NGO/CS – Page 21 – Canuck Law

June 18, 2021December 28, 2022

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/

June 16, 2021October 23, 2023

CIHR Using Taxpayer Money To Convince Pregnant Women & Children To Get Vaccine

If this doesn’t make your blood boil, nothing will. CIHR, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research has been handing out public money to pay people to convince others to take the experimental, unapproved, gene replacement “vaccines”. And yes, pregnant women are specifically mentioned in these grants.

To make things even worse, the CIHR wants to hire people to convince children to get poisoned as well.

https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/

Now, who are the people who have sold their souls in return for getting some sweet, sweet “pandemic bucks”?

NAME	AMOUNT
Barkun, Alan N	$784,125
Berman, Peter	$118,575
Bottari, Carolina	$218,025
Brignardello Petersen, Romina Andrea	$1,365,525
Brunet, Alain F	$240,975
Burchell, Ann N	$768,825
Campbell, Tavis S	$271,575
Caron, Etienne	$738,000
Cheng, Adam	$248,625
Divangahi, Maziar	$569,925
Durocher, Evelyne	$115,000
Elahi, Shokrollah	$1,071,000
Ehrhardt, Rudolf A	$229,500
Estabrooks, Carole Anne	$756,890
Foster, Jennifer	$332,775
Fowler, Robert A	$455,175
Gesink, Dionne	$393,975
Harris, M. Anne	$325,125
Jan, Eric	$445,230
Jardine, Cynthia	$348,075
Katapally, Tarun Reddy	$554,434
Kaul, Rupert	$489,600
Lavoie, Kim	$638,775
Lisonkova, Sarka	$168,300
Luo, Honglin	$562,275
Mazurak, Vera C	$344,250
Meyer, Jeffrey H	$761,175
Mubareka, Samira	$612,765
Nissim, Rinat	$294,525
O’Campo, Patricia J	$302,175
Oremus, Mark	$195,075
Pai, Nitika	$378,675
Pike, Ian	$267,750
Puyat, Joseph H	$302,175
Rigatto, Claudio	$562,275
Robillard, Rébecca	$168,300
Rothman, Linda	$416,925
Rousseau, Cecile	$240,975
Sylvestre, Marie-Pierre	$457,422
Vivion, Maryline	$153,000
Wang, JianLi	$137,700
Webster, Fiona	$160,650
Woodgate, Roberta L	$358,594
Zimmermann, Camilla	$423,045

Should anyone raise the topic, no, this isn’t doxing. If one accepts grants from the Federal Government, it is public, and searchable by anyone. Moreover, it’s in the public interest that others know who they are. These people are pushing injections on the general population, most likely without being completely forthcoming.

Interesting to note: most of these grants run until 2022 or 2023. It could be because these drugs are in the experimental stages, and the testing won’t be done until then. These drugs are not “approved” by Health Canada, but instead, are given interim authorization under an emergency order.

INTERIM AUTHORIZATION — deemed to be “worth the risk” under the circumstances, doesn’t have to be fully tested. Allowed under Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act. Also known as emergency authorization.
APPROVED — Health Canada has fully reviewed all the testing, and steps have been done, with the final determination that it can be used for the general population.

(1) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/
(2) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/?sort=agreement_value_fs%20desc&page=1&search_text=vaccine%20hesitancy%20pregnant#
(3) https://archive.is/x1H5x
(4) https://archive.is/PsecY
(5) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-27/page-8.html#h-234517
(6) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drugs-vaccines-treatments/interim-order-import-sale-advertising-drugs.html#a2.3
(7) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(8) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(9) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
(10) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

June 16, 2021January 7, 2022

January 2019: First Interim Report Of Premier’s Council on Improving Healthcare and Ending Hallway Medicine

The term “hallway medicine” is used to describe a health care system that is so overloaded that there aren’t enough rooms for patients. Ontario’s health care system has long been operating over capcity. Shortly after taking power in 2018, Doug Ford promised to have the issue studied and corrected.

However, in the light of this so-called “pandemic”, that previous issue seems to have been scrubbed from the media, and from political talking heads. Prior to this, apparently there were no serious health care issues.

The Ontario Science Table and various “TV experts” would have you believe that hospitals are overwhelmed because of a virus (that has yet to be isolated). Countless “non essential” health care services have been cancelled in the name of freeing up space to accommodate anticipated death waves.

Read the 1st report for yourself, but it’s quite telling:

Key Findings
1. Patients and families are having difficulty navigating the health care system and are waiting too long for care. This has a negative impact on their own health and on provider and caregiver well-being.
2. The system is facing capacity pressures today, and it does not have the appropriate mix of services, beds, or digital tools to be ready for the projected increase in complex care needs and capacity pressures in the short and long-term.
3. There needs to be more effective coordination at both the system level, and at the point-of-care. This could achieve better value (i.e. improved health outcomes) for taxpayer money spent throughout the system. As currently designed, the health care system does not always work efficiently

Chapter 1: The Patient Experience
Patients and families are having a difficult time navigating the health care system. Ontarians cannot always see their primary care provider when they need to, wait times for some procedures and access to specialists and community care are too long, and emergency department use is increasing. A lack of early intervention and prevention is contributing to more patients becoming ill. All of these challenges are connected to the problem of hallway health care.
.
Chapter 2: Stress on Caregivers and Providers
Health care providers, family members, and friends are feeling the strain of a system that isn’t making caregiving easy. This leads to high levels of stress and places a heavy burden on caregivers to act as advocates for timely and high-quality health care services.
.
Chapter 3: Different Health Care Needs
There are more patients with complex needs and an increase in chronic issues that require careful and coordinated management, like an aging population living longer with high rates of dementia. Fair access to health care across the province continues to be a concern.
.
Chapter 4: Immediate and Long-Term Capacity Pressures
Ontario does not have an adequate or appropriate mix of services and beds throughout its health care system. This leads to capacity pressures on hospitals and long-term care homes. Demographic projections indicate there will be additional strain on existing capacity in the near future.
.
Chapter 5: Responsibility and Accountability in the System
Ontario’s health care system is large. Responsibility for coordinating high-quality health care is spread across many government agencies, organizations, and the Ministry with no clear point of accountability to keep the focus on improving health outcomes for Ontarians. There is a fundamental lack of clarity about which service provider should be providing what services to patients and how to work together effectively. Ontario could be getting better value for the money it currently spends on the health care system.

Looks pretty serious. Keep in mind, this was 2018/2019, and the consensus even then was that Ontario hospitals were overflowing.

Adalsteinn Brown was part of the Premier’s Council on Improving Healthcare and Ending Hallway Medicine. Their 2019 report concluded that Ontario hospitals didn’t always run efficiently, and there weren’t enough reasons.

Fast forward a year or 2. That same Adalsteinn Brown now runs the Ontario Science Table. The group is claiming that coronavirus cases are responsible for Ontario hospitals being overwhelmed.

This previous Committee work seems to have been completely swept under the rug, as it doesn’t fit with the present narrative.

Even as late as January 2020, it was being reported on that Ontario hospitals were already overwhelmed. In face, CBC referenced a specific campaign promise Ford had made back in 2018 on this issue. CBC’s own investigation had concluded the same thing: that Ontario health care was pushed to its very limits.

From the CBC’s own work, it was shown that many hospitals were over 100% capacity, nearly every single day. This is a serious problem.

However, once the “global pandemic” hit, all talk about this seemed to stop. Instead, hospitals were being overwhelmed by waves of sick and dying “Covid” patients. That was the new narrative.

Hospitals across Canada — not just Ontario — responded by cancelling thousands of preventative, screening, and non emergency procedures. The health care system stopped taking care of the people it didn’t have the capacity to anyway. An interesting way to end hallway medicine. Just cancel services and end the backlog.

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQfqGQd4laY
(2) https://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/publications/premiers_council/report.aspx
(3) https://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/publications/premiers_council/docs/premiers_council_report.pdf
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Premiers-Council-Report-1st-Interim.pdf
(5) https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/about/
(6) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/doug-ford-ontario-hallway-medicine-hospital-overcrowding-1.5440470
(7) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-hospital-hallway-medicine-healthcare-beyond-capacity-1.5420434

June 16, 2021November 12, 2023

Pavlov’s Dogs: OST’s Obedience Training Guide For Ontario Residents

Many years ago, Ivan Pavlov discovered that given the right structure of rewards, dogs could be trained simply by ringing a bell. Dogs would to associate the ringing with food, even at times when that wasn’t the end result.

While his experiments are rudimentary today, they were important break throughs at the time. It’s still taught in introductory college psychology classes. Now, from the Ontario Science Table, and their paper of April 2021.

Key Message
The science of getting people to start something new is different from the science of getting them to continue positive behaviours. Amid rising rates of new SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, Ontario needs a refreshed approach to maintaining and enhancing adherence to public health measures. Promising strategies to increase effective masking and physical distancing include persuasion, enablement, modelling the behaviour, and clear education.

As such, the strategies are explicitly linked to target groups in a position to action them to support two key groups of Ontarians:
.
1. Those who are already adhering to physical distancing and masking in most situations but are unclear on the remaining high-risk scenarios that exist in their lives (focus on maintenance).
2. Those who are inconsistently following these public health measures due to easily addressed capability, opportunity and motivation reasons (focus on enhancement)

This paper (also archived here) from the Ontario Science Table outlines psychological and behavioural modification techniques that can be applied to convince people to obey the ever changing public health measures.

This was mentioned in a previous article, but now, deserves its own standalone piece. This is quite a piece of work.

The Ontario Science Table recommends tax breaks for companies to force customers and employees to wear masks. That had been rumoured to be a part of the subsidy requirements, but the OST openly suggests that sort of thing.

This is a common type of tactic in retail settings. By moving certain products to make them constantly visible, they are more likely to be on the minds of customers. Hence, they are more likely to be bought.

Masks are to be provided at will in order to reinforce the message that mask wearing is necessary. And by extension, masks are used to reinforce the claim that there is a global pandemic, despite there not being any evidence whatsoever for it.

This one puts the “training” in obedience training. OST recommends creating videos and instructional guides on masks, and to claim it’s what they’ve learned from the science.

OST recommends the implementation of “mask refreshers” so that masks are constantly on the minds of Ontarians. This is essential, otherwise they may start questioning whether there really is a pandemic.

This is straight out of advertising. Get people to identify with those sending the messages, and they are much more likely to comply. It’s subtle emotional manipulation.

Interesting way to get people to go along with the psy-op. Just use humour to lighten the situation.

That same idea can apply to people who get the experimental gene-replacement shot. Doughnuts, beer, lottery tickets and other incentives are already being handed out. Then again, maybe taking out such people is for the best.

https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Science-Brief_Enhancing-Adherence-to-Public-Health-Measures_20210422_published.pdf

Interpretation
Governments, public health units, and healthcare organizations are delivering strategies to support Ontarians in adhering to public health measures, with an emphasis on physical distancing and masking. This Science Brief recognizes that more than a year into the COVID-19 pandemic, we need to move beyond “more of the same” when it comes to strategies to maintain and enhance how, when, and where Ontarians engage in masking and distancing. Groups in a position to support change can leverage behavioural science to refresh their approaches by using a range of evidence-based behavioural change strategies. These strategies can help to move beyond asking Ontarians to “do more” (potentially contributing to pandemic fatigue) and instead focus on creating the conditions needed to ensure ongoing adherence in our current state.

Methods Used for This Science Brief
The advice on this brief has been developed using the COM-B model. COM-B is a theoretical framework employed by Behavioural Scientists to help identify key behavioural barriers to desired action. The model identifies three essential conditions: Capability, Opportunity, Motivation that affect Behaviour and decision making. Capability barriers include lack of knowledge and comprehension about a behaviour and its consequences, and lack of skill necessary to carry out a behaviour. Opportunity barriers include time and resource constraints that make a desired behaviour more difficult or costly to carry out. Motivation barriers include emotional reactions and inaccurate beliefs that create obstacles for carrying out a behaviour.

It’s hard to believe that the OST would release such a report, detailing how to use Ontario as modern day dogs of Ivan Pavlov. But here we are. The April 2021 white paper speaks for itself, and commentary isn’t really necessary.

(1) https://covid19-sciencetable.ca
(2) https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Science-Brief_Enhancing-Adherence-to-Public-Health-Measures_20210422_published.pdf
(3) OST Science Brief Enhancing Adherence to Public Health Measures
(4) https://www.simplypsychology.org/pavlov.html

June 16, 2021December 2, 2021

IMM #5(C): Remittances Remain High, Even As Unemployment Rates Soared In 2020

Apparently it’s the International Day for Family Remittances. Despite dire predictions in early 2020 by the World Bank and others, this didn’t actually materialize. The total drop was almost insignificant.

Despite COVID-19, remittance flows remained resilient in 2020, registering a smaller decline than previously projected. Officially recorded remittance flows to low- and middle-income countries reached $540 billion in 2020, just 1.6 percent below the 2019 total of $548 billion.

Rather interesting: even as the West experienced record level unemployment rates, the drop in remittances sent abroad was almost negligible. If all these jobs were disappearing, where exactly was the money coming from? A huge drop in 2020 was predicted by the World Bank, but did not materialize.

Year	Total ($B)	To 1st World	To 3rd World	Diff.
2013	$581B	$177B	$404B	$227B
2014	$592B	$162B	$430B	$268B
2015	$582B	$142B	$440B	$298B
2016	$573B	$144B	$429B	$285B
2017	$613B	$147B	$466B	$319B
2018	$689B	$161B	$528B	$367B
2019	$706B	$158B	$548B	$390B
2020	$702B	$162B	$540B	$378B

According to the World Bank: “With global growth expected to rebound further in 2021 and 2022, remittance flows to low- and middle-income countries are expected to increase by 2.6 percent to US$553 billion in 2021 and by 2.2 percent to US$565 billion in 2022.”

The World Economic Forum estimated about $714B in global remittances in 2019, while the World Bank claimed $706 billion. Note: these estimates are often updated.

These global citizens are the world’s “Economic First Responders”. The money they send across the world’s borders have helped smooth the economic shocks from the pandemic, fostering stronger resilience and recovery in their home nations throughout 2020, and into 2021 and beyond, than would have been the case without these flows.

They provide an essential lifeline to their home communities by funding spending on essentials, lowering extreme poverty and supporting healthcare and education. They serve on the front lines within their host communities as medics, scientists, grocers, bus drivers, construction workers, teachers, and contribute human capital towards the functioning of a robust economy.

These actions, during an unprecedented global pandemic, serve to shine an even bigger spotlight on the criticality of remittances and those who send them. They are the resilient and inclusive global economic force. Policymakers, development experts and economists must give cross-border remittances the consideration and priority they deserve as a significant global economic engine. There has simply never been a greater need for innovation and technology that provides the on-the-ground financial support flowing instantly across borders.

A January 2021 Oxford Economics report, The Remittance Effect: A Lifeline for Developing Economies Through the Pandemic and Into Recovery, illustrates how remittances impact developing economies, both in the very short-term and in the longer-term, in a way that neither government aid nor private foreign direct investment can match, given the larger value of remittances today.

These economic first responders selflessly act to quickly wire money into the hands of loved ones back home, stimulating spending on housing, medical care, and other essentials; boosting savings, improving creditworthiness and funding investments; and supporting economic and financial stability – all of which promote economic growth. As Oxford Economics says, the “remittance multiplier effect” boosts local economic activity and ultimately GDP.

In the last several years, remittances overtook Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) as the largest external capital source in developing economies. The forecast for global FDI flows is bleak, with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) having forecast that these flows contracted by up to 40% in 2020.

A strikingly honest take from the World Economic Forum, or at least, a look into how they view things. Sending large amounts of money out of the 1st World isn’t undermining the West, rather “Economic First Responders” are doing their part to save the planet.

It also underscores their agenda. WEF views remittances as a more effective way of doing wealth transfers to other nations. It doesn’t provoke the same backlash as foreign aid does.

These “global leaders” don’t want countries or nations. They want economic zones where employees and production can be shifted around.

Pew Research estimated that Canada sent some $28 million USD (about $33 million CDN) abroad in the year 2018. The United States sent about $159 billion. Under the guise of “pandemic management” Canada had already experienced 63 days of business closures — keeping in mind, this article was written in June 2020. It’s actually much higher now.

One would expect remittances to plummet as businesses closed, many for good. But in the end, the overall drop in remittances was pretty insignificant. So, where did they come from? How much CERB, or other relief, was simply sent abroad?

Unfortunately, too many politicians want to look good in the eyes of the world, instead of serving their own people? Here’s a great example of this sort of mindset. Since most readers are probably blocked, these are some of the tweets that are important.

https://twitter.com/MichelleRempel/status/1245542206624145409
https://twitter.com/MichelleRempel/status/1245537455660503040
https://twitter.com/MichelleRempel/status/1245543250062082054
https://twitter.com/MichelleRempel/status/1245543543877308421

Don’t worry. There will always be Canada-last politicians like Michelle Rempel-Garner in power. She’s fully aware that our programs are used to drive down wages, and to send money abroad (where it will go much further), and she STILL supports it. Seems that the focus is on growing OTHER economies.

Wages work in a supply-and-demand fashion. A low supply of workers will push up the demand, which are salaries. However, when there is a surplus of that supply of workers, it pushes down the demand, as people will work for less.

Of course, it’s much cheaper to feed a family in Guatemala than it is in Canada, even with the fees associated with sending remittances. Such people can afford to work for less. It creates a race to the bottom where most people lose in the end.

Happy International Day for Family Remittances everyone! Go be an Economic First Responder, and send some money abroad.

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj6Hki3bAvk
(2) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTPDxhZ5d8nZgZFLTITA5LA
(3) https://www.knomad.org/publication/migration-and-development-brief-34
(4) https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2020/04/22/world-bank-predicts-sharpest-decline-of-remittances-in-recent-history
(5) https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/migrationremittancesdiasporaissues/brief/migration-remittances-data
(6) https://twitter.com/UNmigration
(7) https://twitter.com/IOMAsiaPacific/status/1405031130043060235
(8) https://www.iom.int/sites/default/files/remittance_inflow_trends_snapshot_web-compressed.pdf
(9) https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/01/remittances-key-post-covid-recovery/
(10) https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2014/04/11/remittances-developing-countries-deportations-migrant-workers-wb
(11) https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2016/04/13/remittances-to-developing-countries-edge-up-slightly-in-2015
(12) href=”https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2017/04/21/remittances-to-developing-countries-decline-for-second-consecutive-year
(13) https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/06/22/sharp-decline-in-remittances-expected-in-2020-amid-covid-19-lockdowns-in-top-sending-nations/
(14) https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/04/23/record-high-remittances-to-low-and-middle-income-countries-in-2017
(15) https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/12/08/accelerated-remittances-growth-to-low-and-middle-income-countries-in-2018
(16) https://blogs.worldbank.org/psd/remittances-times-coronavirus-keep-them-flowing
(17) https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/07/remittances-decline-covid-19-migrants-low-income-economies/
(18) https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2021/05/12/defying-predictions-remittance-flows-remain-strong-during-covid-19-crisis
(19) https://www.nycaribnews.com/articles/world-bank-remittance-flows-remained-resilient-in-2020/
(20) https://www.statista.com/chart/20166/top-10-remittance-receiving-countries/
(21) https://canucklaw.ca/imm-5b-global-remittances-hidden-costs-of-immigration/

June 14, 2021November 10, 2023

Oversight For Human Pathogens and Toxins Act, Quarantine Act Removed, Slipped Into Budget Bill

There are few things more nefarious than when politicians pass laws to strip your rights away, or undermine democracy. It’s even worse when this isn’t openly debated, but instead slipped into a larger Bill, and it goes almost unnoticed.

This was done in the Spring of 2019, and pushed through right before an election. Have to wonder why.

In the interest of fairness, Diverge Media broke this story yesterday. A great piece of research, showing that a major regulatory check had been scrapped without any public discussion.

Looking at the timing, it’s hard to plausibly believe that the politicians weren’t aware that something was going to happen. And if they didn’t know, why not speak up now?

The NDP did make a passing objection, but it seemed to be more in the context of having an omnibus Bill pushed. She listed: “Seventh, subdivision K of division 9 of part 4 repeals provisions of the Quarantine Act. Eighth, subdivision L of division 9 of part 4 repeals provisions of the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act.” There were no specific details given as to why these were bad.

This was the public “discussion” on May 6, 2019.
A 90 second speech.

Mr. Chair, I’ll speak to subdivision K, as well as subdivision L, given their similarities.
.
The proposed legislative amendment to the Quarantine Act and to the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act would streamline the regulatory process under both acts by repealing the requirement for the Minister of Health to table proposed regulations before both Houses of Parliament prior to making new or updated regulations. This will allow the minister to proceed through the standard Governor in Council process, including prepublication and public consultation in the Canada Gazette. New or updated regulations under both of these acts would continue to comply with the cabinet directive on regulations.
.
The proposed amendments would put the Public Health Agency of Canada on level footing with other Canadian regulators and we will be more responsive to stakeholder needs for nimble, agile regulations that are kept up to date by facilitating the removal of outdated or ineffective regulations that may not be adequately protecting the public health and safety or may hinder innovation and economic growth.
.
Our ability to have up-to-date regulations will be a benefit for the Canadian public, for the travel and transportation sectors, and for the biotech and medical resource sectors.

On May 6, 2019, Cindy Evans told a Parliamentary Committee that a provision of Bill C-97 would remove the requirement for legislative checks and balances before issuing orders under the Quarantine Act. Keep in mind, this was a BUDGET Bill, and this was buried in an obscure section.

Proposed regulations to be laid before Parliament
.
66.1 (1) Before a regulation is made under section 66, the Minister shall lay the proposed regulation before each House of Parliament.
.
Marginal note: Report by committee
.
(2) A proposed regulation that is laid before Parliament shall be referred to the appropriate committee of each House, as determined by the rules of that House, and the committee may review the proposed regulation and report its findings to that House.
.
Marginal note: Standing Committee on Health
.
(2.1) The committee of the House of Commons referred to in subsection (2) shall be the Standing Committee on Health or, in the event that there is not a Standing Committee on Health, the appropriate committee of the House.
.
Marginal note: Making of regulations
.
(3) A regulation may not be made before the earliest of
(a) 30 sitting days after the proposed regulation is laid before Parliament,
(b) 160 calendar days after the proposed regulation is laid before Parliament, and
(c) the day after each appropriate committee has reported its findings with respect to the proposed regulation.
.
Marginal note: Explanation
.
(4) The Minister shall take into account any report of the committee of either House. If a regulation does not incorporate a recommendation of the committee of either House, the Minister shall lay before that House a statement of the reasons for not incorporating it.
.
Marginal note: Alteration
.
(5) A proposed regulation that has been laid before Parliament need not again be so laid prior to the making of the regulation, whether it has been altered or not.

Exceptions
.
66.2 (1) A regulation may be made without being laid before either House of Parliament if the Minister is of the opinion that
.
(a) the changes made by the regulation to an existing regulation are so immaterial or insubstantial that section 66.1 should not apply in the circumstances; or
.
(b) the regulation must be made immediately in order to protect the health or safety of any person.
.
Marginal note: Notice of opinion
.
(2) If a regulation is made without being laid before Parliament, the Minister shall lay before each House of Parliament a statement of the Minister’s reasons.

Although the “exceptions” clause did provide some wiggle room, forcing Cabinet Ministers to bring proposed changes through the legislative process is actually a good check. It ensures that at least there is open discussion. However, given how quickly these changes passed in Parliament, their effectiveness is questionable.

Proposed regulations to be laid before both Houses of Parliament
.
62.1 (1) The Governor in Council may not make a regulation under section 62 unless the Minister has first caused the proposed regulation to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
.
Marginal note: Report by committee
.
(2) A proposed regulation that is laid before a House of Parliament is deemed to be automatically referred to the appropriate committee of that House, as determined by the rules of that House, and the committee may conduct inquiries or public hearings with respect to the proposed regulation and report its findings to that House.
.
Marginal note: Making of regulations
.
(3) The Governor in Council may make a regulation under section 62 only if
.
(a) neither House has concurred in any report from its committee respecting the proposed regulation before the end of 30 sitting days or 160 calendar days, whichever is earlier, after the day on which the proposed regulation was laid before that House, in which case the regulation may be made only in the form laid; or
.
(b) both Houses have concurred in reports from their committees approving the proposed regulation or a version of it amended to the same effect, in which case the regulation may be made only in the form concurred in.
.
Marginal note: Meaning of “sitting day”
.
(4) For the purpose of this section, “sitting day” means a day on which the House in question sits.

Exceptions
.
62.2 (1) A regulation may be made without being laid before each House of Parliament if the Minister is of the opinion that
.
(a) the changes made by the regulation to an existing regulation are so immaterial or insubstantial that section 62.1 should not apply in the circumstances; or
.
(b) the regulation must be made immediately in order to protect the health or safeguard the safety of the public.
.
Marginal note: Explanation
.
(2) If a regulation is made without being laid before each House of Parliament, the Minister shall cause to be laid before each House a statement of the reasons why it was not.

The Quarantine Act also had legitimate safety mechanism stripped out, buried as a seeming afterthought in an omnibus budget Bill.

The “Budget Bill” did pass along Party lines. At the time, the Liberals held a majority, so they needed no support in ramming this through. While the NDP and Conservatives voted against it, these provisions were very unlikely to have contributed, since their was no real debate. Even now, they don’t speak up.

With hindsight, things are much clearer.

(1) https://divergemedia.ca/2021/06/14/no-debate-required-quarantine-act-changed-in-2019-to-allow-for-no-debate-before-its-use/
(2) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=10404016
(3) https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-97/third-reading
(4) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/FINA/meeting-208/evidence
(5) https://archive.is/WXhI8
(6) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/FINA/Evidence/EV10460698/FINAEV208-E.PDF
(7) https://openparliament.ca/
(8) https://openparliament.ca/debates/2019/4/10/jenny-kwan-1/
(9) https://openparliament.ca/search/?q=Date%3A%20%222019-04%20to%202019-11%22%20Quarantine
(10) May 6 2019 Quarantine Act Amendment
(11) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/Q-1.1/page-6.html#docCont
(12) https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/H-5.67/page-7.html#h-255451

Category: NGO/CS

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

Like this:

CIHR Using Taxpayer Money To Convince Pregnant Women & Children To Get Vaccine

Like this:

January 2019: First Interim Report Of Premier’s Council on Improving Healthcare and Ending Hallway Medicine

Like this:

Pavlov’s Dogs: OST’s Obedience Training Guide For Ontario Residents

Like this:

IMM #5(C): Remittances Remain High, Even As Unemployment Rates Soared In 2020

Like this:

Oversight For Human Pathogens and Toxins Act, Quarantine Act Removed, Slipped Into Budget Bill

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: