Rockefeller Spends $13.5 Million To Combat “Misinformation” In U.S., Elsewhere

Think that it’s only taxpayers who are funding efforts to stop so-called “misinformation”? Turns out, the Rockefeller Foundation is financing it as well, and this is quite the contribution.

July 15, 2021—The Rockefeller Foundation is announcing $13.5 million in new funding to strengthen Covid-19 response efforts in the U.S., Africa, India, and Latin America to counter health mis- and disinformation – confusing, inaccurate, and harmful information that spreads at an unprecedented speed and scale and threatens the health and wellbeing of communities around the world. The announcement responds immediately to Confronting Health Misinformation: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on Building a Healthy Information Environment, which calls for a “whole-of-society” effort so that people around the world know what to do—and trust the sources they hear from—during a public health emergency.

“By identifying mis- and disinformation as a challenge to our collective health, the Surgeon General’s guidance reinforces The Rockefeller Foundation’s role in investing in data-driven public health interventions to meet the unique challenges of today’s media environment,” said Bruce Gellin, Chief of Global Public Health Strategy at The Rockefeller Foundation.

The funding will support the design and evaluation of interventions, tools, and methods to build trust in Covid-19 vaccination efforts and counter inaccurate information, and research to understand how inaccurate health information impacts online and offline behaviors, the true cost of mis- and disinformation on health and economic outcomes, and what strategies might be most effective to counter and manage inaccurate and harmful information from malicious sources. Funded projects will provide a foundation for modern information and communication networks that better serve people and are better prepared to encourage actions and behaviors essential to public health response efforts. Detailed information is slated to be released by the end of 2021.

“Science alone is not sufficient to drive action: the best data analysis in the world will not stop an outbreak if people at risk are not aware of the problem, do not think it is a real threat, do not trust the messenger, or do not know what actions to take to protect themselves and their loves ones,” said Estelle Willie, Director of Health Policy and Communications at The Rockefeller Foundation. “The Rockefeller Foundation’s $13.5 million commitment is a direct acknowledgment that effective public health begins with effective communication that cuts through the noise and confusion stemming from mis- and disinformation.

Today’s announcement marks another step in The Rockefeller Foundation’s commitment to reinvigorate public health for the 21st century so that the world can effectively prevent, detect, and respond to health threats to avert future pandemics. This investment builds on the Foundation’s U.S. Equity-First Vaccination Initiative, which supports community-based organizations serving people of color with the expertise and resources to own and drive evidence-based, misinformation-resilient conversations about vaccines in their communities. Launched in April 2021, the year-long initiative will identify effective strategies to increase vaccine confidence in diverse communities, and assess, to the extent possible, the role misinformation plays in shaping knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about Covid-19 vaccines.

“Vaccine equity” is a term that’s based on the assumption that racism and structural inequalities are the reasons that certain minorities are unable to get vaccines in high enough numbers.

Of course, Rockefeller is also the same organization who brought the “Lockstep Narrative” back in 2010. It was also a partner in the 2016 project, ID2020.

Don’t worry, nothing to see here.

(3) Rockefeller.Foundation.lockstep.2010

San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus Claims Video Was Satire, Makes It Public Again

The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus recently put out a video, where very creepy men sing about “coming for your children”. They claim it’s about teaching kids not to hate, although the entire atmosphere gives off pedo vibes.

At a minimum, this was an incredibly tone-deaf stunt. Sensible parents, even open minded ones, are not going to want to subject their children to this. Is this how tolerance is taught?

But if this was just a joke, what exactly is the punch line? What were they aiming for? Or was this a way to manufacture victimhood? Did they never once stop to think how unsettling this is?

“The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus was founded, in part, to fight discrimination and bigotry against all peoples. Today, our chorus members are facing death threats, vile attacks, false accusations, doxing, and other forms of harassment because of our satirical video performance “Message from the Gay Community.”

“We placed the video in private mode to quell the intolerance and hateful responses from mostly anonymous people. Upon reflection, we have made it live again for all to see the satirical and obviously tongue-in-cheek humor. We want everyone to judge for themselves. We will not allow ourselves, even in the face of death threats, to retreat or bow to attempts to twist our words, meaning, self-deprecation and humor.

“We are thankful for the efforts of the San Francisco Police Department and law enforcement for their quick response and assistance in handling these threats.

“The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus is dedicated to being role models, teaching, and spreading the message of love, inclusion, humor, and celebration through our music. We believe, most fervently, in open dialogue , communication, and free speech. We will continue to do so through our music. We invite everyone to join us.”

The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus performed a tongue-in-cheek song commissioned by an external arts organization which ironically had a simple message around teaching young people to speak out against anti-LGBTQ hate. The Chorus sings in harmony, ‘Someone’s got to teach them not to hate.’ As a result of manipulation from anti-LGBTQ media figures, the Chorus is now facing uncalled-for and disgusting threats of violence, as well as hate and harassment, across social media. As GLAAD’s Social Media Safety Index reported, hate and harassment too often goes unchecked on social media and the platforms need to act swiftly to address the hateful content directed at the Chorus, especially the threats of violence. The ugly anti-LGBTQ rhetoric just reinforces the need for LGBTQ visibility, community, and advocacy, all of which the SFGMC has exemplified in its 40+ year history.”

Now, a series of responses had compared some of the names against the California sex offender registry. While there were several matches, keep in mind, California has some 40 million residents. Therefore, it’s quite possible for many people to have the same names. While the video above is disgusting, these weirdos shouldn’t be mistaken for those — if the names are coincidental.

If this performance was just tone deaf, it would make sense to take it down. However, the Chorus seems to thing that this “should” be thrown in the faces of everyone.

Yes, tolerance for gays is declining. And antics like this are directly responsible for it happening. Say what you will about the Muslims, but they would never stand for such degeneracy.


Bill C-36: Red Flag Laws In The Name Of Preemptively Combatting Hate Speech

Bill C-36 has been introduced into the House of Commons. It would be fair to describe portions of this as a “red flag” law. People can be subjected to Court restrictions simply based on the suspicion that they may engage in hate speech or hate propaganda.

Welcome to the Pre-Crime Unit, and the Minority Report

Fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime
810.‍012 (1) A person may, with the Attorney General’s consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit
(a) an offence under section 318 or subsection 319(1) or (2);
(b) an offence under subsection 430(4.‍1); or
(c) an offence motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other similar factor.

(2) The provincial court judge who receives an information under subsection (1) may cause the parties to appear before a provincial court judge.

(3) If the provincial court judge before whom the parties appear is satisfied by the evidence adduced that the informant has reasonable grounds for the fear, the judge may order that the defendant enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of not more than 12 months.

Duration extended
(4) However, if the provincial court judge is also satisfied that the defendant was convicted previously of any offence referred to in subsection (1), the judge may order that the defendant enter into the recognizance for a period of not more than two years.

Refusal to enter into recognizance
(5) The provincial court judge may commit the defendant to prison for a term of not more than 12 months if the defendant fails or refuses to enter into the recognizance.

Conditions in recognizance
(6) The provincial court judge may add any reasonable conditions to the recognizance that the judge considers desirable to secure the good conduct of the defendant, including conditions that
(a) require the defendant to wear an electronic monitoring device, if the Attorney General makes that request;
(b) require the defendant to return to and remain at their place of residence at specified times;
(c) require the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, except in accordance with a medical prescription, of alcohol or of any other intoxicating substance;
(d) require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation on the demand of a peace officer, a probation officer or someone designated under paragraph 810.‍3(2)‍(a) to make a demand, at the place and time and on the day specified by the person making the demand, if that person has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant has breached a condition of the recognizance that requires them to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance;
(e) require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation at regular intervals that are specified, in a notice in Form 51 served on the defendant, by a probation officer or a person designated under paragraph 810.‍3(2)‍(b) to specify them, if a condition of the recognizance requires the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance; or
(f) prohibit the defendant from communicating, directly or indirectly, with any person identified in the recognizance, or refrain from going to any place specified in the recognizance, except in accordance with the conditions specified in the recognizance that the judge considers necessary.

Conditions — firearms
(7) The provincial court judge shall consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the defendant’s safety or that of any other person, to prohibit the defendant from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all of those things. If the judge decides that it is desirable to do so, the judge shall add that condition to the recognizance and specify the period during which it applies.

Surrender, etc.
(8) If the provincial court judge adds a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall specify in the recognizance how the things referred to in that subsection that are in the defendant’s possession shall be surrendered, disposed of, detained, stored or dealt with and how the authorizations, licences and registration certificates that are held by the defendant shall be surrendered.

(9) If the provincial court judge does not add a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall include in the record a statement of the reasons for not adding it.

Variance of conditions
(10) A provincial court judge may, on application of the informant, the Attorney General or the defendant, vary the conditions fixed in the recognizance.

Other provisions to apply
(11) Subsections 810(4) and (5) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to recognizances made under this section.

-A person can be ordered to appear before a Provincial Court
-A Judge can order a person to enter into a Recognizance for 12 months
-That Recognizance can last for 24 months if there is a prior conviction
-A person can be jailed for 12 months for refusing a Recognizance
-A person can be ordered to wear an electronic monitoring device
-A person can be subjected to a curfew
-A person can be ordered to abstain from alcohol
-A person can be subjected to drug/alcohol testing
-That drug/testing can be ordered at regular intervals
-A person can be subjected to a no contact order (of 3rd parties)
-A person can be prohibited from going to certain places
-A person may be subjected to other conditions

Keep in mind, all of these conditions can be imposed, simply because of the SUSPICION that a hate crime will be committed, or hate propaganda will be distributed.

Not only is the Canadian Criminal Code to be amended, but the Canadian Human Rights Code will be as well, to implement fines and cessation orders. There doesn’t seem to be real standard for what counts as hate speech.

Canadian Human Rights Act
Amendments to the Act
2013, c. 37, s. 1
12 Section 4 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:
Orders regarding discriminatory practices
4 A discriminatory practice, as described in sections 5 to 14.‍1, may be the subject of a complaint under Part III and anyone found to be engaging or to have engaged in a discriminatory practice may be made subject to an order as provided for in section 53 or 53.‍1.
13 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 12:
Communication of hate speech
13 (1) It is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Continuous communication
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person who communicates or causes to be communicated hate speech continues to do so for as long as the hate speech remains public and the person can remove or block access to it.

Complaint substantiated — section 13
53.‍1 If at the conclusion of an inquiry the member or panel conducting the inquiry finds that a complaint relating to a discriminatory practice described in section 13 is substantiated, the member or panel may make one or more of only the following orders against the person found to be engaging or to have engaged in the discriminatory practice:
(a) an order to cease the discriminatory practice and take measures, in consultation with the Commission on the general purposes of the measures, to redress the practice or to prevent the same or a similar practice from recurring;
(b) an order to pay compensation of not more than $20,000 to any victim personally identified in the communication that constituted the discriminatory practice, for any pain and suffering that the victim experienced as a result of that discriminatory practice, so long as that person created or developed, in whole or in part, the hate speech indicated in the complaint;
(c) an order to pay a penalty of not more than $50,000 to the Receiver General if the member or panel considers it appropriate having regard to the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the discriminatory practice, the wilfulness or intent of the person who is engaging or has engaged in the discriminatory practice, any prior discriminatory practices that the person has engaged in and the person’s ability to pay the penalty.
Award of costs
53.‍2 A member or panel conducting an inquiry into a complaint filed on the basis of section 13 may award costs for abuse of process in relation to the inquiry.

According to the revisions in the Act, “hate speech” will be ongoing as long as the material is available publicly, and could be removed. A person can also be ordered to be $20,000 to each victim, and $50,000 to the panel itself.

Problem with all of this, “hate speech” is disturbingly vague. It could be applied subjectively, depending on the politics of the parties involved.


Ontario’s “Re-Education” Training For Health Care Workers Refusing “Vaccines”

Pretty Orwellian, isn’t is? The above video is from a health care worker in Ontario, one who has been forced to undergo “reeducation” as a result of refusing the experimental, unapproved “vaccine”. While it’s impossible to 100% verify that this is authentic, it’s consistent with the programming that Ford has already sent out.

Thank you to whoever produced this.

TORONTO — Workers at long-term care homes who chose not to receive a COVID-19 vaccine will soon have to participate in an educational program on the benefits of vaccination, unless they can provide proof of a medical reason for refusing the shot.

The Doug Ford government has announced that all 626 long-term care homes in Ontario will have to have immunization polices in place for staff that will, at a minimum, require workers who do not get both doses of the COVID-19 vaccine to “participate in an educational program about the benefits of vaccination and the risks of not being vaccinated.

The policy takes effect July 1 and the only exception will be for staff who can provide a “documented medical reason for not being vaccinated,” the province say.

Welcome to the Ministry Of Truth.

It’s important to note: these are not “approved vaccines”. They are given interim authorization as a result of an emergency order. They aren’t really vaccines either.

This tutorial, and other government propaganda, don’t bother to mention that there are no long term studies about the effects. Nor do they discuss the testing deficiencies, such as no testing for pregnant women, nursing mothers, children, carcinogenicity, or toxicity. No evidence of fertility issues…. yes, because testing for it was never done.

Also noteworthy: there’s no mention that the manufacturers are indemnified against liability. This means they cannot be sued, regardless of what damages can be proven.

Interesting that there is the statement that death soon after injection doesn’t necessarily mean the vaccine was responsible. That distinction was never made for “Covid deaths”.

No mention of the fact that even from the Government of Canada’s own data, the overwhelming majority of cases get better on their own.

These are just a few of the questions that aren’t addressed.

Ever get the sense they are trying too hard?


PHAC Supporting “Science Up First”, Online Counter-Misinformation Group

Hey there. Ever get the feeling that the Government may be behind a lot of the propaganda that is going on? Well, there may be something to that. Meet the group Science Up First.

  1. Blast the media with our own narrative
  2. Eliminate information that contradicts our narrative

The goal of #ScienceUpFirst is to get people to consider the available science first before sharing content online.
We understand that in the age of social media there is a growing need for science-informed content. We hope to inspire people to amplify the distribution of expert-written and reviewed content and to help stop the spread of COVID-19 related misinformation throughout the internet.
#ScienceUpFirst is both good practice and a call to action!
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic there has been a marked rise in misinformation and conspiracy theories related to Health information and governments’ response to the outbreak. The WHO has classified this as a global infodemic. According to experts conspiracy, misinformation and conspiracy theories are rapidly spreading on social media and represent a threat to the Health and Safety of Canadians.
As a result, there is an identified need for national cooperation and mobilization of independent scientists, researchers, information experts, health care providers and science communicators to come together to collaboratively create and disseminate quality health-related information available to the public.

In other words, we don’t need people fact checking and reviewing our work. We need people to uncritically amplify it on their social media. Now, who runs the show?


  • Carrie Bourassa: Professor in the Department of Community Health & Epidemiology at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon and the Scientific Director of the CIHR Institute of Indigenous Peoples’ Health
  • Marie-Eve Carignan: Associate Professor at the Department of Communication of the University of Sherbrooke and Head of Media Division, UNESCO Chair in Prevention of Radicalization and Violent Extremism (UNESCO-PREV Chair)
  • Timothy Caulfield: Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy, Univ. Alberta
  • Imogen Coe: Professor, Chemistry & Biology, Faculty of Science; Dimensions Chair Member, Institute for Biomedical Engineering, Science and Technology (iBEST) at Ryerson University & St. Michael’s Hospital; President, Canadian Society for Molecular Biosciences 2020-2022
  • Amber Mac (MacArthur): President, AmberMac Media Inc.
  • Marianne Mader : Executive Director, Canadian Association of Science Centers
  • Anthony Morgan: Founder, Science Everywhere; Science Communicator
  • Tara Moriarty: Associate Professor, University of Toronto (Infectious Disease research); Co-lead: COVID-19 Resources Canada; Executive team member: CanCOVID; Diagnostics Pillar lead, Canadian Lyme Disease Research Network
  • David M. Patrick: Director of Research and Medical Epidemiology Lead for AMR, British Columbia Centre for Disease Control; Professor, UBC School of Population and Public Health
  • Krishana Sankar: Biological Scientist; COVID-19 Resources Canada Science Communication Lead and Volunteer Programs Director
  • Joe Schwarcz: Director, McGill Office for Science and Society
  • Marva Sweeney-Nixon: Professor and Chair, Department of Biology; Faculty of Science, University of Prince Edward Island
  • Fatima Tokhmafshan: Geneticist, Bioethicist, Research Institute of McGill University Health Centre, COVID-19 Resources Canada Science Communication Lead, Canadian Science Policy Centre Social Media Chair
  • Samantha Yammine: Director, Science Sam Media

#ScienceUpFirst Coalition

  • Lisa Barrett: Assistant professor, Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Department of Microbiology & Immunology, Department of Pathology, Dalhousie University
  • Chantal Barriault: Director, Science Communication Graduate Program, School of the Environment, Laurentian University
  • Tyler Black: Clinical Assistant Professor, University of BC
  • Isaac Bogoch: Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto; Infectious disease specialist; Clinician Investigator, Toronto General Hospital Research Institute
  • Colette Brin: Professor at Université Laval’s Département d’information et de communication and the Director of the Centre d’études sur les médias
  • Tania Bubela: Professor and Dean, Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University
  • Tracy Calogheros: CEO, Exploration Place Museum & Science Centre, BC
  • Christine Chambers: Canada Research Chair (Tier 1) in Children’s Pain and Killam Professor of Pediatrics and Psychology & Neuroscience; Scientific Director, CIHR’s Institute of Human Development, Child and Youth Health
  • Naheed Dosani: Palliative Care Physician & Health Justice Activist
  • Kathryn Hill: Executive Director, MediaSmarts
  • Jonathan Jarry: Science Communicator, McGill Office for Science and Society
  • Eoghan Moriarty: Solutions Architect, LabCrunch
  • Alex Munter: CEO, CHEO
  • Ubaka Ogbogu: Assistant Professor, Faculties of Law and Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Law Centre, University of Alberta
  • Jonathan N. Stea: Clinical Psychologist, Adjunct Assistant Professor University of Calgary
  • Heidi Tworek: Associate Prof, Public Policy & History, UBC

Interesting, how the bulk of these people are university professors. Is their funding in any way tied to the efforts they make? Now, Science Up First does provide, in broad strokes, the method of how they go about doing this:

(1) Provide science from trusted and credible sources, particularly those that note the scientific consensus on the relevant topic.
(2) Highlight rhetorical and logic gaps used to push misinformation (e.g., relying on anecdotes & testimonials, misrepresenting risk).
(3) Use (and create) clear and shareable content that is relevant to a range of audiences (meeting people where they are and considering unique concerns, etc.).
(4) Emphasize content that is respectful, inclusive, authentic, accessible, and kind in tone.
(5) Aim for creative and engaging content that highlights the facts.
(6) Emphasize inclusive messaging for a general audience and/or tailored to meet needs of specific communities

Of course, they’ll never directly address serious issues such as vaccine manufacturers being indemnified, or their products receiving “interim authorization” instead of approval. They won’t address the mass censorship on Facebook and Twitter of conflicting information.

That said, if you are willing to uncritically signal boost the (ever changing) narrative, then Science Up First may be an option for you.

For a specific example, the issue of heart problems is discussed on the Twitter account. It’s too big to simply ignore altogether, so the people posting try to let you know how rare it is. Now, some may find it unsettling to post information randomly telling people to ignore such concerns. However, that is the state of “science” these days.


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.

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.

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.

(10) May 6 2019 Quarantine Act Amendment