Category: Health

Posted on

CV #30(E): Crestview Strategy, Danielle Peters, Lobbyists Behind $173 Million Grant To Medicago

Medicago received a grant of $173,000,000 to develop a CV-19 vaccine. Beyond that, a portion of the grant is to build a manufacturing facility, which presumably should be operational by 2040.

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, obscuring the vile agenda called the GREAT RESET. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. The International Health Regulations are legally binding. The Postmedia empire and the “independent” media are paid off, as are the fact-checkers. The virus was never isolated, PCR tests are a fraud, as are forced masks, social bubbles, and 2m distancing.

2. Danielle Peters, Major Pharma Lobbyist

  • February 4, 2019
  • February 4, 2019
  • February 5, 2019
  • November 27, 2019
  • January 22, 2020
  • March 3, 2020
  • March 5, 2020
  • May 25, 2020
  • June 8, 2020
  • June 8, 2020
  • June 29 2020
  • July 13, 2020
  • July 15, 2020
  • July 29, 2020
  • July 30, 2020
  • August 6, 2020
  • August 7, 2020
  • August 26, 2020
  • August 27, 2020
  • September 1, 2020
  • September 10, 2020
  • September 16, 2020
  • September 29, 2020
  • October 10, 2020
  • October 10 2020
  • January 13, 2021
  • January 28, 2021

The above list only includes searches for Medicago, which Danielle Peters is featured prominently. She has been registered as a Medicago lobbyist since 2013. Those dates are when she met on behalf of Medicago to lobby for vaccines. If you only search her name, Peters is involved in other pharma lobbying, such as with Merck, Kalgene Pharmaceuticals, Therapure Biopharma, and the Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacies

3. Danielle Peters, Magnet Strategy Group

Dani Peters is President of Magnet Strategy Group, a consulting firm that manages public affairs strategies in Canada and the United States.

Prior to founding Magnet Strategy Group, Dani held senior roles in public affairs firms in the U.S. and Canada, concentrating on fields that include innovation, health and life sciences. Over the past decade, Dani has worked with groups in the health sector to develop and manage government, public policy, funding, advocacy and stakeholder strategies.

Dani is co-founder of the Cross-Border Health Foundation, an organization that fosters dialogue between Canada and the United States around common health priorities. In addition to operating Magnet Strategy Group, Dani serves on the Industry Advisory Board for Bloom Burton & Co., a healthcare investment advisory firm in Toronto. She is also a Health Leader-in-Residence for the World Health Innovation Network (WIN), within the University of Windsor’s Odette School of Business.

What else is there to say? She is clearly a very connected person. Considering that Medicago landed a $173 million contract, due largely to her lobbying, Peters was financially a great investment. This deal wasn’t just to fund vaccine research, it was to build a facility as well.

4. Peters Lobbied While With Rothwell

It worth pointing out that Peters also lobbied on behalf of Medicago when she was employed by the firm, Rothwell Group. Seems that not much has changed.

5. Peters Part Of Adjuvant Partners As Well

Look familiar? It should. This profile is almost identical to the Magnet profile, down to using the same photograph. Among other things, Adjuvant lists “gene therapy” as one area it’s involved with. This appears to be another lobbying firm, as they don’t do medical research themselves.

6. Peters’ LinkedIn Page

The profile of one of the main players behind the $173 million spending. However, she has not acted alone in this.

7. Blake Oliver Jumps Ship To Government

On February 26, 2020, Blake Oliver lobbied the Federal Government on behalf of Medicago, while still employed at Crestview Strategy. Days later, he was working for the Government, in the Ministry of Transportation. He also helped volunteer for the Liberals in the 2019 election.

8. Patricia Sibal, Liberal Party Volunteer

Also connected to this is Patricia Sabil. She has lobbied for Medicago, while working for Crestview Strategy. She is also a volunteer with the Liberals in Ontario and Quebec.

9. Susie Heath, Liberal With Wynne/McGuinty

Susie Heath spent years with the Liberal Government of Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne. She has also lobbied on behalf of Medicago, while with Crestview Strategy

10. Jennifer Babcock, Ex-Crestview Lobbyist

Babcock spent several years in Parliament, working for various politicians. She also lobbied on behalf of both Medicago and GAVI. Honourable mentions go out to Lucas Malinowski, and Joanna Carey, who appear to have since left Crestview.

Jason Clark is still with Crestview, and has acted for Medicago and GAVI. He volunteered in the 2015 election for Liberals in the Ottawa region. Crestview itself was co-founded by Rob Silver, husband of Katie Telford, Trudeau’s Chief-of-Staff.

Currently, Ashton Arsenault is registered as a lobbyist for both Medicago and GAVI. For some variety, he is a strategist with the Conservative Party of Canada.

For some background information into Crestview and other lobbying, please check here, here, here and here.

This is what they mean when they say “we’re all in it together”.

11. Conflicts Of Interest Ignored In Media

Given the heavy subsidization of the media in Canada, it’s no surprise that none of this is being reported. When outlets are dependent on the Government to prop them up, they are unlikely to do real research. But about that $173 million grant, people should know who is really pulling the strings.

Posted on

The Other Provincial Health Acts Written By WHO-IHR

Welcome to the second part of the Provincial Health Acts of Canada. As you will see, elements of the 2005 Quarantine Act are written into them.

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, obscuring the vile agenda called the GREAT RESET. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. The International Health Regulations are legally binding. The Postmedia empire and the “independent” media are paid off, as are the fact-checkers. The virus was never isolated, PCR tests are a fraud, as are forced masks, social bubbles, and 2m distancing.

2. Important Links

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/HESA/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=981075
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/38-1/HESA/report-2/

(AB) https://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/P37.pdf
(SK) https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/laws/stat/ss-1994-c-p-37.1/11022/ss-1994-c-p-37.1.html
(MB) https://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/p210e.php
(ON) https://healthunit.org/wp-content/uploads/Health_Protection_and_Promotion_Act.pdf
CLICK HERE, for earlier piece on Provincial Health Acts

(QC) http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/S-2.2
(NB) http://laws.gnb.ca/en/showfulldoc/cs/P-22.4//20210220
(NS) https://nslegislature.ca/sites/default/files/legc/statutes/health%20protection.pdf
(NL) https://www.assembly.nl.ca/Legislation/sr/statutes/p37-3.htm
(PEI) Prince Edward Island Public Health Act
(YK) https://legislation.yukon.ca/acts/puhesa.pdf

3. Quebec Public Health Act

5. Public health actions must be directed at protecting, maintaining or enhancing the health status and well-being of the general population and shall not focus on individuals except insofar as such actions are taken for the benefit of the community as a whole or a group of individuals.
.
6. This Act is binding on the Government, on government departments and on bodies that are mandataries of the State.

CHAPTER IX
COMPULSORY TREATMENT AND PROPHYLACTIC MEASURES FOR CERTAIN CONTAGIOUS DISEASES OR INFECTIONS
DIVISION I
CONTAGIOUS DISEASES OR INFECTIONS AND COMPULSORY TREATMENT

83. The Minister may, by regulation, draw up a list of the contagious diseases or infections for which any person affected is obligated to submit to the medical treatments required to prevent contagion.
.
The list may include only contagious diseases or infections that are medically recognized as capable of constituting a serious threat to the health of a population and for which an effective treatment that would put an end to the contagion is available.
2001, c. 60, s. 83.

