Category: Lobbying

Posted on

Bill C-11: CPC National Secretary Lobbied For Big Pharma To Get Easier Access To Your Medical Data

Bill C-11, the Digital Charter Implementation Act, is currently before Parliament. At the time of writing this, it has still only undergone the first reading. Some of the more disturbing sections of it were covered previously.

Contrary to what the name may imply, “Digital Charter” doesn’t refer to antiviolence activity, spawned by the Christchurch psy-op. Instead, this is an end run around privacy as we know it.

This piece will focus on big pharma getting its hands on Canadians’ medical information. If this were to pass, then potentially all of this, minus your name and address, would be available to anyone will to purchase it.

What’s particularly disturbing is that one of the people pushing for this is Amber Ruddy, the Secretary of the National Council of the Conservative Party of Canada. She’s also CURRENTLY an employee at Counsel Public Affairs, the lobbying firm, and has Emergent BioSolutions, the company making the AstraZeneca vaccines, as a client.

A November 23, 2020 press release by the Federal Government summarized what it expected to accomplish with Bill C-11. Very interestingly, there will be new exceptions to requiring consent in order to obtain personal information.

CPPA will also promote responsible innovation by reducing regulatory burden. A new exception to consent will address standard business practices; a new regime to clarify how organizations are to handle de-identified personal information, and another new exception to consent to allow organizations to disclose personal information for socially beneficial purposes, such as public health research, for example.

There is nothing ambiguous about this. Public health research could be considered a “socially beneficial purpose” and your records handed over. But in fairness, this has probably been happening for a long time already. This Bill would make it a specifically permitted reason.

Among other things, Ruddy (and her colleagues) wanted to make it easier for drug companies to access “anonymized health data”. What this would mean is that your medical records could be send off to third parties, with the only caveat being that your personal information is removed.

Items like date of birth (showing age), and postal code (showing region) would likely still be included. As would the details of your visits, procedures, medications, and dates performed. Keep in mind, even anonymized accounts can be re-identified based on just a few clues.

Search “GlaxoSmithKline” and “Digital Charter”, it shows 35 registrations over the last few years, including Ruddy.

Transfer to service provider
19 An organization may transfer an individual’s personal information to a service provider without their knowledge or consent.
.
De-identification of personal information
20 An organization may use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to de-identify the information.
.
Research and development
21 An organization may use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent for the organization’s internal research and development purposes, if the information is de-identified before it is used.

Public Interest
Individual’s interest
29 (1) An organization may collect an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if the collection is clearly in the interests of the individual and consent cannot be obtained in a timely way.
Use
(2) An organization may use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if the information was collected under subsection (1).

Statistical or scholarly study or research
35 An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if
(a) the disclosure is made for statistical purposes or for scholarly study or research purposes and those purposes cannot be achieved without disclosing the information;
(b) it is impracticable to obtain consent; and
(c) the organization informs the Commissioner of the disclosure before the information is disclosed.

Socially beneficial purposes
39 (1) An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if
(a) the personal information is de-identified before the disclosure is made;
(b) the disclosure is made to
(i) a government institution or part of a government institution in Canada,
(ii) a health care institution, post-secondary educational institution or public library in Canada,
(iii) any organization that is mandated, under a federal or provincial law or by contract with a government institution or part of a government institution in Canada, to carry out a socially beneficial purpose, or
(iv) any other prescribed entity; and
(c) the disclosure is made for a socially beneficial purpose.
Definition of socially beneficial purpose
(2) For the purpose of this section, socially beneficial purpose means a purpose related to health, the provision or improvement of public amenities or infrastructure, the protection of the environment or any other prescribed purpose.

The entire Bill is quite long, but those are a few points. While claiming that this legislation gives members of the public wide control over their information, it lays out ways that same private info can be shared with 3rd parties, without the knowledge or consent of that person.

It’s interesting that Conservatives pretend to care about free speech and Bill C-10, but are silent about the erosion of privacy with Bill C-11. Have to wonder if their Secretary is the reason for this.

This is hardly the first such privacy intrusion has been brought forward. A decade ago, Vic Toews gaslighted Canadians who opposed warrantless seizures of their internet data as “standing with the child pornographers”. Seems not much has changed.

For more on Emergent BioSolutions, and other lobbying, check the links below. It’s quite the cesspit, and Ruddy is up to her neck in it.

(1) https://www.conservative.ca/
(2) https://www.conservative.ca/team-member/amber-ruddy/
(3) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=10950130
(4) https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/bill/C-11/first-reading#ID0E0XB0BA
(5) https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/062.nsf/eng/00120.html
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=367534&regId=908352
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?V_SEARCH.command=navigate&time=1624013972454
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/bill-c-11-digital-charter-implementation-act-of-canada/

Posted on

Ontario Pharmacists Association: Getting Handouts From Ford, As They Push Bills 160/132

Melissa Lantsman helped get Doug Ford elected in 2018. She lists her position as the “War Room Director & Spokesperson” for the campaign. She left shortly after, and began lobbying the very Government she helped install. There are others who are in similar positions, as this topic has been addressed before.

The organization of interest here is the Ontario Pharmacists Association. They were involved in 2 pieces of legislation.

The first, Bill 160, was passed by the Wynne Government but never implemented. It would have forced disclosure of financial interests of doctors who received money to push certain drugs. While passed in Parliament, it was never given Royal Proclamation, and hence, has no legal effect. This was covered previously.

The second, Bill 132, repealed annual disclosure requirements for the Health Minister concerning drug programs. These reports were to be made publicly available. More on this later.

In recent years, there have been 6 documented meetings between the Ontario Government (both Liberal and Conservative Administrations), and the Ontario Pharmacists Association. According to the Registry, the OPA has also been receiving grants from the Government. This included $190,604 in the fiscal year of 2018, and another $381,200 in 2020.

  • Jonathan Sampson
  • Melissa Lantsman
  • Katie Heelis
  • Abid Malik
  • Morvarid Rohani
  • Carly Martin

Now, who are these people?

Jonathan Sampson was a high ranking bureaucrat with the Office of the Attorney General in Ontario, under both the Wynne and Ford Governments. He then joined Sussex Strategy Group and became a lobbyist.

Melissa Lantsman is currently a Director at the Michael Garron Hospital. This is where Michael Warner, the infamous lockdown doctor, also works.

Lantsman spent 3 years as a spokeswoman for the Foreign Affairs Office of Canada, and another 2 in the Finance Ministry, before getting into Ontario politics. She helped get Doug Ford elected in 2018, and is now running to be a Federal Candidate in the next election, whenever that is.

She was also one of several lobbyists for Walmart in 2020. She was trying to keep the retail giant open while others were allowed to die.

It doesn’t appear that Lantsman’s switching between politics and lobbying will be any issue. Amber Ruddy, the Secretary of the National Council of the CPC is an active pharma lobbyist. Erin O’Toole used to be a lobbyist for Facebook.

Katie Heelis used to be the “Issues Manager” for the Ontario Minister of Health, back under the regime of Kathleen Wynne. Afterwards, she became a lobbyist, taking on clients such as Shoppers Drug Mart.

Abid Malik spent several years working for the Ministry of Health under the regimes of McGuinty and Wynne. He moved on to lobbying, and is now an official at the Ontario Medical Association.

Carly Martin sort of went the other way. She a lobbyist, and later came to work for the Ford Government. Since July 2020, she has worked in the Cabinet Office, and presumably has direct access to Ford.

Getting back to the issue of Bill 132, what were the effects of passing it?

Bill 132 was an omnibus Bill (aren’t they all?) but buried in Schedule 11 was the notice that a part of the Ontario Drug Benefit Act would be repealed. This isn’t some minor thing, but has huge implications.

Lobbying Activity
Tell us about your current lobbying activity. Complete all that apply. You must choose at least one option:

Legislative proposal Yes

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?

OPA will be advocating for the removal of unnecessary regulatory burden in the pharmacy sector as defined as the goal through Bill 132, Better for People, Smarter for Business Act, 2019

Going through the records of the Lobby Registry, it’s explicitly stated that this was a reason for speaking to Public Officials. There’s no guesswork involved.

Executive officer
.
1.1 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall appoint an executive officer for the Ontario public drug programs. 2006, c. 14, s. 7.
.
Functions and powers
.
(2) Subject to this Act and the regulations, it is the function of the executive officer, and he or she has the power, to perform any functions or duties that he or she may have under this Act and the regulations, under the Drug Interchangeability and Dispensing Fee Act and its regulations and under any other Act or regulation, and without in any way restricting the generality of the foregoing,
.
(a) to administer the Ontario public drug programs;
(b) to keep, maintain and publish the Formulary;
(c) to make this Act apply in respect of the supplying of drugs that are not listed drug products as provided for in section 16;
(d) to designate products as listed drug products, listed substances and designated pharmaceutical products for the purposes of this Act, and to remove or modify those designations;
(e) to designate products as interchangeable with other products under the Drug Interchangeability and Dispensing Fee Act, and to remove or modify those designations;
(f) to negotiate agreements with manufacturers of drug products, agree with manufacturers as to the drug benefit price of listed drug products, negotiate drug benefit prices for listed substances with suppliers, and set drug benefit prices for designated pharmaceutical products;
(g) to require any information that may or must be provided to the executive officer under this Act or the regulations or any other Act or regulation to be in a format that is satisfactory to the executive officer;
(h) to make payments under the Ontario public drug programs;
(i) to establish clinical criteria under section 23; and
(j) to pay operators of pharmacies for professional services, and to determine the amount of such payments subject to the prescribed conditions, if any. 2006, c. 14, s. 7.
.
Report
.
(3) In every year,
(a) the executive officer shall make a report in writing to the Minister concerning the Ontario drug programs; and
(b) the Minister shall publish the report within 30 days of receiving it. 2006, c. 14, s. 7

This is how the Ontario Drug Benefit Act used to look. See the archive. However, the passage of Bill 132 repealed 1.1(3) which would have forced annual reporting to the Health Minister.

Also noteworthy: those annual reports would have been made public by law. That is not the case, as the pharmaceutical industry seems to oppose such transparency. Of course, this is done under the guise of eliminating burdens on businesses. The truth is never clearly stated.

And Bill 160 (which Wynne and Ford never fully enacted), would have forced disclosure of payments when it came to pushing medications. It’s been in limbo since 2017. Have to wonder who they really work for.

(1) http://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/Pages/Public/PublicSearch/
(2) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?V_SEARCH.command=navigate&time=1623728162394
(4) https://archive.is/cZVsT
(5) https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonathan-sampson/
(6) https://www.linkedin.com/in/melissalantsman/
(7) https://archive.is/VsG0V
(8) https://www.linkedin.com/in/katieheelis/
(9) https://archive.is/GIOQ0
(10) https://www.linkedin.com/in/abidmalikto/
(11) https://archive.is/7P9lC
(12) https://www.linkedin.com/in/carly-martin/
(13) https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-42/session-1/bill-132#BK14
(14) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-o10/132589/rso-1990-c-o10.html
(15) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-o10/latest/rso-1990-c-o10.html

Posted on

Expanded Drone Use Coming To Canada And Other Countries

Drones are about to become far more common and not just in Canada. Companies and countries are seeing what options there are in using this technology, but only for “safe” purposes.

One company, Drone Delivery Canada is trying to change the laws here so that it can carry larger loads, and for longer distances. They seem to think that drone use is going to become mainstream very soon.

While most of the applications specified by Drone Delivery Canada seem harmless enough, a few of are sure to raise eyebrows:

HEALTHCARE
The current situation as related to COVID-19, as unfortunate and challenging as it is, demonstrates that delivery drones are an ideal solution to limit person-to-person contact in healthcare. Drone Delivery Canada is committed to helping Canada effectively manage the current situation and potentially help stop the pandemic, especially in remote communities.

Of course, if people weren’t able to get certain supplies (such as for being forcibly quarantined), this could also serve as a form of prisoner feeding system. Depending on the setup, it could reduce the chances people have to break out.

OTHER APPLICATIONS
While our focus is predominantly on moving cargo, Drone Delivery Canada has proven experience in carrying specialized electronic equipment. Payloads can also be specialized cameras, sensors or other instruments for various applications such as – infrastructure inspection, military (C3I – command, control, communications, intelligence), border security, crowd monitoring, mining, oil & gas, surveying, mapping, crop spraying, etc.

These drones can be used to carry specialized equipment, such as cameras, and can be used for military and intelligence gathering. It could also serve in crowd monitoring. While this may sound paranoid, such a thing is already underway elsewhere.

Worth noting: G4S, the firm Brian Pallister hired for Manitoba, also has its foot in the door as far as using drones. The company’s services include intelligence gathering, and arrest and detention.

While these drones (above) supposedly aren’t equipped with facial recognition, it wouldn’t be too hard to implement it. Even without it, the idea of this kind of surveillance is downright nefarious and creepy. These people are unknowingly (or maybe knowingly) helping force a police state.

Even if Drone Delivery Canada (and similar companies) were using these drones primarily for deliveries, it would still require a vast surveillance apparatus to ensure that they were being delivered where they should be. Also, wouldn’t it potentially put many people out of work, as their jobs become obsolete?

DDC describes drone delivery itself as a “disruptive technology“. They seem to be aware of the impacts this could potentially have.

In June 2019 DDC and Air Canada reached an agreement, which would see the airliner promoting the drone company. Tim Strauss is both an Advisor for DDC, and a Vice President for Air Canada.

Incidently, the Canadian Government has put out several tenders recently, looking for suppliers to bid on drone construction. However, that’s probably nothing to worry about.

Recently, Jason Kenney was forced to cancel a proposal to have drones surveilling Albertans on vacation. He claimed it was all a mistake, and he never intended to spy on anyone.

Collaborating with international partners
Canada’s drone industry is part of a broader aviation network, which requires collaboration to support innovation, and ensure the safety of our aviation system. Transport Canada works with other state civil aviation agencies from around the world to share information, align Canadian drone policy, and share best practices.
.
For example, Transport Canada has a strong relationship with the United States Federal Aviation Administration, and has signed a Memorandum of Understanding to share results of RPAS research, such as the effects of icing conditions on drones, given the Canadian climate. Transport Canada is also a participant in the FAA’s International Roundtable on RPAS research which brings together multiple civil aviation authorities and academic institutions from around the world to share information.

The Canadian Government has formed a “Drone Advisory Committee”, to help it understand impacts and potential for flying these everywhere. DDC is on the committee. This is also happening internationally. What a coincidence that we had a global pandemic and needed to “reset” society. And unmanned aircraft has been a topic of discussion for a long time.

A quick look at Sussex Strategy Group, the firm lobbying for Drone Delivery Canada, shows that it has plenty of political ties. This shouldn’t be too surprising.

This is how things are done in Canada. Simply hire political cronies to make the magic handshake, and suddenly, your proposal gets approved.

As for having everything delivered by drones, it’s not like that was predicted by the World Economic Forum, several years ago. You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy. And this seems to be where things are going.

(1) https://dronedeliverycanada.com/
(2) https://dronedeliverycanada.com/applications/
(3) https://dronedeliverycanada.com/about-us/
(4) https://aircanada.mediaroom.com/2019-06-04-Air-Canada-and-Drone-Delivery-Canada-Corp-Announce-a-Sales-Agency-Agreement
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=368514&regId=908727
(6) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5skCHHijcY
(7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdeCV8FesAs
(8) https://buyandsell.gc.ca/
(9) https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-21-00959355
(10) https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/award-notice/PW-QCL-056-18152-001
(11) https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-QCL-056-18152
(12) https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-21-00954577
(13) https://calgarysun.com/news/local-news/after-drawing-flak-province-cancels-plan-to-monitor-campers-with-drones/wcm/52b24f78-f6ee-4269-b98e-1337445cbef6
(14) https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/drone-safety/drone-innovation-collaboration
(15) http://jarus-rpas.org/
(16) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73K6TrkVGKE
(17) https://www.linkedin.com/in/naomishuman/
(18) https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-pellegrini-sussex-4853ba27/
(19) https://www.linkedin.com/in/brett-james-0442482/
(20) https://www.linkedin.com/in/devin-mccarthy-9676543b/
(21) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-25c-brian-pallister-hires-intelligence-detention-firm-g4s-for-security-in-manitoba/
(22) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-25d-meet-capital-hill-group-the-lobbying-firm-pushing-for-g4s-contracts/

Posted on

Chapters-Indigo Getting Large Handouts As They Deny You Access

By now, many Canadians have heard the stories about Chapters-Indigo refusing patrons entry without masks, even in the cases of written exemptions.

People will raise the defense of it being “their business”, and hence they can impose whatever policies they want. That’s incorrect, as there are human rights legislation that must be followed. Even if breathing isn’t considered a human right, various conditions are. Beyond that, it’s offensive to voters.

But what’s particularly bad about this is that Chapters-Indigo is getting large amounts of tax-payer money while they discriminate against their customers. It seems that boycotting such businesses doesn’t work when Ottawa will just bail them out. But of course, it’s all done in the name of “safety”.

According to the CEWS Registry, also see new link, Indigo is receiving financial assistance. CEWS stands for the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. So it is getting Government (or rather taxpayer) money in order to keep this business going.

One also has to wonder what other programs the company is getting money from, such as CERS, the Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy Program.

According to the Office of the Lobbying Commissioner of Canada, Chapters-Indigo received $20.1 million in various subsidies in the fiscal year of 2020. It is expected to get more money in 2021.

Also, keep in mind the thousands of small businesses that there deemed “non essential” and forced to close. Many went under permanently. However, a chain of bookstores like Chapters is considered important enough to bail out. This comes in spite of their blatant discrimination.

While no businesses should have been closed at all, many people would agree that a bookstore is pretty “non-essential” in the grand scheme of things.

(1) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/her-daughter-has-a-mask-exemption-but-chapters-indigo-wouldn-t-let-her-in-1.5942044
(2) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(3) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/habs/cews/srch/pub/dsplyBscSrch?request_locale=en
(4) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/news/2020/11/canada-emergency-rent-subsidy.html
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=366362&regId=903408#regStart
(6) https://archive.is/AuEbd
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=369554&regId=913010
(8) https://archive.is/JzSc6

Posted on

Executives Of Public Health “Charities” Drawing Huge Salaries To Lock You Down

It seems that most, if not all, of these “public health” organizations are actually registered charities. This is likely structured that way to encourage private donations. After all, a person isn’t really making the entire payment if they are submitting receipts to the Canada Revenue Agency.

While this article starts off with the Nova Scotia Health Authority, the pattern here can be applied to its counterparts elsewhere.

Looking at the most recent tax information available, the NSHA took in some $2.5 billion in revenues, and approximately 90% of it was Government (or rather taxpayer) funded. Approximately 10% came from some other sources. Also makes one wonder what “other sources” could be, if it isn’t gifts, donations (with or without a receipt), or Government money.

As for the expenses, administrative costs is a pretty self explanatory title. However, 92%, presumably what was spent on health care, is actually listed as “charitable programs”. $1.7 billion was spent on salaries, and $24.5 million on consulting fees.

By the way, whatever happened to that $83 million classified as “other” spending? Did it end up in someone’s pocket, or some offshore bank account?

[March 2016] Compensated full-time positions:
$250,000 to $299,999: 7
$300,000 to $349,999: 1
$350,000 and over: 2
.
[March 2017] Compensated full-time positions:
$200,000 to $249,999: 6
$250,000 to $299,999: 3
$300,000 to $349,999: 1
.
[March 2018] Compensated full-time positions:
$200,000 to $249,999: 5
$250,000 to $299,999: 3
$300,000 to $349,999: 1
$350,000 and over: 1
.
[March 2019] Compensated full-time positions:
$200,000 to $249,999: 3
$250,000 to $299,999: 6
$350,000 and over: 1
.
[March 2020] Compensated full-time positions:
$200,000 to $249,999: 3
$250,000 to $299,999: 4
$300,000 to $349,999: 2
$350,000 and over: 1

It certainly seems that the executives were paid very well for what they do. And nothing screams competent quite like locking down an entire Province for a year (and counting). No one has been fired, or forced onto CERB or EI.

Never forget that tyrants like Rankin and Strang are willing to use secret court hearings in order to shut down the ability of people to peacefully voice their unhappiness.

Just a thought: perhaps the groups who are so interested in lobbying the Nova Scotia Government to buy large quantities of their products are also making donations to the NS Health Authority. It may be worth considering.

This is hardly limited to Nova Scotia. Taking a look at the tax records of the British Columbia Provincial Health Services Authority, BCPHSA, we get this:

[March 2016] Compensated full-time positions:
$200,000 to $249,999: 2
$250,000 to $299,999: 6
$300,000 to $349,999: 1
$350,000 and over: 1
.
[March 2017] Compensated full-time positions:
$200,000 to $249,999: 1
$250,000 to $299,999: 7
$300,000 to $349,999: 1
$350,000 and over: 1
.
[March 2018] Compensated full-time positions:
$200,000 to $249,999: 3
$250,000 to $299,999: 6
$350,000 and over: 1
.
[March 2019] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2020] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10

Next we turn to Alberta Health Services. Remember, Jason Kenney is a “conservative” and claims to support freedom. As for the people running the AHS, it’s interesting that there are always 10 people listed. Or perhaps it just refers to the top 10 earners.

[March 2016] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2017] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2018] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2019] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2020] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10

The Saskatchewan Health Authority is no better, paying its top executives more than $350,000 each. They also support lockdowns, and pushing experimental poison on their citizens. Way to promote public health.

[March 2016] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2017] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2018] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2019] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2020] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10

Next up is the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, which is separate from the Manitoba Government, although subjected to the rules imposed Provincially.

[March 2016] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2017] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2018] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2019] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2020] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10

Anyone notice a pattern here? The top executives are making large amounts of money, often in excess of $300,000 per year. While others are told that their jobs and businesses are “non-essential”, the decision makers are still drawing their salaries. There hasn’t been a single notice of such a person getting laid off. The damage they cause seems to be irrelevant.

See what else is listed as a charity.
It’s quite surprising.

Depending on the Province, and amount given, tax rebates are possible in the area of around 50%. This means that the public will be subsidizing these “donations”.

Remember that $5 million donation from the Como Foundation to Trillium Health Partners? Como is a company whose business skyrocketed after mask mandates were imposed. The Canadian public, and in particular, Ontarians, will be picking up the tab.

As a final thought, it’s not just health care institutions that are structured as charities. Countless colleges and universities are either structured the same way, or have a foundation that is. Every time they get donations, the public is forced to subsidize it.

And it’s worth pointing out, many schools receive grants from pharmaceutical companies. Sometimes it’s in the form of scholarships, sometimes as research funding.

(1) Nova Scotia Health Authority Charity Page
(2) https://novascotia.ca/sns/Lobbyist/default.asp
(3) BC Provincial Health Services Authority
(4) BCCDC Foundation For Population & Public Health
(5) Alberta Health Services
(6) Saskatchewan Health Authority
(7) Winnipeg Regional Health Authority
(8) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/charities-giving/giving-charity-information-donors/claiming-charitable-tax-credits/charitable-donation-tax-credit-rates.html

Posted on

AstraZeneca Maker, Emergent BioSolutions, Lobbying All Federal Parties

In theory, politics is supposed to offer choice. Different views and ideals compete to see who is able to gain the support of the public. But reality is quite different. “Opposition” parties are often on the receiving end of the same influence peddling as government. In a sense, this is why nothing really changes,

And it’s at least part of the reason they keep pushing experimental vaccines on Canadians.

Not limited to Ontario or Ottawa, this lobbying is happening out in the West as well. Learn who Jean-Marc Prevost really is.

From this earlier piece, it’s shown that Amber Ruddy, the Secretary of the National Council of the Conservative Party of Canada is an ACTIVE lobbyist. It doesn’t prevent her from running the fundraising arm of the so-called “Official Opposition”.

This is not limited to the so-called “Conservatives”. This sort of conflict of interest exists in other parties as well. Left, Right, Center… it’s all the same.

Bridget Howe worked for the Liberal Party of Canada for years. She even helped Trudeau get re-elected. Then in January 2020, she moved over to Counsel Public Affairs and started working as a lobbyist. She is not alone either.

Sheamus Murphy worked for the Ontario (Liberal) Government, and for the Federal Liberals while in opposition. It seems that his work for Emergent BioSolutions actually dates back to 2017, so he’s been shilling for a while.

In August 2017, Ben Parsons went from being a Senior Advisor for the Liberal Party of Canada, to a lobbyist for Counsel Public Affairs. That certainly didn’t take long.

Brad Lavigne actually used to run the Federal NDP back in the days of Jack Layton. Now, he shills for the very same corporations he once pretended he opposed.

This sort of thing is hardly an isolated incident. Some more of the corruption that lobbying is:

But don’t worry. If all else fails, simply vote for the PPC. Surely, Maxime Bernier will stand up to the pharmaceutical industry, and do what he can to protect Canadians.

On second thought, maybe those high profile lawsuits will work instead. After all, a defense is expected to be filed any day now.

Why should people care about this? Because if democracy is going to work, then there has to be real options. Simply putting new labels on the same things doesn’t count.

(1) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch
(2) https://counselpa.com/
(3) https://www.linkedin.com/in/bridgethowe/
(4) https://archive.is/S6B9i
(5) https://www.linkedin.com/in/brad-lavigne-a0927a39/
(6) https://archive.is/rTfrK
(7) https://www.linkedin.com/in/sheamusmurphy/
(8) https://archive.is/zghs1
(9) https://www.linkedin.com/in/benparso/

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress