Category: Health

Posted on

BCOHRC Deliberately Misrepresents Basic Information In Vaccination “Guidance”

The following piece comes from a “guidance document” that the BC Office of the Human Rights Commissioner recently published. In short, people CAN lose their jobs or livelihood.

To be clear, the Government won’t mandate this for B.C. That being said, employers will have wide discretion to require it, if they deem it “essential”. Is enabling all that much better?

Their media representative, Elaine (her last name has been scrubbed) was evasive, and tap danced around important information. This included: (a) vaccines not being approved, but having interim authorization; (b) how experimental vaccines can be pushed given BC cancelled its state of emergency; (c) the lack of long term testing; and (d) indemnified manufacturers, among other things

In short, the BCOHRC seems more content with the “illusion” of protecting human rights, rather than “actually” protecting human rights.

If Elaine, or her employer, cared about so-called marginalized people, they wouldn’t allow for experimental injections to be a condition of certain jobs. Despite all the social justice nonsense on their website, it’s clear that it’s all just for show.

From page 3:

Policies that treat people differently based on whether they have been vaccinated—“vaccination status policies”—must remain consistent with the obligations legislated under B.C.’s Human Rights Code. Individuals must be protected from discrimination based on their place of origin, religion, physical or mental disability, family status or other Code-protected ground.

Employers, landlords and service providers (duty bearers) can, in some limited circumstances, implement vaccination status policies—but only if other less intrusive means of preventing COVID-19 transmission are inadequate for the setting and if due consideration is given to the human rights of everyone involved.

Vaccination status policies should be justified by scientific evidence relevant to the specific context, time-limited and regularly reviewed, proportional to the risks they seek to address, necessary due to a lack of less-intrusive alternatives and respectful of privacy to the extent required by law. In applying such a vaccination
status policy, duty bearers must accommodate those who cannot receive a vaccine to the point of undue hardship.

No one’s safety should be put at risk because of others’ personal choices not to receive a vaccine. Just as importantly, no one should experience harassment or unjustifiable discrimination when there are effective alternatives to vaccination status policies.

People must be protected based on certain identity groups. But humans as a whole aren’t worth consideration. Now, from page 6:

Evidence-based — Evidence (of the risk of transmission in the specific setting) is required to justify policies that restrict individual rights for the purpose of protecting collective public health or workplace safety. Such policies must be aligned with up-to date public health recommendations and reflect current medical and epidemiological understanding of the specific risks the policy aims to address.

But once again, these are not approved, and there is no long term testing. From page 7:

The COVID-19 vaccines approved by Health Canada have proven highly effective at protecting individuals from COVID-19 infection and serious illness.

Except they aren’t approved. From page 8:

Migrant and undocumented workers, many of whom do not have a Personal Health Number, may be unaware they are eligible for the vaccine or concerned about revealing their immigration status.

Interesting the concern for “undocumented workers”, which is a euphemism for illegal aliens. The BCOHRC cares more about people illegally in the country than legitimate safety concerns of their guidelines. From page 10:

In my view, a person who chooses not to get vaccinated as a matter of personal preference—especially where that choice is based on misinformation or misunderstandings of scientific information—does not have grounds for a human rights complaint against a duty bearer implementing a vaccination status policy.

It would be nice to know what “misinformation or misunderstandings” would apply here. And in fact, that question was posed to Elaine. But as stated, the BCOHRC seems more concerned about appearing to care about human rights, than actually caring about human rights. Continuing from page 11:

Conclusion
It is in challenging times that it is most critical to place human rights at the centre of our decision making. No one’s safety should be put at risk because of other people’s personal choices not to receive a vaccine, and no one should experience harassment or unjustified discrimination when there are effective alternatives to vaccination
status policies.

We must all guard against the impulse to react out of fear, speculation and stereotyping. Restrictions imposed in the name of safety must be justified based on the most current public health recommendations reflecting the best available medical and scientific evidence, relevant to a specific setting.

While these paragraphs sound great, the BCOHRC is more concerned about optics and pretending to care about human rights.

Though this document doesn’t officially call for mandatory injections, it’s intended to provide instructions on how employers can get around it.

When specifically asked about approved v.s. authorized injections, Elaine pivots by claiming it’s not the place of the BCOHRC to provide medical advice. If she was being straightforward, this issue would have been addressed directly.

And no, this isn’t just some academic musings. Elaine made it clear that the BCOHRC intended for this document to be used as a guideline throughout B.C.

(1) https://bchumanrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/BCOHRC_Jul2021_Vaccination-Policy-Guidance_FINAL.pdf
(2) BCOHRC_Jul2021_Vaccination-Policy-Guidance_FINAL
(3) Section 30.1, Canada Food & Drug Act
(4) Interim (Emergency) Order Signed By Patty Hajdu
(5) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(6) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(7) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
(8) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

In case anyone thinks this may be unfair, here is the entire email exchange, going back to last week. Does it sound like a person giving straightforward answers?