84. Any health professional with the authority to make a medical diagnosis or to assess a person’s state of health who observes that a person is likely suffering from a disease or infection to which this division applies must take, without delay, the required measures to ensure that the person receives the care required by his or her condition, or direct the person to a health and social services institution able to provide such treatments.
2001, c. 60, s. 84; 2020, c. 6, s. 25.

85. In the case of certain diseases or infections identified in the regulation, any health or social services institution having the necessary resources must admit as an emergency patient any person suffering or likely to be suffering from one of those diseases or infections. If the institution does not have the necessary resources, it must direct the person to an institution able to provide the required services.
2001, c. 60, s. 85.

86. Any health professional with the authority to make a medical diagnosis or to assess a person’s state of health who becomes aware that a person who is likely suffering from a disease or infection to which this division applies is refusing or neglecting to submit to an examination must notify the appropriate public health director as soon as possible.
.
Such a notice must also be given by any such professional who observes that a person is refusing or neglecting to submit to the required medical treatment or has discontinued a treatment that must be completed to prevent contagion or a recurrence of contagion.
2001, c. 60, s. 86; 2020, c. 6, s. 26.

87. Any public health director who receives a notice under section 86 must make an inquiry and, if the person refuses to be examined or to submit to the appropriate treatment, the public health director may apply to the Court for an order enjoining the person to submit to such examination or treatment.
2001, c. 60, s. 87.

88. A judge of the Court of Québec or of the municipal courts of the cities of Montréal, Laval or Québec having jurisdiction in the locality where the person is to be found may, if the judge believes on reasonable grounds that the protection of the health of the population so warrants, order the person to submit to an examination and receive the required medical treatment.
.
In addition, the judge may, if the judge believes on serious grounds that the person will refuse to submit to the examination or to receive the treatment, order that the person be taken to an institution maintained by a health or social services institution for examination and treatment. The provisions of section 108 apply to that situation, with the necessary modifications.
2001, c. 60, s. 88.

DIVISION II
COMPULSORY PROPHYLACTIC MEASURES
.
89. The Minister may, for certain contagious diseases or infections medically recognized as capable of constituting a serious threat to the health of a population, make a regulation setting out prophylactic measures to be complied with by a person suffering or likely to be suffering from such a disease or infection, as well as by any person having been in contact with that person.
.
Isolation, for a maximum period of 30 days, may form part of the prophylactic measures prescribed in the regulation of the Minister.
.
The regulation shall prescribe the circumstances and conditions in which specific prophylactic measures are to be complied with to prevent contagion. It may also require certain health or social services institutions to admit as an emergency patient any person suffering or likely to be suffering from one of the contagious diseases or infections to which this section applies, as well as any person who has been in contact with that person.
2001, c. 60, s. 89.

90. Any health professional who observes that a person is omitting, neglecting or refusing to comply with the prophylactic measures prescribed in the regulation made under section 89 must notify the appropriate public health director as soon as possible.
.
The director must make an inquiry and, if the person refuses to comply with the necessary prophylactic measures, the director may apply to the Court for an order enjoining the person to do so.
The provisions of section 88 apply to that situation, with the necessary modifications.
The director may also, in the case of an emergency, use the powers conferred by section 103, and sections 108 and 109 apply to such a situation.
2001, c. 60, s. 90.

91. Despite any decision of the Court ordering the isolation of a person, isolation must cease as soon as the attending physician, after consulting the appropriate public health director, issues a certificate to the effect that the risk of contagion no longer exists.

Good old Quebec, where doctors can have you forcibly detained and “treated” based on the vague suspicion that you may have a communicable illness. And of course, the Court can have you locked up and isolated for 30 days at a time based on these suspicions.

4. New Brunswick Public Health Act

Duty to report contacts
2002, c.23, s.10; 2017, c.42, s.35
31A medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, midwife or nurse shall, in accordance with the regulations, report the person’s contacts related to a notifiable disease or notifiable event prescribed by regulation to a medical officer of health or person designated by the Minister, if the medical practitioner, nurse practitioner, midwife or nurse
(a) provides professional services to a person who has a notifiable disease prescribed by regulation or has suffered a notifiable event prescribed by regulation, or
(b) provided professional services to a deceased person before that person’s death and that person had a notifiable disease prescribed by regulation or had suffered a notifiable event prescribed by regulation.
2002, c.23, s.10; 2007, c.63, s.10; 2011, c.26, s.4; 2017, c.42, s.36

Duty to report refusal or neglect of treatment
2017, c.42, s.37
32A medical practitioner or nurse practitioner shall report to a medical officer of health, in accordance with the regulations, if a person who is under the care and treatment of the medical practitioner or the nurse practitioner in respect of a Group I notifiable disease refuses or neglects to continue the treatment in a manner and to a degree satisfactory to the medical practitioner or the nurse practitioner, as the case may be.
2017, c.42, s.38

Order respecting notifiable disease
2017, c.42, s.39
33(1)Subject to subsection (2), a medical officer of health by a written order may require a person to take or refrain from taking any action that is specified in the order in respect of a notifiable disease.
.
33(2)A medical officer of health may make an order under this section if he or she believes on reasonable grounds,
(a) that a notifiable disease exists or may exist in a health region,
(b) that the notifiable disease presents a risk to the health of persons in the health region, and
(c) that the requirements specified in the order are necessary to prevent, decrease or eliminate the risk to health presented by the notifiable disease.

33(3)In an order under this section, a medical officer of health may specify the time or times when or the period or periods of time within which the person to whom the order is directed must comply with the order.

33(4)An order under this section may include, but is not limited to,
(a) requiring any person that the order states has or may have a notifiable disease or is or may be infected with an agent of a notifiable disease to isolate himself or herself and remain in isolation from other persons,
.
(b) requiring the person to whom the order is directed to submit to an examination by a medical practitioner or a nurse practitioner and to deliver to the medical officer of health a report by the medical practitioner or nurse practitioner as to whether or not the person has a notifiable disease or is infected with an agent of a notifiable disease,
(c) requiring the person to whom the order is directed in respect of a disease that is a notifiable disease to place himself or herself under the care and treatment of a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner without delay, and
.
(d) requiring the person to whom the order is directed to conduct himself or herself in such a manner as not to expose another person to infection.

This is the Public Health Act of New Brunswick.

5. Nova Scotia Health Protection Act

COMMUNICABLE DISEASES
Powers respecting communicable diseases
32 (1) Where a medical officer is of the opinion, upon reasonable and probable grounds, that
(a) a communicable disease exists or may exist or that there is an immediate risk of an outbreak of a communicable disease;
(b) the communicable disease presents a risk to the public health; and
(c) the requirements specified in the order are necessary in order to decrease or eliminate the risk to the public health presented by the communicable disease, the medical officer may by written order require a person to take or to refrain from taking any action that is specified in the order in respect of a communicable disease

32 (3) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), an order
made under this Section may
(a) require the owner or occupier of premises to close the premises or a part of the premises or to restrict access to the premises;
(b) require the displaying of signage on premises to give notice of an order requiring the closing of the premises;
(c) require any person that the order states has been exposed or may have been exposed to a communicable disease to quarantine himself or herself from other persons;
(d) require any person who has a communicable disease or is infected with an agent of a communicable disease to isolate himself or herself from other persons;
(e) require the cleaning or disinfecting, or both, of the premises or any thing specified in the order;
(f) require the destruction of any matter or thing specified in the order;
(g) require the person to whom the order is directed to submit to an examination by a physician who is acceptable to a medical officer and to deliver to the medical officer a report by the physician as to whether or not the person has a communicable disease or is or is not infected with an agent of a communicable disease;
(h) require the person to whom the order is directed in respect of a communicable disease to place himself or herself forthwith under the care and treatment of a physician who is acceptable to a medical officer;
(i) require the person to whom the order is directed to conduct himself or herself in such a manner as not to expose another person to infection.

Court may ensure compliance
38 (1) Where, upon application by a medical officer, a judge of the provincial court is satisfied that
(a) a person has failed to comply with an order by a medical officer made under to Section 32 that
(i) the person quarantine himself or herself from other persons,
(ii) the person isolate himself or herself from other persons,
(iii) the person submit to an examination by a physician who is acceptable to the medical officer,
(iv) the person place himself or herself under the care and treatment of a physician who is acceptable to the
medical officer, or
(v) the person conduct himself or herself in such a manner as not to expose another person to infection,
the judge may order that the person who has failed to comply with the order of the medical officer
(b) be taken into custody and be admitted to and detained in a quarantine facility named in the order;
(c) be taken into custody and be admitted to, detained and treated in an isolation facility named in the order;
(d) be examined by a physician who is acceptable to the medical officer to ascertain whether or not the person is infected with an agent of a communicable disease; or
(e) where found on examination to be infected with an agent of a communicable disease, be treated for the disease.
(2) Where an order made by a judge pursuant to subsection (1) is to be carried out by a physician or other health professional, the failure of the person subject to such an order to consent does not constitute an assault or battery against that person by the physician or other health professional should the order be carried out.
(3) A physician or other health professional carrying out an order pursuant to subsection (1) may obtain such assistance from a peace officer or other person as the physician or health professional reasonably believes is necessary.
(4) A judge shall not name an isolation facility or quarantine facility in an order under this Section unless the judge is satisfied that the isolation facility or quarantine facility is able to provide detention, care and treatment as required for the person who is the subject of the order. 2004, c. 4, s. 38.

Authority to apprehend and isolate or quarantine
39 (1) An order made under Section 38 is authority for any person to
(a) locate and apprehend the person who is the subject of the order; and
(b) deliver the person who is the subject of the order to the isolation facility or quarantine facility named in the order or to a physician for examination.
(2) An order made under Section 38 may be directed to a police force that has jurisdiction in the area where the person who is the subject of the order may be located, and the police force shall do all things reasonably able to be done to locate, apprehend and deliver the person to an isolation or quarantine facility in the jurisdiction where the person was apprehended or to an isolation or quarantine facility specified in the order.
(3) A person who apprehends a person who is the subject of an order pursuant to subsection (2) shall promptly
(a) inform the person of the reasons for the apprehension and of the person’s right to retain and instruct counsel without delay; and
(b) tell the person where the person is being taken.
(4) An order made under clause 38(1)(c) is authority to detain the person who is the subject of the order in the isolation facility named in the order and to care for and examine the person and to treat the person for the communicable disease in accordance with generally accepted medical practice for a period of not more than four months from and including the day that the order was issued.
(5) An order made under clause 38(1)(b) is authority to detain the person who is the subject of the order in the quarantine facility named in the order and to care for and examine the person for the incubation period of the communicable disease as determined by the judge.

Nova Scotia, like the others, can force a person to submit to a “medical examination” and do whatever is demanded of the health care provider

6. Newfoundland Public Health

Communicable disease orders
32. (1) A regional medical officer of health may make a communicable disease order under this section where he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that
(a) a communicable disease exists or may exist or that there is an immediate risk of an outbreak of a communicable disease;
(b) the communicable disease presents a risk to the health of the population; and
(c) the order is necessary to prevent, eliminate, remedy, or mitigate the risk to the health of the population.
(2) A regional medical officer of health may make a communicable disease order in respect of a person who has or may have a communicable disease or is infected with an infectious agent and the order may do one or more of the following:
(a) require the person to submit to an examination by a specified health care professional at a specified health facility on or before a particular date or according to a schedule;
(b) require the person to isolate himself or herself from other persons, including in a specified health facility;
(c) require the person to conduct himself or herself in a manner that will not expose other persons to infection or to take other precautions to prevent or limit the direct or indirect transmission of the communicable disease or infectious agent to those who are susceptible to the communicable disease or infectious agent or who may spread the communicable disease or infectious agent to others;
(d) prohibit or restrict the person from attending a school, a place of employment or other public premises or from using a public conveyance;
(e) prohibit or restrict the person from engaging in his or her occupation or another specified occupation or type of occupation;
(f) prohibit or restrict the person from leaving or entering a specified premises;
(g) require the person to avoid physical contact with, or being near, a person, animal or thing;
(h) require the person to be under the supervision or care of a specified person;
(i) require a person to provide information, records or other documents relevant to the person’s possible infection to a specified person;
(j) require a person to provide samples of the person’s clothing or possessions to a specified person;
(k) require a person to destroy contaminated clothing or possessions;
(l) require a person to provide specimens previously collected from the person to a specified person;
(m) where a regional medical officer of health has reasonable grounds to believe that the person has a communicable disease or is infected with an infectious agent, require the person to undergo treatment specified in the order or by a specified health care professional, including attending a specified health facility, where there is no other reasonable method available to mitigate the risks of the infection;
(n) require a person to disclose the identity and location of the persons with whom the person may have had contact or whom the person may have exposed to the communicable disease or infectious agent; or
(o) require the person to take, or prohibit the person from taking, an action prescribed in the regulations.

Apprehension orders and treatment orders generally
.
37. (1) A regional medical officer of health or a person subject to an apprehension order or treatment order may apply to the Supreme Court to vary, terminate or suspend the order.
(2) Where the application is made by a regional medical officer of health, the variation, termination or suspension of an apprehension order or treatment order may be issued on an application made under subsection (1) without notice and in the absence of the person subject to the order.
(3) Where the application is made by the person subject to the order, the apprehension order or treatment order shall not be varied, terminated or suspended unless the regional medical officer of health has been served with the application made under subsection (1).
(4) An apprehension order and a treatment order shall specify the health facility where the person subject to the order shall be detained, isolated, quarantined, examined and treated.
(5) Notwithstanding another provision of this Act, a judge shall not specify a health facility in an apprehension order or treatment order unless he or she is satisfied that the health facility is able to provide for the detainment, isolation, quarantine, examination or treatment as required in the order.
(6) Where an apprehension order or treatment order has been made, the person in charge of the health facility specified in the order shall ensure that
(a) the person subject to an apprehension order is detained, isolated or quarantined in accordance with the order; and
(b) the person subject to a treatment order is examined and treated in accordance with the order.
(7) The person in charge of the health facility specified in an apprehension order or treatment order shall immediately report to the regional medical officer of health regarding
(a) the results of the examination and treatment of the person subject to the order;
(b) the health status of the person subject to the order; and
(c) any change in the diagnosis or health status of the person subject to the order.
(8) A regional medical officer of health shall monitor the treatment and condition of a person subject to an apprehension order or treatment order and shall issue a certificate authorizing the release and discharge of the person immediately where he or she is of the opinion that
(a) the person is no longer infectious with a communicable disease; and
(b) discharging the person would not present a serious risk to the health of the population.
(9) A regional medical officer of health shall file a certificate issued under subsection (8) with the court that issued the apprehension order or treatment order.
(10) Notwithstanding any term or condition of an apprehension order or treatment order, the order is terminated immediately upon the issuance of a certificate under subsection (8) or the termination of the order under subsection 46(5).

Newfoundland & Labrador, like the other Provinces, allows for “medical officers” to order people detained and subjected to treatment, based on suspicions. The text is almost identical to the others.

7. Prince Edward Island Public Health

42. Order of court to detain, examine or treat a person
(1) The Chief Public Health Officer may make an application to the court for an order under this section where a person has failed to comply with an order issued by the Chief Public Health Officer in respect of a communicable disease specified in the regulations that
(a) the person isolate himself or herself and remain in isolation from other persons;
(b) the person submit to an examination by a medical practitioner;
(c) the person place himself or herself under the care and treatment of a medical practitioner;
(d) the person conduct himself or herself in such a manner as not to expose another person to infection; and
Public Health Act
.
PART II — PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTION
Section 42
ct Updated June 12, 2018 Page 25
(e) the person provide information respecting the person’s contacts related to the communicable disease to the Chief Public Health Officer.
Court order
(2) Where the court is satisfied that a person has failed to comply with an order issued by the Chief Public Health Officer under section 39 or 40, the court may order, with respect to the person named in the order, any or all of the following:
(a) that the person be taken into custody and admitted to and detained in a health facility named in the order;
(b) that the person be examined by a medical practitioner to ascertain whether or not a person is infected with an agent of a communicable disease specified in the regulations;
(c) that the person, if found on examination to be infected with an agent of a communicable disease specified in the regulations, be treated for the disease;
(d) that the person, if found on examination to be infected with an agent of a communicable disease specified in the regulations, provide information respecting the person’s contacts related to the communicable disease to the Chief Public Health
Officer.
Ex parte application
(3) An application under subsection (1) may be made ex parte and where so made the court may
make an interim order under subsection (2).

43. Designation of medical practitioner to have responsibility for detained person
The administrator or person in charge of a health facility shall designate a medical practitioner to have responsibility for a person named in an order issued under section 42 who is delivered to a health facility. 2012(2nd),c.20,s.43.
.
44. Medical practitioner to report respecting detained person The medical practitioner responsible for a person named in an order made under section 42 shall report in respect of the treatment and the condition of the person to the Chief Public Health Officer in the manner, at the times and with the information specified by the Chief
Public Health Officer. 2012(2nd),c.20,s.44.
.
45. Extension of period of detention
Where upon application of the Chief Public Health Officer the court is satisfied
(a) that the person continues to be infected with an agent of a communicable disease specified in the regulations; and
(b) that the discharge of the person from the health facility would present a significant risk to the health of the public, the court may by order extend the period of detention for not more than three months, and upon further applications by the Chief Public Health Officer, the court may extend the period of detention and treatment for further periods, each of which shall not be for more than three months. 2012(2nd),c.20,s.45.

Prince Edward Island allows Courts to detain people for up to 3 months at a time, and all under the guise of public health. Not that it will ever be abused for political reasons.

8. Medical Tyranny As “Public Health”

The content of these carious Provincial Health Acts overlaps considerably. These unelected medical officers are able to detain people, close businesses, and suspend basic liberties, all under the pretense of public safety.

In any other context, this would be considered dictatorial. But this gets a pass from the mainstream media. Wonder why they don’t address it.

Many Other Periodicals Receiving Government Subsidies
Other Subsidies Propping Up Canadian Media
Taxpayer Subsidies To Combat CV “Misinformation”
Aberdeen Publishing Sells Out, Takes Subsidies
Postmedia Periodicals Getting Covid Subsidies

Canadian Media Subsidized By Taxpayers, Biased
Media Subsidies To Combat Online Misinformation

Posted on

Provincial Health Acts Are Really Just WHO-IHR Domestically Implemented

Bill C-12 is the 2005 Quarantine Act, passed by Canada’s Parliament. It was heavily based on presumed changes to the International Health Regulations that the World Health Organization imposed. However, the problem has filtered down to the Provinces as well.

Strangely, it was only the Bloc Quebecois who voted against this. All other parties supported this Bill.

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, obscuring the vile agenda called the GREAT RESET. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. The International Health Regulations are legally binding. The Postmedia empire and the “independent” media are paid off, as are the fact-checkers. The virus was never isolated, PCR tests are a fraud, as are forced masks, social bubbles, and 2m distancing.

2. Important Links

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/HESA/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=981075
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/38-1/HESA/report-2/

(AB) https://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/P37.pdf
(SK) https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/laws/stat/ss-1994-c-p-37.1/11022/ss-1994-c-p-37.1.html
(MB) https://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/p210e.php
(ON) https://healthunit.org/wp-content/uploads/Health_Protection_and_Promotion_Act.pdf

3. Canada’s Quarantine Act Written By WHO

As mentioned earlier, the International Health Regulations (IHR), that the WHO issues are legally binding on all Member States. Countries are expected to follow the directives that are sent, even if they are very much against national self interest.

In declaring this “pandemic”, Trudeau activated the 2005 Quarantine Act, a piece of legislation that violates many basic rights in the name of “public health”. However, Bill C-12 was actually written by the World Health Organization. What this means is that the Bill was drafted in anticipation of changes to the 3rd Edition of the IHR, which remain legally binding today.

But what about the Provinces? What is the situation with their Public Health Acts? Turns out that many of the clauses from the Quarantine Act are included, almost word for word?

4. British Columbia Public Health Act

Preventive measure
16 (1) Preventive measures include the following:
(a) being treated or vaccinated;
(b) taking preventive medication;
(c) washing with, applying or ingesting a substance, or having a substance injected or inserted;
(d) undergoing disinfection and decontamination measures;
(e) wearing a type of clothing or other personal protective equipment, or changing, removing or altering clothing or personal protective equipment;
(f) using a type of equipment or implementing a process, or removing or altering equipment or processes.
.
(2) A person subject to a regulation requiring preventive measures must not be in a place or do a thing that is prohibited by the regulation until the person has
(a)taken preventive measures as set out in the regulation, or
(b)if permitted by the regulation, made an objection under subsection (4).

General emergency powers
Division 2 — Order of the Minister
Minister may order temporary quarantine facility
.
26 (1)The minister may by order designate a place as a quarantine facility if the minister reasonably believes that the temporary use of the place for the purposes of isolating or detaining infected persons is necessary to protect public health.
.
(2) A person who has control of a place designated as a quarantine facility must provide the place to the minister or a medical health officer.

Division 3 — Orders Respecting Infectious Agents and Hazardous Agents
When orders respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents may be made
27 (1) A medical health officer may issue an order under this Division only if the medical health officer reasonably believes that
(a) a person
(i) is an infected person, or
(ii) has custody or control of an infected person or an infected thing, and
(b) the order is necessary to protect public health.
.
(2) An order may be issued based on clinical findings or a person’s or thing’s circumstances or medical history, even if the person or thing has been examined and the examination did not reveal the presence of an infectious agent or a hazardous agent.

General powers respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents
.
28 (1) If the circumstances described in section 27 [when orders respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents may be made] apply, a medical health officer may order a person to do anything that the medical health officer reasonably believes is necessary for either or both of the following purposes:
(a) to determine whether an infectious agent or a hazardous agent exists, or likely exists;
(b) to prevent the transmission of an infectious agent or a hazardous agent.

(2 ) A medical health officer may, in respect of an infected thing,
(a) make any order, with any necessary modifications, that can be made under this Division as if the infected thing were an infected person, and
(b) direct the order to any person having custody or control of the infected thing.

Specific powers respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents
.
29 (1) An order may be made under this section only
(a) if the circumstances described in section 27 [when orders respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents may be made] apply, and
(b) for the purposes set out in section 28 (1) [general powers respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents].
.
(2) Without limiting section 28, a medical health officer may order a person to do one or more of the following:
.
(a) remain in a specified place, or not enter a place;
(b) avoid physical contact with, or being near, a person or thing;
(c) be under the supervision or care of a specified person;
(d) provide to the medical health officer or a specified person information, records, samples or other matters relevant to the person’s possible infection with an infectious agent or contamination with a hazardous agent, including information respecting persons who may have been exposed to an infectious agent or a hazardous agent by the person;
(e) be examined by a specified person, including
(i) going to a specified facility for examination, and
(ii) being examined before a particular date or according to a schedule;
(f) submit to diagnostic examination, including going to a specified facility or providing the results to a specified person;
(g) take preventive measures, including
(i) going to a specified facility for preventive measures,
(ii) complying with preventive measures set out in the order, specified by a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner, or both, and
(iii) beginning preventive measures before a particular date, and continuing until a particular date or event;
(h) provide evidence of complying with the order, including
(i) getting a certificate of compliance from a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner or specified person, and
(ii) providing to a medical health officer any relevant record;

(I ) take a prescribed action.
.
(3) For greater certainty, this section applies even if the person subject to the order is complying with all terms and conditions of a licence, a permit, an approval or another authorization issued under this or any other enactment.

54 (1) A health officer may, in an emergency, do one or more of the following:
(a) act in a shorter or longer time period than is otherwise required;
(b) not provide a notice that is otherwise required;
(c) do orally what must otherwise be done in writing;
(d) in respect of a licence or permit over which the health officer has authority under section 55 [acting outside designated terms during emergencies] or the regulations, suspend or vary the licence or permit without providing an opportunity to dispute the action;
(e) specify in an order a facility, place, person or procedure other than as required under section 63 [power to establish directives and standards], unless an order under that section specifies that the order applies in an emergency;
(f) omit from an order things that are otherwise required;
(g) serve an order in any manner;
(h) not reconsider an order under section 43 [reconsideration of orders], not review an order under section 44 [review of orders] or not reassess an order under section 45 [mandatory reassessment of orders];
(i) exempt an examiner from providing examination results to an examined person;
(j) conduct an inspection at any time, with or without a warrant, including of a private dwelling;
(k) collect, use or disclose information, including personal information,
(i) that could not otherwise be collected, used or disclosed, or
(ii) in a form or manner other than the form or manner required.

Under Section 54 the B.C. Public Health Act, during emergencies (or self-identified emergencies), Health Officers can have any place inspected at any time. A person can be examined, and the results of that exam withheld from him/her. Business can be shut down, without any recourse to challenge it. Health Officers can do things with oral only notice, or with no notice at all, and these privileges can be extended longer than need be.

Under Section 16 of the Act, a person can be ordered to be: vaccinated; medicated; ingest or insert something, and other invasive procedures. Section 26 of the Act allows the Health Minister to take any property and convert it into a quarantine facility. Sections 27 through 29 allows a Medical Health Officer – in this case, Bonnie Henry – virtual dictatorial powers over other people’s lives and livelihoods.

Worth clarifying, these “Health Officers” or “Medical Officers” are not elected by the public in any capacity. They cannot be voted out of their positions, regardless of the sentiments of the general population.
The Act of course is much, much longer than this. However, it is truly stunning just how much power unelected Health Officers are given over other people’s lives. And in B.C., all parties are apparently okay with handing over their duties.

Sure, the B.C. Public Health Act gives bureaucrats that power, but who wrote the Act in the first place? Who was responsible for handing over that power to begin with? This Act was written and voted on by MLAs (Members of Legislative Assembly), who are, in theory, accountable to voters.

A cynic might wonder if MLAs made this law in order to avoid making themselves accountable for decisions they make. Here at least, they can claim it’s not them, and that they are simply following the advice of health professionals.

It’s interesting that the B.C Health Act was assented to (made law) in 2008. The 3rd Edition of WHO’s International Health Regulations came into effect in 2005, and Canada’s 2005 Quarantine Act was heavily based on those IHR. The B.C. Act contains much of the same information and powers as the WHO/Federal documents, and it’s fair to assume that the content was derived from them.

Of course, this is hardly limited to B.C. Other Provinces have their own version of a Provincial Health Act, and they carry many of the same powers. This includes: Alberta , Saskatchewan , Manitoba , among others. What these Acts all have in common is they give broad, sweeping powers to bureaucrats who are not elected by the public, and who cannot be voted out. Looking at Alberta:

5. Alberta Public Health Act

Powers of Chief Medical Officer
.
14(1) The Chief Medical Officer
.
(a) shall, on behalf of the Minister, monitor the health of Albertans and make recommendations to the Minister and regional health authorities on measures to protect and promote the health of the public and to prevent disease and injury,
.
(b) shall act as a liaison between the Government and regional health authorities, medical officers of health and executive officers in the administration of this Act,
.
(c) shall monitor activities of regional health authorities, medical officers of health and executive officers in the administration of this Act, and
.
(d) may give directions to regional health authorities, medical officers of health and executive officers in the exercise of their powers and the carrying out of their responsibilities under this Act.

(2) Where the Chief Medical Officer is of the opinion that a medical officer of health or executive officer is not properly exercising powers or carrying out duties under this Act in respect of a matter, the Chief Medical Officer may assume the powers and duties of the medical officer of health or executive officer in respect of the matter and act in that person’s place.

Isolation, Quarantine and Special Measures
.
Isolation and quarantine
.
29(1) A medical officer of health who knows of or has reason to suspect the existence of a communicable disease or a public health emergency within the boundaries of the health region in which the medical officer of health has jurisdiction may initiate an investigation to determine whether any action is necessary to protect the public health.
(2) Where the investigation confirms the presence of a communicable disease, the medical officer of health
(a) shall carry out the measures that the medical officer of health is required by this Act and the regulations to carry out, and
(b) may do any or all of the following:
(i) take whatever steps the medical officer of health considers necessary
(A) to suppress the disease in those who may already have been infected with it,
(B) to protect those who have not already been exposed to the disease,
(C) to break the chain of transmission and prevent spread of the disease, and
(D) to remove the source of infection;
(ii) by order
(A) prohibit a person from attending a school,
(B) prohibit a person from engaging in the person’s occupation, or
(C) prohibit a person from having contact with other persons or any class of persons for any period and subject to any conditions that the medical officer of health considers appropriate, where the medical officer of health determines that the person’s engaging in that activity could transmit an infectious agent;
.
(iii) issue written orders for the decontamination or destruction of any bedding, clothing or other articles that
have been contaminated or that the medical officer of health reasonably suspects have been contaminated.
(2.1) Where the investigation confirms the existence of a public health emergency, the medical officer of health
(a) has all the same powers and duties in respect of the public health emergency as he or she has under subsection (2) in the case of a communicable disease, and
(b) may take whatever other steps are, in the medical officer of health’s opinion, necessary in order to lessen the impact of the public health emergency.

Sections 13 to 15 of Alberta’s Public Health Act outline how a Medical Health Officer is appointed, and the vast powers available to that person. In Alberta, that is currently Deena Hinshaw. Like Bonnie Henry, she is not elected, and cannot be held directly liable to the public for anything that she does.

Pages 25 through 31 of the most recent version of that Act relate to quarantine measures, epidemics, and how the average person’s rights can be suspended almost indefinitely under the pretense of “public safety”. It reads like the Provincial counterpart to the Quarantine Act, which of course, was dictated by the WHO.

Pages 39 through 51 cover Section 52 of the Alberta Public Health Act. It gives sweeping powers to unelected bureaucrats in the name of safety. The content of that Section reads almost beat for beat identical to that of the Quarantine Act. Moving on to Saskatchewan, we get this piece of legislation:

6. Saskatchewan Public Health Act

CONTROL OF EPIDEMICS Orders
.
45(1) The minister may make an order described in subsection (2) if the minister believes, on reasonable grounds, that:
.
(a) a serious public health threat exists in Saskatchewan; and (b) the requirements set out in the order are necessary to decrease or eliminate the serious public health threat. (2) An order pursuant to this section may: (a) direct the closing of a public place;
.
(b) restrict travel to or from a specified area of Saskatchewan;
.
(c) prohibit public gatherings in a specified area of Saskatchewan;
.
(d) in the case of a serious public health threat that is a communicable disease, require any person who is not known to be protected against the communicable disease:
(i) to be immunized or given prophylaxis where the disease is one for which immunization or prophylaxis is available; or
(ii) to be excluded from school until the danger of infection is past where the person is a pupil;
.
(e) establish temporary hospitals;
.
(f) require a local authority, a medical health officer or a public health officer to investigate matters relating to the serious public health threat and report to the minister the results of the investigation;
.
(g) require any person who, in the opinion of the minister or medical health officer, is likely to have information that is necessary to decrease or eliminate the serious public health threat to disclose that information to the minister or a medical health officer;
.
(h) authorize public health officers, peace officers or prescribed persons to confiscate substances or other materials found in any place, premises or vehicle, if those substances or materials are suspected by the public health officer, peace officer or prescribed person of causing or contributing to a serious public health threat or packages, containers or devices containing or suspected of containing any of those substances or materials;
.
(i) in the case of a serious public health threat that is a communicable disease, require any person to be isolated from other persons until a medical health officer is satisfied that isolation is no longer necessary to decrease or eliminate the transmission of a communicable disease.

Preventive detention order
45.1(1) If a person fails to comply with an order pursuant to clause 45(2)(i) and a medical health officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person is endangering the lives, safety or health of the public because the person is or probably is infected with, or has been or might have been exposed to, a communicable disease, the medical health officer may detain the person for a period not exceeding the prescribed period of transmissibility of the disease.

(2) A person detained by a medical health officer pursuant to subsection (1) may request a review of his or her detention by application to the Court of Queen’s Bench served on the minister, and the court may make any order with respect to the detention or the release of the person that the court considers appropriate, having regard to the danger to the lives, safety or health of the public.

In similar fashion, Saskatchewan has their own Public Health Act, which has undergone several revisions since the 1990s. It allows for freedoms and liberties to be suspended on even the vaguest suspicion that a person may have an infectious disease. It also allows for property to be seized, and people to be detained.

Things like public gatherings, and freedom of citizens to travel can also be suspended indefinitely under the guise of safety.

Note: as with all of these cases, it’s not the politicians doing the dirty work. It’s the various “experts” who call themselves Chief Medical Officers (or similar titles). This provides cover to elected officials, who want to stamp out civil rights, but don’t want to get their own hands dirty in the process. Now, about Manitoba:

7. Manitoba Public Health Act

PART 6
PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY
Public health emergency
67(1) The chief public health officer may take one or more of the special measures described in subsection (2) if he or she reasonably believes that
(a) a serious and immediate threat to public health exists because of an epidemic or threatened epidemic of a communicable disease; and
(b) the threat to public health cannot be prevented, reduced or eliminated without taking special measures.

Special measures
67(2) The chief public health officer may take the following special measures in the circumstances set out in subsection (1):
(a) issue directions, for the purpose of managing the threat, to a regional health authority, health corporation, health care organization, operator of a laboratory, operator of a licensed emergency medical response system, health professional or health care provider, including directions about
(i) identifying and managing cases,
(ii) controlling infection,
(iii) managing hospitals and other health care facilities and emergency medical response services, and
(iv) managing and distributing equipment and supplies;
(a.1) issue an order prohibiting or restricting persons from travelling to, from or within a specified area, or requiring persons who are doing so to take specified actions;
(b) order the owner, occupant or person who appears to be in charge of any place or premises to deliver up possession of it to the minister for use as a temporary isolation or quarantine facility;
(c) order a public place or premises to be closed;
(d) order persons not to assemble in a public gathering in a specified area;
(d.1) order persons to take specified measures to prevent the spread of a communicable disease, including persons who arrive in Manitoba from another province, territory or country;
(e) order a person who the chief public health officer reasonably believes is not protected against a communicable disease to do one or both of the following:
(i) be immunized, or take any other preventive measures,
(ii) refrain from any activity or employment that poses a significant risk of infection, until the chief public health officer considers the risk of infection no longer exists;
(f) order an employer to exclude from a place of employment any person subject to an order under subclause (e)(ii).

Manitoba’s Public Health Act allows the Chief Medical Officer, and the operatives, to effectively suspend basic civil rights indefinitely. Of course this is “for your safety”, the ever present excuse. Basic liberties such as free association, freedom to peacefully assemble, and freedom to earn a livelihood can be stopped.

Note: the Act was assented to on June 13, 2006, a year after the Federal Quarantine Act, and the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations were implemented. The obvious implication is that this Act is just Manitoba enacting its own version.

Section 10 of the Act mandates that a Chief Medical Officer be named. Currently, that is Brent Roussin. In November, he caused a scandal when he openly admitted that public health orders don’t apply to public officials. Not leading by example.

8. Ontario Health Protection & Promotion Act

PART VI.1 PROVINCIAL PUBLIC HEALTH POWERS
.
Chief Medical Officer of Health may act where risk to health
.
77.1 (1) If the Chief Medical Officer of Health is of the opinion that a situation exists anywhere in Ontario that constitutes or may constitute a risk to the health of any persons, he or she may investigate the situation and take such action as he or she considers appropriate to prevent, eliminate or decrease the risk. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.
.
Same (2) For the purpose of subsection
.
(1), the Chief Medical Officer of Health,
.
(a) may exercise anywhere in Ontario,
(i) any of the powers of a board of health, including the power to appoint a medical officer of health or an associate medical officer of health, and (ii) any of the powers of a medical officer of health; and
.
(b) may direct a person whose services are engaged by a board of health to do, anywhere in Ontario, whether within or outside the health unit served by the board of health, any act,
(i) that the person has power to do under this Act, or
(ii) that the medical officer of health for the health unit served by the board of health has authority to direct the person to do within the health unit. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.
.
Authority and duty of person directed to act
(3) If the Chief Medical Officer of Health gives a direction under clause (2) (b) to a person whose services are engaged by a board of health, (a) the person has authority to act, anywhere in Ontario, whether within or outside the health unit served by the board of health, to the same extent as if the direction had been given by the medical officer of health of the board of health and the act had been done in the health unit; and (b) the person shall carry out the direction as soon as practicable. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15. Section 22 powers
.
(4) For the purpose of the exercise by the Chief Medical Officer of Health under subsection (2) of the powers of a medical officer of health, a reference in section 22 to a communicable disease shall be deemed to be a reference to an infectious disease. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15. Application to judge where risk to health 77.2 (1) If the Chief Medical Officer of Health is of the opinion that a situation exists anywhere in Ontario that constitutes or may constitute a risk to the health of any persons, he or she may apply to a judge of the Superior Court of Justice for an order under subsection (2). 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.

Possession of premises for temporary isolation facility
.
77.4 (1) The Minister, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (3), by order may require the occupier of any premises to deliver possession of all or any specified part of the premises to the Minister to be used as a temporary isolation facility or as part of a temporary isolation facility. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.
.
Extension
(2) An order under subsection (1) shall set out an expiry date for the order that is not more than 12 months after the day of its making and the Minister may extend the order for a further period of not more than 12 months. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.
.
Grounds for order
(3) The Minister may make an order under subsection (1) where the Chief Medical Officer of Health certifies in writing to the Minister that, (a) there exists or there is an immediate risk of an outbreak of a communicable disease anywhere in Ontario; and (b) the premises are needed for use as a temporary isolation facility or as part of a temporary isolation facility in respect of the communicable disease. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.

Ontario has the 2007 Health Protection and Promotion Act. The wording and powers are very similar to other Provinces, and to the Federal Quarantine Act. The timing is also suspicious, given that this was implemented soon after the 2005 International Health Regulations and the Federal legislation.

In Ontario, the Chief Medical Officer is David Williams, and the Deputy Medical Officer is Barbara Yaffe. As with the other so-called experts, these people are not elected, and have no real accountability to the public. Both have made very interesting statements about how dangerous this “pandemic” really is. More on them later.

9. These Acts Strip Away Basic Rights

At no time is there a requirement for there to be PROOF of a public health emergency to act on these powers. These Chief Medical Officers can simply claim that they “reasonably believe”, and that is sufficient.

Provincially and Federally, politicians write laws that allow unelected bureaucrats almost free reign to impose whatever measures they want. Of course, they don’t write content of the laws, but follow the instructions of a supra-national body that is accountable to no one.

This only covers 5 Provinces, however, they all have similar laws. If there is time, a Part II will be published to cover the others.

Posted on

CV #10(B): Quebec Pharma Lobbying, Bipartisan Support For Lockdowns

Quebec Premier Francois Legault announces that more freedoms will be stripped away under the pretense of public safety. This will involve a forced curfew on Quebecers. But who’s really running the show in Quebec?

Link To Quebec Lobbying Registry

1. All Quebec Parties Support Lockdowns

To be fair, this not just Legault who is pushing this effort to impose a curfew. All parties in Quebec support it. Although they moan about the details of implementation, they are ideologically on the same page. Despite there being no evidence, none are willing to publicly reject it. This is only the appearance of opposition.

2. Gates Foundation Behind Quebec Lockdown

Date: October 2020
Purpose: to increase Canada’s global leadership through investments in international development
Amount: $541,566
Term: 24
Topic: Family Planning, Public Awareness and Analysis
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: Advocacy|Global Development
Grantee Location: Westmount, Quebec
Grantee Website: http://www.global-canada.org

In October 2020, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donated $541,566 to Global Canada, a “think tank” proposing martial law (a.k.a. lockdowns) throughout Canada. See the paper that is now publicly available. Keep in mind, that shills like Brian Lilley refused to properly cover that.

3. Gates Foundation Major McGill Donor

In October 2018, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donated $7.3 million to UNESCO in Montreal. There was also $195,000 handed out in November 2017. Those are far from the only grants in Quebec.

Date Of Grant Amount Given
November 2012 $1,488,773
November 2013 $2,351,021
October 2014 $196,305
October 2015 $100,000
August 2017 $652,488
September 2017 $50,000
July 2019 $629,970
April 2019 $524,285
April 2020 $839,644
September 2020 $1,227,508

Too lengthy to go into here, but it seems that an awful lot of powerful politicians have gone either to McGill, or University of British Columbia. Must be quite the networking opportunities.

4. Quebec Lobbying Registry Records

  • Aspen Pharmacare
  • Astellas Pharma Canada Inc
  • Canadian Biosimilars Forum
  • Gilead Sciences
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Laurent Pharmaceuticals
  • Merck
  • Novartis
  • Pfizer
  • Purdue Pharma
  • Sanofi
  • Teva
  • Vertex Pharmaceuticals (Canada) Inc.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but some of the companies that are lobbying in Quebec.

5. Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association

On behalf of CGPA and its member companies, congratulations to François Legault and his team for their historic victory in Monday’s Quebec elections. The CGPA wishes them every success in their majority mandate for the next four years. I also congratulate the elected representatives of all political parties, as well as the defeated candidates who participated in the important democratic process that has taken place over the last 40 days.

Our association looks forward to working with the new government on issues of importance to our members as well as Quebec’s health-care system and its economy. The CGPA and the Government of Quebec signed an agreement in July 2017 that achieves substantial savings for the health care system while helping to provide a more sustainable environment for generic pharmaceutical manufacturers. We remain committed to our ongoing partnership with the Government of Quebec.

Our association also reiterates its disappointment with the provisions of the US – Mexico – Canada Agreement (USMCA) that will delay Quebecers’ access to competitively priced biosimilar drugs. Biologic medicines are the fastest growing segment in the health sector. These delays will be costly to patients, the Government of Quebec and Quebec employers that sponsor drug plans for their employees.

Interesting. Is this normal to congratulate every politician who ever runs in any race? Or is in order to remain friendly with everyone, should the balance of power shift?

It seems that all major political parties are on board with the same vaccination and martial law initiatives. And it’s the citizens who suffer.

(1) Link To Quebec Lobbying Registry
(2) CTV: All QC Parties Support Lockdown Measures
(3) Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Main Page
(4) Global Canada’s Paper On Proposed Lockdowns
(5) Gates Donated $541,000 To Global Canada Group, 2020
(6) Gates Donated $103,000 To Global Canada Group, 2015
(7) Global Canada’s Financial Supporters
(8) Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association

Posted on

CV #4(C): Crestview Strategy’s Ashton Arsenault Takes Over Lobbying For GAVI

The Gates Foundation lobbies the Canadian Government, but not directly. It uses proxies. GAVI (the Global Vaccine Alliance), is heavily funded by Gates, and it employs a lobbying firm called Crestview Strategy. Crestview was co-founded by Rob Silver, husband of Katie Telford, and is well connected. Lobbyists are dispatched to Ottawa to try to get more taxpayer money.

The most recent to sign up is Ashton Arsenault.

Keep in mind, lobbying is legal (for the most part), as long as all meetings are documented, and available to the public. Doesn’t make it any less underhanded though.

1. Ashton Arsenault Latest Shill For GAVI

Ashton Arsenault is a senior consultant with Crestview Strategy based out of the Ottawa office.

Prior to joining Crestview, Ashton worked as a political aid on Parliament Hill where he was responsible for parliamentary affairs and issues management for the Minister of National Revenue. Prior to that, he worked as a legislative researcher in the Official Opposition Office in Prince Edward Island. He continues to volunteer in electoral politics at the federal level.

Ashton has been involved in politics for several years, serving as a campaign manager for a Conservative candidate in the 2015 General Election. As well, he served as the University of Prince Edward Island’s Chair of Council from 2011-2012.

Ashton holds a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the University of Prince Edward Island and a Master of Political Management from Carleton University in Ottawa.

Zakery Blais worked for (Liberal) MP David Lametti, and Jason Clarke volunteered for (Liberal) candidates in Ottawa for the 2015 election. Arsenault has ties to the Conservative Party of Canada, showing that this is not simply a partisan issue.

Make no mistake, lobbying is a very effective way for corporations to get what they want. In total, GAVI has secured over $1 billion in funding, from different administrations.

2. Arsenault Also Represents Medicago

Arsenault is also lobbying on behalf of Medicago, which is working with GlaxoSmithKline to develop a plant-based vaccine for the coronavirus.

3. Arsenault Frequently A CPC Talking Head

Ashton Arsenault regularly appears on television in order to sell CPC talking points to a gullible crowd. This is, of course, not unique to Conservatives. All of these “debates” on screen are arranged to address pre-planned scripts for the public.

Arsenault has donated several times to the Conservative Party of Canada, but the amounts aren’t enough to draw much attention.

4. Arsenault Replaces Zakery Blais

Zakery Blais was previously a lobbyist for Crestview Strategy, on behalf of GAVI. He appears to have since left the firm. Blais also worked for David Lametti (yes, the sitting Attorney General), back when he was a Parliamentary Secretary.

5. What Else Crestview Strategy Does

Drive winning arguments.
.
Crestview Strategy effectively represents the interests of corporations, not-for-profits and industry associations to achieve results with governments around the world.
.
No longer is a winning outcome based on ‘who you know’ or the ‘magic meeting’. It is about contributing to the policy process, presenting a case that is supported by authentic community voices, verified impact and compelling insight. And getting in front of the right decision makers and opinion leaders to make that case.

Drive winning engagement.
.
We build and run campaigns that mobilize support and impact change for both political and corporate clients.
.
Mobilization campaigns are premised on the simple fact that for elected officials, the single most influential voice in shaping their decision is that of their local voters, influencers, and community leaders.
.
The benefits of mobilization go beyond just a one-off campaign. The long-term goal of mobilization is to increase engagement potential, provide greater value for members, and to increase the share of voice and influence outcomes.

Keep in mind that firms like Crestview Strategy employ operatives who cover multiple parties. By doing this, it ensures that influence peddling will be effective, regardless of who officially sits in power. It’s important to note that few politicians actually make their own decisions.

(1) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=368098&regId=906375
(2) https://www.crestviewstrategy.ca/ashton-arsenault
(3) https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashton-arsenault-3a241056/
(4) https://archive.is/dQIoW
(5) https://www.linkedin.com/in/zakery-blais-13a76b118/
(6) https://archive.is/tybUn

Posted on

CV #35(C): Health Canada Refuses To Answer Questions About Indemnification For Vaccines

The public is understandably anxious about whether vaccine manufacturers will be indemnified (legally immune), for the products they sell. It’s a valid question, from a patient perspective, and as a taxpayer.

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, obscuring the vile agenda called the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; and the International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy compromised, shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. Email Exchange With Health Canada

Health Canada was contact specifically about the indemnification of vaccine manufacturers. Above are the responses. However, it’s a bit misleading to say that they can’t release information due to ongoing negotiating. Health Canada wouldn’t even discuss indemnification for Eli Lilly Canada and Gilead Sciences Canada. Both had been settled long ago.

3. Health Canada And Vaccine Regulation

Vaccination is one of the world’s greatest public health achievements. For over 50 years, vaccines have helped prevent and control the spread of deadly diseases and saved the lives of millions of infants, children and adults. For example, there are vaccines for:

-epidemics, such as Ebola
-childhood diseases and debilitating diseases, such as polio
-diseases, such as Yellow Fever, that are common in some travel destinations
-influenza strains that change every year
-preventing or treating cancer
Many vaccines are recommended as part of Canadian public health programs to prevent people from getting diseases. This means that they are given to large numbers of healthy people.

This is why regulating the safety, efficacy and quality of vaccines is of particular importance. There are also reporting systems in place to monitor vaccine safety.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/biologics-radiopharmaceuticals-genetic-therapies/activities/fact-sheets/regulation-vaccines-human-canada.html

Emergency access to vaccines
In some cases, such as public health emergencies like flu pandemics, special authorizations are used to give emergency access to a vaccine. For example, Health Canada issued an Interim Order in 2009 for the H1N1 pandemic vaccine. The vaccine was developed to protect against the H1N1 pandemic virus. The vaccine contained an inactivated (non-live) version of the H1N1 virus strain recommended by WHO for the manufacture of vaccines during the 2009 flu pandemic.

Worth addressing: in that 2009 Interim Order to approve vaccines for H1N1, Health Canada allowed drugs made by GlaxoSmithKline, (GSK), onto the market that hadn’t been fully tested. GSK was indemnified by the Government. Would it happen here?

Why is it so hard to get a straight answer with this case? Will they be indemnified or not?

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress