The IHR are an instrument of international law that is legally-binding on 196 countries, including the 194 WHO Member States. The IHR grew out of the response to deadly epidemics that once overran Europe. They create rights and obligations for countries, including the requirement to report public health events. The Regulations also outline the criteria to determine whether or not a particular event constitutes a “public health emergency of international concern”.
Canada has been following the legally binding dictates of the World Health Organization and their International Health Regulations. Let’s see what some of them are.
The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances many things, including, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Worth mentioning: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations (IHR), that the WHO imposes are legally binding on all members.
2. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for International Health Regulations Archives.
To other countries
It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO.
Countries are required to share information with WHO according to the IHR.
Technical advice is available here. Countries should place particular emphasis on reducing human infection, prevention of secondary transmission and international spread and contributing to the international response though multi-sectoral communication and collaboration and active participation in increasing knowledge on the virus and the disease, as well as advancing research. Countries should also follow travel advice from WHO.
To all countries
It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoVinfection, and to share full data with WHO. Technical advice is available on the WHO website.
Countries are reminded that they are legally required to share information with WHO under the IHR.
Any detection of 2019-nCoV in an animal (including information about the species, diagnostic tests, and relevant epidemiological information) should be reported to the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) as an emerging disease.
Countries should place particular emphasis on reducing human infection, prevention of secondary transmission and international spread, and contributing to the international response though multi-sectoral communication and collaboration and active participation in increasing knowledge on the virus and the disease, as well as advancing research.
The Committee does not recommend any travel or trade restriction based on the current information available.
Countries must inform WHO about travel measures taken, as required by the IHR. Countries are cautioned against actions that promote stigma or discrimination, in line with the principles of Article 3 of the IHR.
Under Article 43 of the IHR, States Parties implementing additional health measures that significantly interfere with international traffic (refusal of entry or departure of international travellers, baggage, cargo, containers, conveyances, goods, and the like, or their delay, for more than 24 hours) are obliged to send to WHO the public health rationale and justification within 48 hours of their implementation. WHO will review the justification and may request countries to reconsider their measures. WHO is required to share with other States Parties the information about measures and the justification received.
The WHO Regional Emergency Directors and the Executive Director of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme (WHE) provided regional and the global situation overview. After ensuing discussion, the Committee unanimously agreed that the outbreak still constitutes a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) and offered advice to the Director-General.
The Director-General declared that the outbreak of COVID-19 continues to constitute a PHEIC. He accepted the advice of the Committee to WHO and issued the Committee’s advice to States Parties as Temporary Recommendations under the IHR.
The Emergency Committee will be reconvened within three months or earlier, at the discretion of the Director-General. The Director-General thanked the Committee for its work.
Risk communication and community engagement
Continue risk communications and community engagement activities through the WHO Information Network for Epidemics (EPI-WIN) and other platforms to counter rumours and misinformation.
Continue to regularly communicate clear messages, guidance, and advice about the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic, how to reduce transmission, and save lives.
Travel and Trade
Continue working with countries and partners to enable essential travel needed for pandemic response, humanitarian relief, repatriation, and cargo operations.
Develop strategic guidance with partners for the gradual return to normal operations of passenger travel in a coordinated manner that provides appropriate protection when physical distancing is not feasible.
After ensuing discussion, the Committee unanimously agreed that the pandemic still constitutes a public health emergency of international concern and offered advice to the Director-General.
The Director-General declared that the outbreak of COVID-19 continues to constitute a PHEIC. He accepted the advice of the Committee to WHO and issued the Committee’s advice to States Parties as Temporary Recommendations under the IHR (2005).
(6) Continue to work with partners to counter mis/disinformation and infodemics by developing and disseminating clear, tailored messaging on the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects; encourage and support individuals and communities to follow recommended public health and social measures.
(7) Support diagnostics, safe and effective therapeutics and vaccines’ rapid and transparent development (including in developing countries) and equitable access through the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator; support all countries to implement the necessary clinical trials and to prepare for the rollout of therapeutics and vaccines.
(8) Work with partners to revise WHO’s travel health guidance to reinforce evidence-informed measures consistent with the provisions of the IHR (2005) to avoid unnecessary interference with international travel; proactively and regularly share information on travel measures to support State Parties’ decision-making for resuming international travel.
Mr. Colin Carrie: Yes.
Are you aware of international standards for quarantine?
Dr. Paul Gully: The international health regulations would be the regulations that individual states would then use to design their quarantine acts. I don’t know of any other standards out there or best practices to look at quarantine acts, but the IHRs really have been used over the years as the starting point.
Now, with the improvement of the international health regulations, maybe, as is the case in Canada, changes will occur to quarantine acts in other countries in order to better comply with the international health regulations.
Mr. Colin Carrie: How is the communication now between different levels of government–for example, the federal government and the provinces–when something occurs?
Dr. Paul Gully: The communication between the agency and the chief medical officers, for example, has always been good. The challenge during SARS was not necessarily the communication, but the information that was available to communicate.
The ability of Ontario to collect information, for example, to analyse it, and then for us to get it and to share it internationally was a challenge. That’s certainly something that Ontario and the Government of Canada have recognized, and as a result of that, other jurisdictions have recognized that as well.
We’ve certainly taken note of the lessons from SARS and the Naylor report. We’re always trying to improve that communication, but then, as I said, we are dependent on the abilities of other jurisdictions.
Mr. Colin Carrie: All right. I thought that was important, to see the different communications between each level, provincial and federal, but also international, because it seems that this is such a global thing right now.
Dr. Paul Gully: We had a meeting in September with the provinces and territories in Edmonton about the Quarantine Act as it stood at that time. We got input. We’re having another teleconference with the Council of Chief Medical Officers next week to talk about a number of issues that were raised and to further clarify what they would like to see as changes to the bill as it stands at the present time.
Mrs. Carol Skelton: Why did Health Canada proceed with a separate Quarantine Act at this time?
Dr. Paul Gully: Those of us who administered the Quarantine Act over the years always knew there were deficiencies in the old act, and because it was rarely used there wasn’t the inclination to update it. As a result of SARS and utilization of the act, which certainly put it under close scrutiny, and the requirement for the Government of Canada to respond to the various reports on SARS, it was felt that updating the act sooner rather than later was appropriate.
In addition, during discussions about the international health regulations of the World Health Organization, it was felt that it was appropriate to do it and to spend time and energy, which it obviously does require, to do it now, before other parts of legislative renewal, of which Mr. Simard is well aware, were further implemented or further discussion was carried out.
Ms. Ruby Dhalla: I have one question. In terms of the Quarantine Act for our country, where are we at in terms of best practices models when we look at the international spectrum?
Dr. Paul Gully: I don’t know the acts in other countries, but because we are updating our act right now and we’re taking into account the probable revisions to the international health regulations, I believe we would be well in the forefront in terms of having modern legislation.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mrs. Carol Skelton: Following up on what Mr. Merrifield and Mr. Carrie said, it says in subclause 5(1) that the minister may “designate persons, or classes of persons, as analysts, screening officers or environmental health officers”. I think we should have in the act who those people are, so that they make sure they are trained professionals.
Dr. Paul Gully: I believe that’s defined under the quarantine officer. At least in part, the quarantine officer refers to a medical practitioner or other health practitioner.
The reason for distinguishing between the three is that the screening officers would not require much training as the quarantine officers, as we defined. For an environmental officer, if it’s not defined, the implication is…. The quarantine officers are in subclause 5(2). I don’t believe, in fact, we’ve defined the qualifications of an environmental health officer, and maybe we should think about that. I think the term in this country, the use of the term “environmental health officer”, does imply some training, but I take your point.
12 communications reports in the last few years. That means 12 separate meetings, not necessary 12 people who were lobbied. And this is just what’s on the books. There may be a lot more that wasn’t recorded.
3. Twitter Involved In Public Safety?
On May 19, Twitter representatives met with the Office of the Minister of Public Safety (which is Bill Blair’s Office). Interesting. What is the connection between Twitter, and public safety? Do certain ideas or points of view need to be censored?
4. Rempel & Twitter: Privacy, Access To Info
Michelle Rempel met with Twitter on February 5, under the heading of privacy and access to information. Getting some more specifics would have been nice. Also, isn’t this a little weird, given Rempel’s habit of blocking everyone on Twitter?
5. What Exactly Is Twitter’s Agenda?
Subject Matter Details
. Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution
-Broadcasting and Telecommunications Review with regard to proposals to regulate online content.
-Income Tax Act, with regard to digital tax proposals.
-Intellectual property proposals and legislation with regard to copyright and online content.
-National Data Strategy consultations with regard to innovation, trust and privacy.
-Privacy legislation or proposals such the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) with regard to data collection, safety, and use.
. Policies or Program
-Internet advertising policy, specifically the adoption of digital media and advertising by government.
-Working with government agencies to help them understand how to use social media during elections.
It’s quite disturbing to see Twitter meeting with officials over the regulation of online content and social media during elections. A conspiracy theorist might think that these people want to ban or limit certain topics, in order to influence general elections.
Austin spent many years working for various Conservative/Alliance politicians, even in the Office of the Leader of the Official Opposition. From February 2006 to July 2007, Austin was the Chief of Staff in the Industry Minister’s Office. At that time, it was headed by Maxime Bernier, who now “identifies” as a populist. From June 2011 to December 2012, Austin was Chief of Staff of Public Works, Status of Women, Shared Services Canada, Minister’s Office.
The Manning Center refers to the Koch-funded “conservative” think tank headed by former Alliance Leader Preston Manning. It seems that the time in the Official Leader’s Office has paid off.
A longtime political hack is now Twitter’s main lobbyist in Canada (the only one listed who spends 20% or more time lobbying). This is shocking, but not surprising.
From earlier: New Conservative Party of Canada head Erin O’Toole was a lobbyist for Facebook before getting into politics.
Worth noting: His firm, (the now defunct), Heenan Blaikie had both Pierre Trudeau, and Jean Chretien as partners at one time. Heenan Blaikie was also heavily infiltrated by the Desmarais Family.
9. Merger Between Social Media & Politics
Considering the sway that lobbyists hold over politicians, it is rather disturbing to see this happen. Politicians — or political operatives — shouldn’t be lobbying in areas of social media. Similarly, lobbyists for social media companies shouldn’t be getting into politics.
With all of this in mind, it would be nice to have detailed records and accounts of what actually goes on in these meetings. But that’s unlikely to ever happen.
Google has been officially registered to lobby the Federal Government since 2008. But don’t worry, it’s not like it will lead to major laws getting changed, or anything like that. Canuck Law is a serious site, and does not tolerate conspiracy theories.
1. Developments In Free Speech Struggle
There is already a lot of information on the free speech series on the site. Free speech, while an important topic, doesn’t stand on its own, and is typically intertwined with other categories. For background information for this, please visit: Digital Cooperation; the IGF, or Internet Governance Forum; ex-Liberal Candidate Richard Lee; the Digital Charter; big tech collusion in coronavirus; Dominic LeBlanc’s proposal, and Facebook lobbying.
Google is currently in talks with the Federal Government if they install energy efficient or “smart” thermostats, and potential rebates. Presumably, these rebates would be financed by tax dollars or additional debt.
4. Google Lobbying On Many Subjects
Subject Matter Details Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution
-Copyright Act, in respect of amendments related to user rights and intermediary liability.
-Copyright Act, in respect of reforms to the Copyright Board of Canada
-Income Tax Act, in respect of a proposed ‘digital renovation tax credit’ for small and medium sized businesses.
-Income Tax Act, specifically expanding section 19 to cover digital advertising.
. Policies or Program
–Broadcasting policy, specifically related to governing online content.
–COVID-19 pandemic, more specifically potential collaboration between the Government of Canada and Google on remote work practices, chatbots, community mobility reports, and network infrastructure.
-Consideration of the creation of a Government digital service, a central office to coordinate digital transformation of the Government of Canada
-Government of Canada consultation on Canadian Content in a Digital World
–Immigration and visa policies, specifically policies that will promote and maintain a highly-skilled workforce.
-Innovation policy, specifically policies or programs related to the adoption of technology by small and medium-sized enterprises.
-Intellectual Property Strategy, as it relates to intangible assets.
-Internet advertising policy, specifically the adoption of digital media and advertising by government.
-Internet policy, specifically as it relates to cyber-security and national security.
-Internet policy, specifically the implementation of policy affecting the governance of the internet.
-Policies that would encourage growth of The Toronto-Waterloo Region Corridor, an 100-km stretch that is the second largest technology cluster in North America and is a global centre of talent, growth, innovation and discovery
-Procurement policy, specifically policy related to the provision of technology services by the Government of Canada.
-Providing feedback to a Canada Revenue Agency employee on draft government communications training program
-Public service polices to create greater digital skills
-Public service policies to encourage more open government
-Taxation policy, specifically proposed changes to the taxation of technology companies.
–Technological developments related to artificial intelligence.
-Technology policy, specifically promoting the development of technological infrastructure through the Smart Cities Challenge.
. Policies or Program, Regulation
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), specifically provisions related to intellectual property and digital trade.
These are the things that Google is currently in talks with the Federal Government in order to implement.
It would be nice to have more information on what “network infrastructure” actually meant, but most people can probably guess what it is.
5. Google Lobbying Canadian Politicians
Former Facebook lobbyist, and current CPC leader, Erin O’Toole, was lobbied twice in 2018 by Google.
This is hardly an exhaustive list. Members of all parties have been lobbied for years by Google. There are some 300 communications reports listed in the Lobbying Registry.
6. WHO Partners With Social Media
WHO is working with manufacturers and distributors of personal protective equipment to ensure a reliable supply of the tools health workers need to do their job safely and effectively.
But we’re not just fighting an epidemic; we’re fighting an infodemic.
Fake news spreads faster and more easily than this virus, and is just as dangerous.
That’s why we’re also working with search and media companies like Facebook, Google, Pinterest, Tencent, Twitter, TikTok, YouTube and others to counter the spread of rumours and misinformation.
We call on all governments, companies and news organizations to work with us to sound the appropriate level of alarm, without fanning the flames of hysteria.
The World Health Organization openly admits to partnering with social media companies to “combat misinformation” related to this so-called pandemic. It was mid-February that this Munich Conference happened. On March 31, the Rakuten Viber app was launched by WHO, and on April 15, a Facebook app was set.
Misinformation, of course, is simply anything that conflicts with the ever-shifting official narrative.
7. Google Supports Free Speech On YouTube
Google demonstrates its commitment to free speech, by hiring 10,000 people to scrub videos from YouTube (which Google owns). Nothing to worry about, as only hateful and extremist content will be erased.
8. Nothing To See Here, People
Despite the vast array of subjects which Google is lobbying the Federal Government on, there is no need to be concerned. There is nothing malevolent about it. After all, Google would never lie or mislead.
In fact, social media companies are following the lead of the World Health Organization to ensure that only the official sources of information get released to the public.
There were 2 rulings in Ontario (2015 and 2018), which concerned the “vaccinate or mask” policy for health care workers. BCPHO Bonnie Henry testified in the 2015 case that there was very limited evidence to support masks. Also, the June 2020 BC Ombudsman report is interesting in terms of government overreach.
Keep in mind that Bonnie Henry also says there’s no science behind limiting groups to 50 people. (See 1:00 in above video). But she imposed that restriction anyway.
1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”
The rest of the series is here. There are many: lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, and much more than most people realize. For examples: The Gates Foundation finances many things, including, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, and individual pharmaceutical companies. It’s also worth mentioning that there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing, though they promote all kinds of degenerate behaviour. Also, the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work, and the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed.
322. The assertion that a mask requirement serves a valuable or essential purpose, albeit that there is only “some” evidence, is also weakened by actual employer practice. If the mask evidence were as supportive as claimed, it would suggest that vaccinated HCWs should also wear masks given the limited efficacy of the vaccine even in relatively ‘good’ years. The SAH Chief of Medical Staff raised this question at the outset. The Hospital’s failure to consider re-evaluating the Policy’s application when the extent of the 2014-2015 vaccine mismatch became known raises the same issue. The OHA/SAH expert responses to these questions set out in full above were short of satisfying.
323. Wearing a mask for an entire working shift, virtually everywhere, no matter the patient presenting circumstances, is most unpleasant. While I readily accept that the wearing of a mask for good reason may reasonably be expected of HCWs, an Irving “balancing of interests” is required. The Policy makes a significant ‘ask’ of unvaccinated employees; that is to wear an unpleasant mask for up to six months at a time. As noted, the evidence said to support the reason for the ‘ask’—evidence concerning asymptomatic transmission and mask effectiveness–may be described at best as “some” and more accurately as “scant”. I conclude that many of the articles footnoted in support of the strong opinions set out in the OHA/SAH expert Reports provide very limited or no assistance to those views. The required balancing does not favour the Policy.
342. On the evidence before me, I find the VOM provisions of the SAH Policy to be unreasonable. Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, I declare SAH to be in breach of Article B-1 (e) of the ONA/SAH Local Agreement and Article 18.07 (c) of the ONA Central Agreement.
343. Any question concerning the need, if any, for additional relief is remitted to the parties for their consideration. I remain seized of remedial issues.
Dated at Toronto, this 8th day of September, 2015
It was found that there wasn’t strong evidence that masking health care workers for months at a time actually had a proven effect. It was further undermined by inconsistent practices at the Sault Area Hospital.
134. Dr. Henry agreed with this observation by Dr. Skowronski and Dr. Patrick who are her colleagues at the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control:
I do agree, as we’ve discussed earlier, influenza is mostly transmitted in the community and we don’t have data on the difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated healthcare workers and individual transmission events…in healthcare settings.
135. Dr. Henry agreed that no VOM policy would influence influenza in the community. Dr. McGeer denied that she had used or recommended the use of community burden in the assessment of development of such a policy.
So there is no data on any differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated health care workers. Yet these people are still arguing for VOM (vaccine or mask).
145. In her Report Dr. Henry also referred to observational studies as supporting the data she said was derived from the RCTs but acknowledged that these studies related to long term care and not acute care settings. She was cross-examined at length concerning the studies referenced in this section of her Report, some that dealt with other closed community settings, and agreed that they were “clearly not referring to a healthcare setting”.
146. Witness commentary concerning the observational/experimental studies relied upon in the McGeer/Henry Reports is set out in Appendix A to this Award. I conclude from a review of these studies, and the expert witness commentary, that they do not disclose a consistent position. They address a wide range of issues in a wide range of settings. Some are not supportive of the OHA/SAH experts’ claim. Some provide weak support at best. Some have nothing to do with the issue in question. Some have acknowledged study design limitations.
Evidence introduced by Bonnie Henry was for long term care centers, not health care settings, so this apples and oranges. There is also weak or irrelevant evidence argued.
160. In direct examination Dr. Henry stated that the pre-symptomatic period was “clearly not the most infectious period but we do know that it happens”. She also agreed in cross-examination that transmission required an element of proximity and a sufficient amount of live replicating virus.
161. At another point, the following series of questions and answers ensued during Dr. Henry’s cross-examination:
Q. With respect to transmission while asymptomatic, and I want to deal with your authorities with respect to that, would you agree with me that there is scant evidence to support that virus shedding of influenza actually leads to effective transmission of the disease before somebody becomes symptomatic?
A. I think we talked about that yesterday, that there is some evidence that people shed prior to being symptomatic, and there is some evidence of transmission, that leading to transmission, but I absolutely agree that that is not the highest time when shedding and transmission can occur.
Q. So were you—I put it to you that there’s scant evidence, and that was Dr. De Serres’ evidence, so—but that there’s very little evidence about that, do you agree?
A. There is—as we talked about yesterday, there is not a lot of evidence around these pieces, I agree.
Q. And clearly transmission risk is greatest when you’re symptomatic, when you’re able to cough or sneeze?
A. Transmission risk is greatest, as we’ve said, when you’re symptomatic, especially in the first day or two of symptom onset
Not a lot of evidence regarding risks of transmission. Yes, this is 2015, but it coming straight from BCPHO Bonnie Henry.
177. Dr. McGeer and Dr. Henry presented the position of the OHA and the Hospital based upon their understanding of the relevant literature. Neither of them asserted that they had particular expertise with respect to masks or had conducted studies testing masks.
So, no actual expertise of research. Bonnie Henry just read what was available. And this is the Provincial Health Officer of British Columbia.
184. In her pre-hearing Report Dr. Henry responded to a request that she discuss the evidence that masks protect patients from influenza this way:
There is good evidence that surgical masks reduce the concentration of influenza virus expelled into the ambient air (a 3.4 fold overall reduction in a recent study) when they are worn by someone shedding influenza virus. There is also evidence that surgical masks reduce exposure to influenza in experimental conditions.
Clinical studies have also suggested that masks, in association with hand hygiene, may have some impact on decreasing transmission of influenza infection. These studies are not definitive as they all had limitations. The household studies are limited by the fact that mask wearing did not start until influenza had been diagnosed and the patient/household was enrolled in the study, such that influenza may have been transmitted prior to enrollment. A study in student residences is limited by the fact that participants wore their mask for only approximately 5 hours per day. Two systematic reviews of the cumulative studies conclude that there is evidence to support that wearing of masks or respirators during illness protects others, and a very limited amount of data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected
In summary, there is evidence supporting the use of wearing of masks to reduce transmission of influenza from health care workers to patients. It is not conclusive, and not of the quality of evidence that supports influenza vaccination. Based on current evidence, patient safety would be best ensured by requiring healthcare providers to be vaccinated if they provide care during periods of influenza activity. However, if healthcare workers are unvaccinated, wearing masks almost certainly provides some degree of protection to their patients.
Bonnie Henry keeps hedging her answers. Yes, there is protection, but there are issues with the studies, and the evidence isn’t conclusive. She also takes the position that vaccinating everyone in health care settings would be prefereable.
219. Dr. Henry answered the ‘why not mask everyone’ question this way:
It is [influenza vaccination] by far, not perfect and it needs to be improved, but it reduces our risk from a hundred percent where we have no protection to somewhat lower. And there’s nothing that I’ve found that shows there’s an incremental benefit of adding a mask to that reduced risk…..there’s no data that shows me that if we do our best to reduce that incremental risk, the risk of influenza, that adding a mask to that will provide any benefit. But if we don’t have any protection then there might be some benefit when we know our risk is greater.
When we look at individual strains circulating and what’s happening, I think we need it to be consistent with the fact that there was nothing that gave us support that providing a mask to everybody all the time was going to give us any additional benefit over putting in place the other measures that we have for the policy. It’s a tough one. You know, it varies by season.
It is a challenging issue and we’ve wrestled with it. I’m not a huge fan of the masking piece. I think it was felt to be a reasonable alternative where there was a need to do—to feel that we were doing the best we can to try and reduce risk.
I tried to be quite clear in my report that the evidence to support masking is not as great and it is certainly not as good a measure
Bonnie Henry admits no strong evidence to support maskings.
2. The primary issue dividing ONA and the hospitals was the controversial ‘vaccination or mask’ policy (“VOM policy”) adopted by many hospitals. The question proceeded to arbitration by test case leading to the decision in Sault Area Hospital, 2015 CanLII 55643 (ON LA). Following an exhaustive review of the available medical scientific literature and having heard from a number of expert witnesses, I determined that:
Absent adequate support for the freestanding patient safety purpose alleged, I conclude that the Policy operates to coerce influenza immunization and, thereby, undermines the collective agreement right of employees to refuse vaccination. On all of the evidence, and for the reasons canvassed at length in this Award, I conclude that the VOM Policy is unreasonable. (at para. 13)
12. Insofar as the First Issue is concerned, I do not agree that the recommendation to wear a mask for the duration of the influenza season in any patient area of the Hospital is sustainable. I found at para. 319 of Sault Area Hospital that there was “scant scientific evidence of the use of masks in reducing the transmission of influenza virus to patients”. In the absence of further evidence to the contrary, I conclude that there is no reasonable basis for the recommendation and that it should be deleted from the Policy.
13. Insofar as the Second Issue is concerned, I am satisfied that a blend of the Hospital and Union proposals is preferable to either of them standing alone.
14. The Union accurately summarizes the evidence heard in Sault Area Hospital about the typical length of the influenza incubation period before the onset of symptoms. Nevertheless, I am reluctant to designate a specific number of hours; the length of time will almost certainly vary with individual circumstances. The Hospital’s written submission states that: “We have chosen with our proposed language to have individual assessments made by Infection Control Practitioners at the Hospital.” On the assumption that those assessments will be made available and conducted very close to the 72-hour mark, I find the Hospital’s approach to be acceptable. I also find that the Union’s alternative suggestion to the ‘patient care area’ question to be appropriate.
Just as with the Sault Area Hospital case, this “vaccinate or mask” policy was found to be unreasonable, an unsupported by hard evidence.
Summarily stated, this case concerns the reasonableness of the Vaccinate or Mask Policy (hereafter “VOM policy”) that was introduced at St. Michael’s Hospital (hereafter “St. Michael’s”) in 2014 for the 2014-2015 flu season and which has been in place ever since. Under the VOM policy, Health Care Workers and that group, of course, includes nurses (hereafter “HCWs”), who have not received the annual influenza vaccine, must, during all or most of the flu season, wear a surgical or procedural mask in areas where patients are present and/or patient care is delivered.
St. Michael’s is one of a very small number of Ontario hospitals with a VOM policy: less than 10% of approximately 165 hospitals. The Ontario Nurses’ Association (hereafter “the Association”) immediately grieved the VOM policy in every hospital where it was introduced. It should be noted at the outset that the VOM policy has nothing to do with influenza outbreaks that are governed by an entirely different protocol, and one that is not at issue in this case.
This is not the first Ontario grievance taking issue with the VOM policy. The parties appropriately recognized that the matters in dispute were best decided through a lead case rather than through multiple proceedings at the minority of hospitals where the policy was in place. Accordingly, the Association grievance at the Sault Area Hospital was designated as that lead case and proceeded to a lengthy hearing before arbitrator James K.A. Hayes beginning in October 2014 and ending in July 2015. Arbitrator Hayes heard multiple days of evidence (replicated to some extent in this proceeding) and issued his decision, discussed further below, on September 8, 2015 (hereafter “the Hayes Award”). Arbitrator Hayes found that the Sault Area Hospital’s VOM policy was inconsistent with the collective agreement and unreasonable. The grievance was, accordingly, upheld.
It was noted at the outset that this case was, in large measure, a repeat of the one put before Arbitrator Hayes. It is not, therefore, surprising that there is an identical outcome. Ultimately, I agree with Arbitrator Hayes: “There is scant scientific evidence concerning asymptomatic transmission, and, also, scant scientific evidence of the use of masks in reducing the transmission of the virus to patients” (at para. 329). To be sure, there is another authority on point, and the decision in that case deserves respect. But it was a different case with a completely different evidentiary focus. It is not a result that can be followed.
One day, an influenza vaccine like MMR may be developed, one that is close to 100% effective. To paraphrase Dr. Gardam, if a better vaccine and more robust literature about influenza-specific patient outcomes were available, the entire matter might be appropriately revisited. For the time being, however, the case for the VOM policy fails and the grievances allowed. I find St. Michael’s VOM policy contrary to the collective agreement and unreasonable. St. Michael’s is required, immediately, to rescind its VOM policy. I remain seized with respect to the implementation of this award.
The Sault Area Hospital case had largely set the precedent, and the issues were were virtually identical. Another hospital was forced to scrap its “vaccinate or mask” policy.
Conclusion: The Ministerial Orders Are Contrary to Law Based on the above analysis of the orders and the Emergency Program Act, I have concluded that to the extent that they purport to suspend or amend the provisions of statutes, Ministerial Orders M098 and M139 are contrary to law because they are not authorized by the governing legislation, the Emergency Program Act. Many of the orders made by the minister have been in place for more than two months. In my view, it is incumbent on government to seek an appropriate solution to this problem of invalidity that minimizes any negative impacts to the public. In this respect, I note that Ministerial Order M192, the order replacing M139, continues to purport to suspend and amend statutory requirements that apply to local governments.
The Exercise of Ministerial Discretion The Supreme Court of Canada has made clear that just as there are limits on what statutory powers can be exercised under a statute, there are also limits on how those powers can be exercised: . . . there is no such thing as absolute and untrammeled “discretion,” that is that action can be taken on any ground or for any reason that can be suggested to the mind of the administrator; no legislative Act can, without express language, be taken to contemplate an unlimited arbitrary power exercisable for any purpose . . . regardless of the nature or purpose of the statute
The BC Ombudsman found that 2 Ministerial Orders were actually illegal, and far exceeeded the discretion which they were allowed to use.
8. These Rulings Are Very Encouraging
The 2015 and 2018 rulings are important, as they are 2 precedents in a quasi-judicial body, that found mask wearing to be of very limited value. It’s even better (from a B.C. perspective), that Bonnie Henry is on record saying that there is little evidence that masks work.
The B.C. Ombudsman’s Report is also helpful. Although not binding on a court, those opinions do carry some weight. And 2 orders have already been found to be illegal.
Albion College is an undergraduate liberal arts college in Albion, Michigan. Is this where higher education is going, and should it just be allowed to collapse?
1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”
For other articles in the coronavirus series, check here. There is an awful lot that you are not being told my the mainstream media, including the lies, lobbying, money changing hands, and one world agenda. Nothing is what it appears to be. Also, check out related topics, such as: borders, education, free speech, the media.
2. No Monopoly On Education Disasters
This should be obvious, but will be mentioned anyway: this is in no way to suggest that Albion College is alone in how they operate. In Canada, the United States, and elsewhere, higher education is beyond parody. Certainly, plenty of schools operate in similar fashions. However, this article focuses on Albion. Let’s get started.
Albion College is a liberal arts college, so it its focus isn’t on providing students with actual job training. Keep that in mind.
3. Tuition Alone Is $50,000 USD/Year
For the 2020-2021 school year, tuition alone is some $50,000 for the year. Adding in the other expenses, and it works about to some $60,000. For a 4 year degree, it would be about $250,000 lost — yes, a quarter million.
Of course, that doesn’t take into account that fall-winter semesters are 8 months, not 12. There’s also being out of the workforce for at least 4 years, and interest accumulated on any loans.
A person could buy a house in many areas for that kind of money. And houses, unlike student loan debts, are dischargeable in bankruptcy. So the students going here are obviously not too bright to begin with.
4. Illegal Aliens Welcome To Study
UNDOCUMENTED & DACA-MENTED STUDENT SUPPORT
Albion College draws its strength from the rich diversity of our students. We are pleased to welcome qualified students from all backgrounds, regardless of citizenship and immigration status, into our living and learning community.
We are mindful of the challenges faced by DACA holders and undocumented students during these uncertain times and are committed to continuing to welcome and support these individuals.
FINANCIAL RESOURCES & INFORMATION
Office of Student Financial Aid Services
The Office of Student Financial Services at Albion College is committed to welcoming and supporting undocumented students and we financially support all admitted students regardless of citizenship and immigration status.
. Undocumented students qualify for all merit based scholarships offered by Albion and will be awarded scholarships based on their academic merit and geographic location. Additional financial aid is available. Please speak with your admission counselor and inform them that you are not eligible to complete the FAFSA. Your admission counselor will then work with Student Financial Services to prepare your comprehensive financial aid award.
If you have additional questions, please contact your Admission Counselor or the Office of Student Financial Services.
ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS AND CONTACTS
On-Campus Resources What do I do if I see Immigration Enforcement on campus?
Any situations on campus involving Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) should be referred to Ken Snyder, Director of Campus Safety who can be reached by calling campus safety at 517/629-0911. Mr. Snyder will consult with College counsel as necessary to verify any warrant presented.
Where can I find resources locally?
Registrar Andrew Dunham, is available to help students and their allies find resources. He can be reached at 517/629-0216 or .
. Undocumented Student Support Committee (USSC)
The USSC works to identify and address the needs of undocumented students at Albion College.
Just so you know, being undocumented, (or being in the country illegally), is actually a form of diversity, and should be welcomed. Also, being here illegally doesn’t disqualify students from obtaining financial aid. Albion gives information on avoiding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and support services.
5. Testing All Students Multiple Times
Get ready to be tested at the beginning of the year. This will also happen throughout the year, and at random intervals. Isn’t there some right to privacy for students?
6. Quarantine Before/After Moving In
The following expectations are required of students and their families prior to coming to Albion College. Remember, together, we can create a safe, engaging and dynamic fall semester!
Students should quarantine at home for at least 7 days before their move-in date.
Wear a mask when not at home.
Enjoy time with family at home! (And, do not get together with others outside of your household.)
Avoid restaurants, stores and other public indoor spaces as much as possible.
Students or their helpers who have tested positive for COVID-19 or who are experiencing symptoms should not return to campus on their scheduled move-in date. You should email to make other arrangements to return after you have been cleared by health officials.
Students are allowed up to two helpers to assist them in moving in. Say your goodbyes and goodlucks before leaving home, and only travel with the people who are absolutely necessary to help you bring your belongings into your residence hall, apartment or fraternity house. Then send a selfie or two (or ten) to document your move-in!
Move-In Day Expectations
The following expectations are required of students and their helpers during the move-in process:
. Students will be required to receive a COVID-19 test during the move-in process. Testing will be conducted with nasal swabs with a 3-day turnaround, and will be provided with no direct cost to students. More information on the testing protocol here.
. Students and their helpers will be required to wear masks/face coverings at all times during the move-in process, and are asked to do their best to maintain 6 feet of physical distance from other students and helpers, to protect each other from illness.
For those moving in, you are required to self-quarantine both before and after the move in, wear a mask, and stay 6 feet apart. This is Orwellian beyond belief. However, other schools are probably not much different.
7. Mandatory Contact Tracing For All
Students: Complete the Residential Life check-in process including verification of cell phone number and other important student information, and receive a new student ID encoded with your Fall 2020 room assignment. Cell phone numbers are vital to help the College to maintain a safe and healthy environment as students may need to be notified of positive COVID-19 tests or that they have been identified as a ‘close contact’ to someone who has tested positive for COVID-19.
After completing the check-in process, proceed to the residential building and park where instructed. Staff will direct you to the door nearest the student’s room.
Once the student has completed move-in, helpers will be expected to leave campus and not return until the end of Fall semester to assist their student in traveling back home.
Contact tracing will also be part of the school’s policies. It also looks like there won’t be any visitors allowed except for a move-out. Seriously, is this “education and accommodation” really worth $60,000 for a single year? Remember, the debt cannot be discharged even in bankruptcy.
8. Permission Needed To Leave Campus
The Washington Free Beacon reported on new policies at Albion College, such as being tracked all the time, and needing permission to leave campus. The article seems to be true, given the information Albion itself has posted. See the archive.
9. Questionable Commitment To Free Speech
Think there is a real commitment to open expression and viewpoint diversity? Well, Albion does have workshops on “overcoming white privilege”. That should tell you all you need to know.
10. Doing Nothing A Better Option
Consider once more, that tuition and expenses will come to about a quarter million dollars, (for 8 month school years). There are summer living expenses, extra living expenses, interest on the student loans, years out fo the workforce, and a brainwashing Marxist education to also factor in. And of course, student loan debts cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.
Your next few years will be a constant invasion of privacy, and having your freedoms whittled away in the name of safety.
In all honesty, staying home for a few years doing absolutely nothing would probably leave you in a better position financially than going to university at Albion. Just something to think about.
To be fair, all of the blame can’t be dumped on the school, considering that it does have to comply with Michigan’s State Orders. Nonetheless, this seems a horrible deal for students.
11. 100 Reasons Not To Do Grad School
The blog 100 Reasons Not To Go To Grad School offers an extremely thorough list of reasons to reconsider university. Although it is aimed at graduate programs, a lot of the content also applies to undergraduate as well. Very much worth a read.
Bonnie Henry states at 12:00 that gatherings of more than 50 people will “remain in place” until there is effective means to stop covid-19″. By effective means, that presumably refers to a vaccine, since that is what everyone else is pushing.
When the B.C. Government keeps talking about the “3 C”, they are repeating WHO talking points. Hardly a coincidence.
1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”
For more on the coronavirus corruption, lobbying, influence peddling, globalism, and authoritarianism, check out the series main page. There is much more to this than what the media will share with you.
2. Henry Limits Gatherings Based On No Science
On March 12, Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry issued an order to cancel gatherings (at that time) if there would be more than 250 people. However, she admitted at 7:20 in the video that this is not scientific in any way, shape, or form.
3. BC Caps Gatherings At 50 People
At this time, all event organizers are ordered to limit all public gatherings larger than 50 people. This includes indoor and outdoor sporting events, conferences, meetings, concerts, theatres, religious gatherings or other similar events. A new order from May 22, 2020 replaces the March 16, 2020 order and includes an amendment of no more than 50 vehicles for outdoor drive-in events. See the latest Order of the Provincial Health Officer on Mass gatherings.
The timing for a safe restart for activities requiring large gatherings is still to be determined as part of Phase four of BC’s Restart Plan. Opening will be conditional on at least one of the following: wide vaccination, “community immunity” or broad successful treatments.
BC again reduced that mass gatherings down form 250 people to 50 people. Again, no science or rationale behind it, other than to exert control over people.
Also noteworthy is that there will be no return to normal without:
some medical treatment
Guess we know which one the pharmaceutical industry prefers.
4. Bonnie Henry Admits No Science In Policy
On May 25, 2020, BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry said that “50 cars” was included in the guidelines for limiting groups of people who can get together. At 1:05 she states that there is no real science behind these Provincial dictates.
5. Limits Don’t Apply To Grocery Stores
Many retail food and grocery stores owners have asked whether the Order prohibiting mass gatherings of 50 or more people applies to them. The mass gathering Order does not apply to grocery stores. It applies to one time or episodic events which could result in people gathering closely together. Nevertheless, the spirit of the order with respect to physical distancing should be followed. This means that, for example, in large grocery stores where it is feasible to have more than 50 people, while still following appropriate physical distancing, it is acceptable to have over 50 people present at one time. It is also important to ensure that physical distancing is maintained for customers who might be waiting in line (e.g., waiting to enter the store, to check out, or to pick up a product). See below for greater detail on calculating the number of people allowed in a
Apparently the 50 person limit does not apply to grocery stores. It seems that this virus is smart enough to know that it’s in a store, and the type of store it’s in.
6. Limits Don’t Apply In Childcare Settings
The Provincial Health Officer’s Order for Mass Gatherings continues to prohibit gatherings and events of people in excess of 50 people, however this Order does not apply to child care settings. As such, there can be more than 50 children and staff at any given setting if they are not all in one area and if they are actively engaged in physical distancing to the greatest extent possible.
There is no evidence to support the use of medical grade, cloth, or homemade masks in child care setting at his time. Wearing one is a personal choice. It is important to treat people wearing masks with respect. More information about COVID-related mask use is available here.
At 35:15, BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry admits that there is no real science behind only letting 50 people gather. She adds afterwards that a limit of 50 is what they think would make it easier to follow people and do contact tracing. So is ease of surveillance the real reason behind the 50 person cap?
At 47 minute mark Henry talks about people still coming on international flights. Instead of talking about shutting it all down, she focuses on more restrictions of rights here.
At 16:00 into the video, Bonnie Henry talks about the number of cases BC has. She admits she doesn’t know, and only has some vague idea. Apparently, the computer modelling will be telling the Province how many people actually have it.
Modelling? From Imperial College London? Or some other source? People who follow this site will know that modelling isn’t evidence of anything at all. Just as with the climate change models, outbreak models are simply guess made by feeding assumptions into a computer.
Yes, we shut down our society, and bankrupted the nation (as did others), because of predictions produced by biased and influenced “scientists”. Good job.
9. BC Considering Mandatory Masks
Henry said while the number of COVID-19 cases in B.C. doesn’t warrant a similar law, it may be needed in the future.
“We may, during the respiratory season, with a surge, we may require people to wear masks in some indoor situations,” said Henry. “If we start to see much more transmission in our communities.”
For now, she wants British Columbians to have a mask with them when they leave the house and expects to see people wearing them on transit, in small grocery stores and anywhere physical distancing is difficult or not possible.
Bonnie Henry is only saying she “expects” people in BC to be wearing masks, but isn’t mandating them yet. However, she makes it very clear that it could happen in the near future. Talk about gaslighting.
10. Bonnie Reiterates Need For Vaccines
Henry reiterates at 4:00 that there will be no return to normal until there is a vaccine or “effective treatment” whatever that means.
At 6:45, she drops another hint why the small group. It’s not about science, but about making contact tracing easier.
11. Who Else Wants Mandatory Vaccines?
(Bill Gates predicts no more mass gathering until vaccine developed.
(See 1:30 mark in this, or original video). Trudeau claims that “normalcy will not return without a vaccine that is widely available, and that could be a very long way off”.
(From March 30, 2020 public announcement). The Government of Alberta is stating is may very well be a year to develop a vaccine.
There shouldn’t be any doubt at this point that John Horgan, Adrian Dix, Bonnie Henry, and others in the B.C. Government are on board with the vaxx agenda. When they say “treatment”, what they really mean is a vaccine.
12. BC CDC Reports Vast Majority Recover
According to the BC Center for Disease Control (added July 23, 2020), some 2,898 out of 3,392 infected people (which is 85.4%) infected with CV have recovered. Only 3 are in intensive care.
THIS IS WITH NO VACCINE WHATSOEVER.
It also has to be mentioned that governments around the world are heavily inflating their case count. So even their official numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt.
Also, governments frequently omit to mention that the overwhelming majority of these serious cases involve patients with many underlying health problems.
13. Only Option Is Fighting Back
The B.C. Government has made is clear that they have no intention of eliminating the “population control measures” that are keeping everyone in limbo until they are injected with who knows what.
This “pandemic” was never meant to be ended. The goalposts will always be shifted so that new measures can be introduced, and to make it harder to question previous agendas.
There is no reasoning with or negotiating with such a group, or any government at this point. They are all on board with the depopulation plan.