From: Ronnie Lempert editor@canucklaw.ca
Sent: July 14, 2021 1:51 PM
To: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Subject: media request for information on document

Hello,

I run a small site in BC and came across this

https://bchumanrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/BCOHRC_Jul2021_Vaccination-Policy-Guidance_FINAL.pdf

There are some questions about its implementation, as it would impact readers.

Any chance of getting in touch?

Thanks,
Ronnie (Editor)
XXX-XXX-XXXX

From: “XXXXXXXX Elaine OHRC:EX” Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 2:09 PM
To: “editor@canucklaw.ca” editor@canucklaw.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Ronnie,

Thank you for reaching out to us.

The Commissioner is not doing media on this release, and of course implementation and roll out decisions are going to come from government and other agencies, not BCOHRC

However, if you have specific questions about the guidance that fall within our jurisdiction, if you send them to me via email, I will check and see if there is any more information we have to provide to you.

Thank you,
Elaine

Elaine XXXXXXX (she/her)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Communications
BC’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner
Office: 1-844-922-XXXX | Cell: 1-250-216-XXXX
bchumanrights.ca | @humanrights4bc

From: Ronnie Lempert editor@canucklaw.ca
Sent: July 14, 2021 2:33 PM
To: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Elaine

I’d hoped to ask in person, but here are the important parts.

(1) The Government takes its advice from the BCOHRC, does it not? So wouldn’t your reports and recommendations be considered, at a minimum?

(2) This document says on the top of page 10:
In my view, a person who chooses not to get vaccinated as a matter of personal preference—especially where that choice is based on misinformation or misunderstandings of scientific information—does not have grounds for a human rights complaint against a duty bearer implementing a vaccination status policy.

Okay, specifically, what would be a misunderstanding or what would count as misinformation?

(3) Middle of page 7, it’s stated that the vaccines are “approved by Health Canada”. However, when looking up the product inserts, they don’t say approved anywhere. They say “authorized under an interim order”.

https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

So, are these vaccines approved, or are they given interim authorization? They are not the same thing.

(4) Considering that testing has gone on for about a year, how can the BCOHRC say with any confidence if and what any side effects would be in 5 or 10 years?

(5) Are the manufacturers indemnified against lawsuits from any injury?

(6) Will the BCOHRC assume any responsibility/liability if this policy were implemented for any injuries/deaths?

(7) What cost/benefit analysis was done in coming to the decision that mandatory vaccines may be required? Could I have a copy of those studies?

(8) Has the extensive legal history, particularly with Pfizer, been any sort of deterrent in coming to this kind of decision?

(9) Does imposing this vaccination requirement result in a backdoor vaccine passport?

(10) Considering BC ended its state of emergency June 30, what is the legal basis for allowing the requirement of these vaccines?

(11) If my boss fired me for refusing a vaccine based on the above questions, what would the BCOHRC do? Would you determine that the employer has a right to demand them? Would you determine that I am uninformed?

I realize this is a lot, but that document is a cause for concern.

Thanks,
Ronnie

From: “XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX” Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 3:14 PM
To: “editor@canucklaw.ca” editor@canucklaw.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hi Ronnie,

That’s a long list. I will see if I can help clarify where possible.

I am sure you understand several of these questions are out of scope.

It’s nearing end of day. Would you let me know of your deadline please?

Thank you,
Elaine

From: Ronnie Lempert editor@canucklaw.ca
Sent: July 14, 2021 4:06 PM
To: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Elaine,

There isn’t a specific deadline, but whenever they can be done.

If there is someone in a different department or division who might have insight on some of them, they are welcome to add it in as well.

I realize this is a lot, but the kind of audience I write for doesn’t like the idea that their livelihoods could be conditional on taking this, for the issues outlined below

Thanks,
Ronnie

P.S. you are always welcome to visit the site if any of the content interests you.
https://canucklaw(dot)ca

From: “XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX” Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 2:14 PM
To: “editor@canucklaw.ca” editor@canucklaw.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hi Ronnie,

I am able to get back to you today with clarifications from our Office.

This document is intended to provide guidance to duty bearers under B.C.’s Human Rights Code, including employers, housing providers, service providers, and government insofar as government plays each of these roles. Our hope is that duty bearers will consider – and follow – our recommendations.

You will note that this guidance does not contain a recommendation that government put into place a mandatory vaccine requirement, but it does allow for proof-of-vaccine requirements in some circumstances.

Our legislative mandate empowers us to provide public guidance and recommendations on matters of public policy by clarifying existing human rights laws and advising how new laws and public policy must be adapted to adhere to them. You can read the provisions of B.C.’s Human Rights Code here.

It is not within our mandate to provide medical advice. We rely on public health guidance issued by the Office of the Provincial Health Officer and the BC Centres for Disease Control, and invite you to refer to their work.

It is also not within our mandate to address individual human rights complaints. All human rights complaints in the province – including those made concerning COVID-19 accommodations such as masking and vaccination – are managed by a separate entity, the BC Human Rights Tribunal. You can read more about the purpose and function of the BC Human Rights Tribunal here.

Thank you,
Elaine

From: Ronnie Lempert editor@canucklaw.ca
Sent: July 15, 2021 3:08 PM
To: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Elaine,

If you hope that your recommendations will be followed, then what’s wrong with getting clarification from your office? I’m trying to determine exactly what you are calling for.

As just one example, these vaccines have interim authorization under an emergency order, (an emergency now cancelled in BC). See attached screenshots. On page 7 of the document they are referred to as “approved”, which distorts the truth. Does this concern you?

On page 10 of the document, it’s stated that people who refuse to get it for person reasons will not be protected. It also states that misinformation or misunderstandings are not an excuse. It’s a valid question to ask what qualifies as “misinformation”.

Also, does pointing out the lack of long term testing, or manufacturer indemnification count as misinformation?

To be blunt, it appears that the BCOHRC is empowering employers and others to force/coerce people into taking it, while glossing over the experimental status of these vaccines.

A human rights approach to proof of vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic (bchumanrights.ca)

Hopefully I’m wrong,
Thanks,
Ronnie

From: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX” Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 5:07 PM
To: “editor@canucklaw.ca” editor@canucklaw.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Ronnie,

As discussed last week, here is additional clarification from our Office.

To clarify, our Office focuses on promoting and protecting human rights through education, research, advocacy, monitoring and public inquiry into issues of systemic discrimination in the province. Our legislative mandate is specifically focused on systemic discrimination, and therefore we are not able to comment on individual cases nor can we provide legal advice.

The vaccination status guidance offers general advice on how duty bearers can respect human rights if developing vaccination status policies — that is, policies that treat people differently based on whether or not they have been vaccinated against COVID-19.

B.C.’s Human Rights Commissioner Kasari Govender and our Office have not advocated for mandatory vaccination.

The purpose of the guidance document is to provide a human rights based lens to the development of vaccination status policies. It offers general advice on how duty bearers should respect human rights law when developing policies that treat people differently based on whether or not they have been vaccinated against COVID-19. The document follows current health guidance from the PHO and BCCDC, as well as sources cited in the guidance document and footnotes.

It is the position of BCOHRC that human rights law provides that duty bearers (such as employers) can implement vaccination status policies, only if less intrusive means of preventing transmission are not possible and with accommodations in place, as per the guidance. Vaccination status policies must remain consistent with the obligations legislated under B.C.’s Human Rights Code.

I hope this clarifies for you. We don’t have anything to add that isn’t already in the guidance, so suggest if you are looking for more specific details on potential future scenarios or the legal parameters of instituting proof of vaccination policies (these are still evolving as this is such a new issue across the board), that you seek context from a lawyer experienced in human rights, privacy and workplace law.

Thank you,
Elaine

From: Ronnie Lempert editor@canucklaw.ca
Sent: July 19, 2021 6:59 PM
To: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Elaine,

My biggest concern — one which is getting sidestepped here, it that you are laying out guidelines for EXPERIMENTAL and UNAPPROVED vaccines (interim authorization is not approved), and never make it clear that that this is the case. In short, the recommendations are based on misleading, or at best, incomplete information.

Saying “we don’t provide legal advice” is a bit of a cop out, since policies will likely be drafted based on the recommendations your office makes.

For the record, is it BCOHRC’s position that these are fully approved? Or just authorized for emergency use?

On a semi-related note: I’m curious what studies or cost/benefit analysis has been done, either for this, or for you recommendations on masks. Anything that debated or considered physical or psychological harms? Do you have anything you could share? Alternatively, is there anything publicly posted that you relied on? I’d like to see specifically what science has been relied on.

Thanks.
Ronnie

Hi Ronnie,

You can read all of our current and past COVID-19 guidance, including footnotes and references here: https://bchumanrights.ca/key-issues/covid-19/

You can read Health Canada information about vaccines here: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drugs-vaccines-treatments/vaccines.html

We have nothing further to add or say that has not already been published.

Thank you,
Elaine

An astute person will realize that not once did she address the issue of these “vaccines” being authorized under a (now cancelled) emergency order, and not approved.

Posted on

RNAO: Receives Public Money As It Promotes Lockdowns, Masks, Mandatory Vaccinations, Hard Drugs

The RNAO, the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, gets a lot of money to run its organization. However, it seems that the policies it promotes do anything but promote public health. What are some of the things it calls for?

To begin with, RNAO opposed in February any loosening of the medical martial law imposed by Doug Ford.

From the records of the Ontario Lobbying Registry, it shows that the RNAO has been receiving millions from the Government, which really means millions from taxpayers.

“The measures announced by the government are welcome, and we are glad our voices were heard,” says RNAO CEO Dr. Doris Grinspun referring to the Action Alert issued by the association immediately preceding Tuesday’s cabinet meeting. In that call, RNAO asked for:
-a lockdown of all non-essential services
-the need to vaccinate all essential service workers
-10 paid sick days for all workers
-re-instituting a moratorium on all residential and encampment evictions
–restricting travel within Ontario and between Ontario and other provinces and countries to only essential travel

April 2021, the RNAO publicly called for lockdowns in the Province. This included shutting down everything deemed “non-eseential”. Furthermore, this group demanded restrictions on travel be imposed both within Ontario, and between Provinces, and to vaccinate every so-called essential worker.

It should be shocking that an organization that claims to support public health calls for such measures that would inflict mental and financial harm. There’s no indication they even attempted to gauge support levels before making these demands.

Beyond that, the RNAO seems to take no issue with calling for constitutional rights to be suspended on the extremely thin premise of preventing a disease. However, its members seem to spineless to call it out.

Make no mistake: there is widespread support for drug decriminalization in Toronto, with 50 civil society organizations and five former mayors signing a recent call in this regard. Health professionals who find themselves on the front lines are being vocal about the need for change; the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario recently said that “decriminalizing personal possession of drugs must be part and parcel of any harm-reduction strategy because it decreases stigma and opens the door to hope, help and health.” Support also comes from people who use drugs, families of loved ones who have overdosed, and 60 per cent of Ontarians who were polled by the Angus Reid Institute in February 2021.

In a June 2021 piece in the Toronto Star, the RNAO was quoted as calling for the full decriminalization of all personal amounts of any narcotics. The RNAO also advocates for “safe injection” sites. In other words, they don’t object to the use of hard drugs. They just want to be involved in it.

Here are some other notices on the RNAO website:

July 2018, the RNAO urged Ford’s PC Government to reinstate the 2015 sex-ed curriculum. Never mind that Ben Levin, a convicted pedophile, had been largely responsible for writing it. How interesting that this is one of their first priorities.

August 2018, the RNAO advocated for more funding for supervised drug injection sites. The rationale was that instead of getting people treatment, paying for narcotics and medical staff to do it “safely” saved lives. They were happy when it was announced that the “conservatives” were supportive of it.

February 2019, the RNAO claims that Ontario’s hospitals are overwhelmed, and that there is understaffing to properly provide care. Interestingly, this point will soon be forgotten in 2020, and overcrowding will be due to the so-called pandemic.

April 2020, the RNAO called for continued funding for the opioid crisis. They want to keep the money coming in for the treatments they provide. Keep in mind, the RNAO supports “safe injection sites” as an alternative to treatment.

July 2020, the RNAO started their #Maskathon campaign, to get everyone in Ontario, even young children, wearing masks. Strangely, they don’t bother to address the physical and psychological effects these will have on people.

October 2020, the RNAO called for lockdowns in the Province. This included banning dining in restaurants, and shutting down bars, gyms and places of worships. In February 2021, they were critical of plans to cut back on this. April 2021, they called for a full lockdown of “non essential” services because of this variants nonsense.

May 2021, the RNAO openly demanded that all health care workers receive these “vaccinations”. Never mind that they weren’t approved by Health Canada, had no long term testing, and the manufacturers were indemnified.

RNAO celebrated its “best in health care journalism” by naming several establishment reporters.

A serious question to all Ontario residents: does it look like this organization has your best interests at heart? They claim to, and they take enough of your money.

(1) http://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/Pages/Public/PublicSearch/
(2) https://twitter.com/rnao
(3) https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2021/06/18/five-former-mayors-of-toronto-on-why-it-is-time-for-the-city-to-decriminalize-simple-drug-possession.html
(4) https://rnao.ca/news/media-releases/nurses-urge-premier-ford-reinstate-2015-sexual-education-curriculum
(5) https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/liberal-politician-jailed-for-child-porn-released-early-on-parole
(6) https://rnao.ca/news/media-releases/nurses-say-evidence-robust-supervised-injection-and-overdose-prevention
(7) https://rnao.ca/news/media-releases/provinces-support-supervised-injection-services-and-overdose-prevention
(8) https://rnao.ca/news/media-releases/nurses-press-end-hallway-health-care-during-visit-queens-park
(9) https://rnao.ca/news/media-releases/nurses-call-halt-plans-stop-funding-critical-opioid-treatment-sites
(10) https://rnao.ca/news/media-releases/rnao-launches-new-social-media-campaign-maskathon
(11) https://rnao.ca/news/media-releases/rnao-urges-stricter-measures-combat-rapidly-rising-number-covid-19-infections
(12) https://rnao.ca/news/media-releases/rnao-statement-governments-re-opening-announcement
(13) https://rnao.ca/news/media-releases/rnao-says-latest-public-health-measures-will-help-curb-covid-19-variants-urges
(14) https://rnao.ca/news/media-releases/nurses-must-be-fully-vaccinated-immediately-rnao-demands
(15) https://rnao.ca/news/media-releases/rnao-celebrates-the-best-in-health-care-journalism-with-its-annual-media-awards
(16) https://twitter.com/Docs4Decrim/status/1410785836975628288

Posted on

Toronto Region Board Of Trade Supports Vaccine Passports, While Receiving And Encouraging Subsidies

The Toronto Region Board of Trade, TRBoT, a group that isn’t accountable to the public, and holds no public office, is openly calling for Ontario to adopt vaccine passports. The idea is that people who refuse should be denied access to what they call “non essential” services. Jan De Silva, President and CEO of the group, pushes hard for it. More on her later.

In fact, if a group wanted to kill off businesses, it’s hard to think of a better way to do this.

TORONTO – The Toronto Region Board of Trade is calling on the Ontario government to introduce a vaccine passport system for non-essential business activity.

Jan De Silva, CEO of the board, says vaccine passports are the only way to safely reopen larger events like business conferences and will help revive tourism.

“Now that we’ve got sufficient vaccine, it’s a way to start resuming a more normal form of day-to-day living.” She said it’s a personal decision to get vaccinated, but accessing major events and indoor dining requires moral responsibility.

The board of trade says it is having discussions with the Ontario premier’s office about introducing a vaccine passport system.

This should alarm people. A board representing large business interests is meeting with Doug Ford’s office to discuss limiting people’s right to free association and free movement, unless they agree to have their privacy limited and take experimental “vaccines” for a virus that likely doesn’t exist.

Remember when trade associations used to call for less government restrictions and regulations? Now, the TRBoT is doing exactly the opposite of that. And far from calling on independence, this group openly promotes the idea of its members scooping up government benefits.

The TRBoT is partially funded by the City of Toronto, the Province of Ontario and the Ministry of Energy. This means that taxpayers are helping keep this operation afloat. Beyond that, there are also dozens of private sponsors who stand to benefit from the policies proposed. Rather than demanding economic freedom, there are demands for corporate welfare.

The Toronto Board of Trade is also pushing agenda of the mass testing people at work. For businesses with less than 150 employees, enough test sticks can be included to get everyone twice a week for 4 weeks, or 8 times each overall. Of course, it’s really taxpayers footing the bill for this, although that point is minimized. What exactly happens to the personal information afterwards anyway?

Granted these tests don’t work anyway, but whatever.

In their FAQ section, the Board of Trade provides links to what kind of government support is available. It’s interesting that this group, which claims to be pro-business, isn’t demanding Ford and Tory end their martial law. Instead, they push a pattern of dependence on their members.

In June, there was an update to the list of government (taxpayer) handouts available. However, there still isn’t any urgency in just letting businesses operate normally.

Jan de Silva is the President and CEO of the TRBoT. However, her other connections lend doubt as to what her motivations are. She’s a Director at Intact Financial Corporation, a large insurance company. She’s a member of APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation), and ABLAC (Asia Business Leaders Council). She’s also a Director at Piment Investments Limited, a firm supporting business expansion in Asia. Also, she’s a non-Executive Director at Blue Umbrella Limited, which sells compliance technology, and is based in Hong Kong. Furthermore, de Silva has chaired the Canada-China Business Council in Beijing. Her profile screams pro-business (in Asia), but she calls on restricting businesses and commerce in Canada, unless certain conditions are met.

De Silva isn’t kidding about lobbying all levels of Government. In fact, the TRBoT has been registered since 2007, and she is personally listed now. What is referred to as “Digital Adaptation – to seek funding for delivery of programs helping small to medium size businesses digitally transform their end-to end operations”, likely is a euphemism that included vaccine passports.

The TRBoT also supports an interesting combination of policies that include: (a) climate change nonsense to kill jobs; (b) “globalized” trade to continue offshoring local industries; and (c) increased immigration to compete for whatever jobs are left.

This is pretty much what Conservative Inc. calls for.

Also, for an organization that claims to be for businesses and a market economy, they don’t seem to mind getting taxpayer subsidies to keep their operations going. This includes receiving CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. (See new link).

The TRBoT also supports “smart cities“, which means an almost completely digitally-run community. While this may sound convenient, there may be privacy issues to sort out. The April 14, 2021 webcast included as speakers:

1) Craig Clydesdale, Founder & CEO, Utilities Without Borders
2) Craig McLellan, CEO, ThinkOn
3) Raphael Wong, Director- Strategic Initiatives, ThoughtWire
4) Hugh O’Reilly, Executive Director, Innovate Cities

At least we’ll still have jobs when this is over, right?

Now, there is justification in the fear that jobs are disappearing permanently. TRBoT supports the Scale Up Initiative. It’s goal is to put more of the economy online, and to cut costs. Of course “cutting costs” generally means laying off employees. Keep in mind, TRBoT receives public money, which means taxpayers are subsidizing the costs of chopping the job pool available.

How do you feel about this, residents of Toronto and Ontario? Your tax money is helping fund an organization that encourages OTHER businesses to get subsidies, while pushing for vaccine passports? Yay, for capitalism.

(1) https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/video/ontario-needs-a-vaccine-passport-mandate-by-this-fall-toronto-region-board-of-trade-ceo~2241660
(2) https://www.680news.com/2021/07/13/toronto-board-of-trade-vaccine-passports/
(3) https://www.bot.com/AboutUs/WhoWeAre/Sponsors.aspx
(4) https://supportbusiness.bot.com/screening-kits/
(5) https://supportbusiness.bot.com/faqs/
(6) https://supportbusiness.bot.com/2021/06/07/covid-19-government-and-international-response-june-4-2021/
(7) https://www.bot.com/AboutUs/Governance/AnnualReports.aspx
(8) TRBOT Annual Report 2020 FINAL
(9) TRBOT-Annual-Report-2021
(10) https://www.linkedin.com/in/alaina-tennison/
(11) https://archive.is/SUeuH
(12) https://www.linkedin.com/in/janetdesilva/
(13) https://archive.is/Mbh5s
(14) https://supportbusinessdev.bot.com/webinars/rap-webcast-series-3-smart-cities-solutions-to-upgrade-and-drive-your-business-forward/
(15) https://wtctoronto.com/scale-up/
(16) https://wtctoronto.com/rap/
(17) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=15291&regId=911677
(18) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(19) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/habs/cews/srch/pub/dsplyBscSrch?request_locale=en

Posted on

A Talk With Professor Colin Furness Of The University Of Toronto DLSPH

This article is going to be different. Friday, July 9, I had a talk with University of Toronto Professor Colin Furness. Although our views are miles apart on a lot of this, it’s worthwhile to get another perspective.

This meeting came about after finding his name listed as an advisor for a firm called Sapphire Health. This company is currently working on a model to implement AI (artificial intelligence) into health records. However, it seems that this listing was done in error, as he personally knew the founder, and had talked on a social basis.

His recent work covers “the effectiveness of information systems for knowledge work; information and knowledge management; health behaviour change; infection control epidemiology; COVID-19 pandemic management in Canada.”

In any event, it’s nice to get outside the echo chamber once in a while.

Posted on

Some Of The Gates Foundation Money Coming Into Canadian Universities

This should have been addressed sooner, but here we are. Money corrupts. And large donations to colleges and universities are no different. Some well known schools in Canada have been receiving large donations from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in recent years.

Also noteworthy: a grant of nearly $20,000 to the BC Provincial Health Services Authority in September 2016. That should raise a few eyebrows. Then again, the BCPHSA is a registered charity, and isn’t really controlled by the Government.

SCHOOL DATE AMOUNT
Athabasca University December 2010 $10,000
Carleton University September 2013 $200,100
Carleton University July 2015 $200,000
Carleton University October 2016 $600,000
Carleton University November 2018 $287,769
Carleton University December 2020 $150,000
Queen’s University (Kingston) April 2000 $765,000
Queen’s University (Kingston) September 2017 $209,913
McGill University August 2008 $99,350
McGill University October 2008 $100,000
McGill University January 2011 $776,797
McGill University February 2012 $100,000
McGill University June 2012 $1,190,749
McGill University November 2012 $1,488,773
McGill University October 2013 $100,000
McGill University October 2013 $2,910,578
McGill University November 2013 $2,351,021
McGill University April 2014 $100,000
McGill University October 2014 $196,305
McGill University October 2015 $100,000
McGill University August 2017 $652,488
McGill University September 2017 $50,000
McGill University March 2019 $200,000
McGill University July 2019 $629,970
McGill University October 2019 $524,285
McGill University April 2020 $839,644
McGill University September 2020 $1,227,508
McMaster University June 2015 $6,616,077
McMaster University October 2018 $1,993,992
McMaster University November 2019 $12,392,744
Simon Fraser University November 2010 $100,000
Simon Fraser University June 2020 $1,638,614
University Health Network March 2008 $2,992,320
University Health Network July 2012 $374,713
University of Alberta January 2012 $374,493
University of Alberta April 2012 $100,000
University of Alberta April 2012 $100,000
University of British Columbia November 2009 $100,000
University of British Columbia November 2010 $25,905,046
University of British Columbia April 2011 $50,000
University of British Columbia October 2011 $100,000
University of British Columbia November 2011 $50,000
University of British Columbia February 2012 $75,000
University of British Columbia January 2015 $331,926
University of British Columbia October 2015 $100,000
University of British Columbia November 2015 $10,517,000
University of British Columbia April 2017 $248,118
University of British Columbia May 2017 $575,000
University of British Columbia May 2018 $115,002
University of Calgary April 2011 $100,000
University of Calgary March 2012 $100,000
University of Calgary October 2017 $320,729
University of Manitoba March 2002 $1,000,000
University of Manitoba December 2003 $23,781,310
University of Manitoba July 2005 $6,632,459
University of Manitoba September 2005 $5,875,500
University of Manitoba January 2006 $727,289
University of Manitoba July 2006 $25,000
University of Manitoba February 2007 $3,576,104
University of Manitoba December 2008 $19,964,619
University of Manitoba November 2009 $100,000
University of Manitoba November 2009 $9,395,356
University of Manitoba November 2011 $6,979,956
University of Manitoba November 2013 $45,240,209
University of Manitoba July 2014 $1,599,915
University of Manitoba November 2014 $5,115,536
University of Manitoba November 2015 $2,094,160
University of Manitoba November 2015 $3,600,884
University of Manitoba November 2015 $12,826,276
University of Manitoba December 2015 $108,108
University of Manitoba November 2016 $32,252,452
University of Manitoba November 2016 $1,496,747
University of Manitoba January 2017 $3,053,064
University of Manitoba May 2018 $299,920
University of Manitoba November 2018 $1,999,776
University of Manitoba November 2019 $1,677,745
University of Manitoba November 2019 $5,045,139
University of Manitoba April 2020 $200,000
University of Manitoba April 2020 $2,571,089
University of Manitoba April 2020 $6,483,054
University of Manitoba July 2020 $800,400
University of Manitoba November 2020 $2,038,335
University of Manitoba November 2020 $2,195,780
University of Manitoba December 2020 $116,323
University of Manitoba December 2020 $986,439
University of Manitoba June 2021 $87,078,762
University of Ottawa April 2011 $100,000
University of Ottawa April 2016 $100,000
University of Saskatchewan July 2005 $4,510,133
University of Saskatchewan October 2008 $100,000
University of Saskatchewan May 2010 $100,000
University of Saskatchewan September 2020 $10,000
University of Toronto December 2004 $78,750
University of Toronto December 2005 $10,071,457
University of Toronto October 2008 $100,000
University of Toronto June 2011 $439,585
University of Toronto September 2011 $100,000
University of Toronto October 2012 $2,617,245
University of Toronto November 2012 $100,000
University of Toronto August 2014 $5,019,295
University of Toronto April 2015 $100,000
University of Toronto April 2016 $100,000
University of Toronto October 2016 $344,020
University of Toronto October 2017 $2,715,600
University of Toronto November 2019 $127,685
University of Toronto November 2020 $1,902,266
University of Victoria October 2008 $100,000
University of Waterloo October 2007 $12,500,000
University of Waterloo February 2018 $90,000
University of Waterloo November 2018 $236,244
Wilfrid Laurier University July 2016 $255,605
World Uni Service of Canada April 2007 $4,059,901
World Uni Service of Canada October 2010 $3,995,720
World Uni Service of Canada September 2012 $1,605,835
World Uni Service of Canada October 2012 $2,134,386
World Uni Service of Canada May 2014 $331,780

In what may be a surprise to many, it seems that the University of Manitoba comes out on top when it comes to receiving money from Gates.

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION
EIN: 56-2618866

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION TRUST
EIN: 91-1663695

Remember: always be following the money.

(1) https://www.gatesfoundation.org
(2) https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants?q=canada%20university#jump-nav-anchor0
(3) https://archive.is/4GwFa
(4) https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/
(5) gates.foundation.taxes.2016
(6) gates.foundation.taxes.2017
(7) gates.foundation.taxes.2018
(8) gates.foundation.trust.taxes.2018

Posted on

Some Thoughts On Why Ontario Is Still Closed, While Other Provinces Are Fully Open

Why is Ontario still completely shut down? Why is there more freedom pretty much everywhere else in North America? Perhaps these bits of information will shine some light on that problem.

In an earlier piece, it was shown that Sarah Letersky and Patrick Harris lobbied the Ontario Government on behalf of AstraZeneca. They were recently at it again, lobbying on behalf of Janssen in June, 2021.

Letersky helped install Ford into power in June 2018, and remained in that Government for a period afterwards. Now, she lobbies that same Government. Quite the conflict of interest.

And as repeated ad nauseum, these “vaccines” are not approved by Health Canada, but instead, have interim authorization under an emergency order. Not at all the same thing. In fact, it’s only legal to distribute because of the emergency declaration.

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?
.
Employment Standards Act: removal of pharmacist exemptions in ESA for improved labour standards. Insurance Act: prohibit restrictive preferred provider networks to protect patient choice in providers. Ontario Drug Benefit Act: sustainable pharmacy funding. Drug Interchangeability & Dispensing Fee Act: advocacy on dispensing fees. Pharmacy Act: scope of practice for pharmacists. Narcotic Safety and Awareness Act: to obtain data from the Narcotic Monitoring System. Health Sector Payment Transparency Act: fair reporting protocols. Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act: redefinition of where pharmacists can practice. Laboratory and Specimen Collection Centre Licensing Act: for point-of-care and other forms of diagnostic test including for COVID19, and to order/receive lab test results for medication monitoring. Smoke Free Ontario Act: for pharmacy dispensing of medical cannabis. Cannabis Act: for pharmacy dispensing of medical cannabis. Public Hospitals Act: to enable full scope of pharmacist/technician practice. Long Term Care Homes Act: alignment of pharmacy funding with required services to be performed under the act. Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act: for the provision of government-supplied PPE for all front-line pharmacy professionals.

The Ontario Pharmacists Association, much like the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, is subsidized by taxpayers in order to keep its operations going. The OPA has also been involved with Bill 160 and Bill 132, helping to erode transparency among pharmaceutical companies.

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?
.
Seeking legislation, regulation, and policies related to Ontario’s economic competitiveness and prosperity of our membership and their communities. Issues around COVID-19 and advocacy on the impact on Ontario businesses across the province, particularly on supports for business & vaccine & rapid test distribution. Issues surrounding cannabis and advocating for the industry’s growth across the province. Issues surrounding a competitive tax and regulatory environment including pursuing a simplified tax system and improve transparency in regulation. Issues around regional economic development – removal of inter-provincial trade barriers. Issues regarding modernizing energy and infrastructure (specifically broadband infrastructure investment). Issues concerning health care sustainability such as direct and indirect support for research and development as well as the path to economic recovery with regard to COVID-19. Issues relating to a skilled workforce such addressing the skills mismatch, reinventing employment and training services, and ensuring the apprenticeship system becomes more flexible. Issues related economic competitiveness with Ontario’s agri-food sector, leveraging Ontario’s innovation advantage and collaborate with the private sector to fully leverage Ontario’s competitive advantages. Issues related to fiscal position of the province. Issues related to supporting Ontario’s competitive advantage including agri-food, immigration tourism, and lowing electricity rates through investment in sustainable energy infrastructure.

Now, this could just be poor wording, but the Ontario Chamber of Commerce doesn’t actually say that they want the Province reopened. They seem to be pushing for support for businesses forced to be closed.

Of course, it doesn’t help that Rocco Rossi is the head of the Chamber of Commerce. He is a former Head of the Liberal Party of Canada, a former Mayoral Candidate in Toronto, and ran as Candidate for the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party. Rossi is a great example of politics being too close with lobbyists.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses supposedly stands up for the rights of independents, as the name implies. However, it seems to do little beyond parroting official Government tallies.

Unfortunately, Dan Kelly, who runs the CFIB, is more content to virtue signal about taking his own experimental injections, and doing it to his MINOR children.

Walmart is once again lobbying Ford’s Government. Their stated goal: “Lobbying for regulation changes to allow pharmacists to have expanded scope of practice.” Of course, their business interests have grown considerably as of late, since they are considered essential, while so many are not.

See this earlier work on lobbying by big businesses, and how airline lobbying may have impacted inter-Provincial border closures.

Another area that has picked up is the delivery and rideshare industry. One such company is Facedrive, which uses lobbyists tied to the Ontario and Federal Conservative Parties. See Prabhu and Dunlop.

Just a thought, but Facedrive may be contributing to why “conservative” politicians remain so pro-lockdown. It’s good for their bottom line.

Loop Insights Inc. is described as “a Vancouver-based Internet of Things (“IoT”) technology company that delivers transformative artificial intelligence (“AI”) automated marketing, contact tracing, and contactless solutions to the brick and mortar space.” It should come as no surprise that the people lobbying also have lengthy political ties.

So, why is Ontario mostly still shut down? Wild idea, but maybe there are certain people who have financial incentives to keep it that way.

(1) http://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/Pages/Public/PublicSearch/
(2) https://rubiconstrategy.com/
(3) https://www.linkedin.com/in/sarah-letersky/
(4) https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-harris-69348726/
(5) https://www.linkedin.com/in/fabienpaquette/
(6) https://www.linkedin.com/in/catherine-paquette-526b0721/
(7) https://twitter.com/CFIB/status/1402405151483248645
(8) https://twitter.com/BNNBloomberg/status/1400170795339497482
(9) https://twitter.com/canadabusiness/status/1399399075640922112
(10) https://twitter.com/CFIB/status/1395133016423505923
(11) https://www.linkedin.com/in/roccorossi/
(12) https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephdunlop/
(13) https://archive.is/WiJc9
(14) https://www.linkedin.com/in/vivek-prabhu-63850120/
(15) https://www.facedrive.com/
(16) https://www.linkedin.com/in/adria-minsky-b8ba9277/
(17) https://archive.is/7yd7R
(18) https://www.linkedin.com/in/carysbaker/
(19) https://archive.is/4fZO3

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress