will almost certainly lead to people getting either suspended or fired from their positions.
A note of caution: be mindful of other witnesses, or recording devices. This method doesn’t work if the entire event is caught on video.
10. Your Well Being Comes First
While a forced vaccination seems extremely farfetched, there is at least the possibility of it happening. So people need to air out some solutions. Here they are, in order of most to least preferred.
(a) Ideally, these forced vaccines will never come to be a reality. If legislators attempt to enact it, publicly expose and spread the information. Make them back peddle in the face of public scrutiny. Feel free to launch petitions or to prevent this from going ahead.
I would also add doxing to this category. If it stops this from going ahead, then the humiliation of a health care worker, or police officer, or public official, serves a greater good.
(b) Going further: consider taking legal action on the matter. There are several provisions of the law which a suit can be filed under. A few are Sections 2, 7, 8 or 12 of the Canadian Charter. Depending on who orders the mass vaccination, challenge the authority under Section 91 and 92 of the Constitution.
(c) If need be, then use weasel techniques to get out of it. Ask probing questions to determine what is actually in the vaccine, and how it might mix with your current medications. Note: you don’t have to be on anything, but for this — then claim to be.
(d) File formal complaints against specific people involved, regardless of how minor their role. CAUTION: please understand, that there is a lot of hesitancy in offering some of these ideas. Acting maliciously against someone “following orders” can seriously mess up their lives. Find other options if possible.
(e) The option exists for moving to another jurisdiction to avoid the order. However, that is not desirable, as people should be able to stand their ground.
These are just some ideas to consider. The idea is still hypothetical — for now — but may not be at a later point. And it would be a good idea to consider them well in advance of any such order being proposed. In this case, honesty is not a concern; the health of yourself and family members is.