Getting Started With Searching Government Lobbying Registries

If you want to know what’s really going on in your Government, talking to you M.P. or M.P.P. or M.L.A. might be a waste of time. Instead, you should be looking at who that person actually answers to. In most cases, it is corporate lobbyists, or lobbyists pretending to be involved in politics.

We come to the 4th part in the series: how to search lobbying registries. Contrary to what one might think, these can be a gold mine of information. These include names, dates, clients, subject matter, and whether the lobbyist(s) have ever held public office.

Also in this series, we covered: (a) research, investigative journalism for beginners; (b) FOI/ATIP filings; and (c) court record searches. This is meant as introductory lessons, and not to include everything.

Broadly speaking, these registries work in much the same way. You can search for a number of different things, and see what results come up. You can limit the search to more recent entries (which is usually 1 year), or do an advanced search, which flags everything irrespective of time.

These Registries can be used to run a “background check” of sort on politicians, and prospective politicians. If they have been lobbied, or used to be lobbyists, that is important information to know. The cronyism never really goes away. A huge warning sign, as shown above, is Erin O’Toole. He used to be a lobbyist for Facebook, working for Heenan Blaikie (same law firm as Jean Chretien and Pierre Trudeau).

Why do you want to do this? Well, are you at all curious about who runs your Government, and who is engaged in influence peddling? Do you wish to know why your elected “leaders” act in ways that are often detrimental to your well being? This is a good place to start.

  • Key Words
  • Lobbyist
  • Lobbying Firm
  • Client
  • Subject (Health, Finance, Education, etc….)

Also, these Registries work very well in conjunction with placed like LinkedIn, and other personal websites. After all, once lobbyists have been identified, it’s time to learn about their many connections.

Of course, make sure to save your findings, just in case. Take screenshots, archive links, and download any pdfs that are available. Don’t want the evidence disappearing, or even getting moved innocuously.

If you have any doubts about the wealth of information that can be uncovered, just search any article on this site where such registries were checked. A few are here, here, here, and here.

Above is a recent example that shows when political handlers have interest on the side. Of course, this is not limited to just Doug Ford.

Pfizer was covered in a May 2021 article. It was shown that Loyalist Public Affairs had lobbied the Ontario Government 4 times in April of that year. 2 of the lobbyists, Dan Mader, and Chris Froggatt, claimed responsibility for installing Ford in June 2018. Both are longtime “Conservative” operatives. Mader also alleged to have helped put in Erin O’Toole as head of the CPC. This simple example shows how intertwined lobbying and politics really is.

By connecting the lobbyist to their political cronies and allies, you are able to show a clear (or at least very plausible) link for certain legislation or spending.

Another use for these Registries is they often list how much Government (or rather, taxpayer) money an organization has received. Chapters-Indigo is notorious for not honouring mask exemptions, however, they took the public for over $20 million in the last year.

In fairness, these databases don’t help if there is no formal record. Conversations and meetings that are “off the books” will not show up here. Still, this is a pretty valuable tool in seeing who is really pulling the strings.

A criticism that frequently comes up is the frustration with “who can we trust?” when it comes to reporting Government affairs. The answer is no one. Rather than relying on someone else, a more effective tool is to take the initiative, and factcheck things for yourself. If an article or posting comes with links or documents attached, then go through them, and come to your own conclusions.

There is a Federal database, Provincial/Territorial ones (except NWT and Nunavit), and a few Municipalities have them as well. Since your taxes already go towards funding these, why not take full advantage of these resources?

Federal Lobbying Registry
https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch

Alberta Lobbyist Registry
https://www.albertalobbyistregistry.ca/

British Columbia Office Of The Registrar of Lobbyists
https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/

Manitoba Lobbyist Registrar
http://www.lobbyistregistrar.mb.ca/index.php?lang=en

New Brunswick Office Of The Integrity Commissioner
https://oic-bci.ca/

Newfoundland & Labrador Registry Of Lobbyists
https://www.gov.nl.ca/dgsnl/registries/lobbyists/

Nova Scotia Registrar Of Lobbyists
https://novascotia.ca/sns/lobbyist/Default.asp

Ontario Lobbying Registry
http://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/Pages/Public/PublicSearch/Default.aspx

Prince Edward Island Lobbyist Registry
https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/en/feature/lobbyist-registry

Quebec Lobbyists Registry
https://www.commissairelobby.qc.ca/en/lobbyists-registry/

Saskatchewan Registrar Of Lobbyists
https://www.sasklobbyistregistry.ca/

Yukon Lobbyist Registry
https://yukonlobbyistregistry.ca/en

Toronto Lobbyist Registrar
https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/accountability-operations-customer-service/accountability-officers/lobbyist-registrar/

B.C. Health Care (Consent) And Care Facility (Admissions) Act Of 1996

With the looming vaccine passports in B.C. (and elsewhere), a good piece of legislation to know is the B.C. Health Care (Consent) And Care Facility (Admissions) Act Of 1996. It doesn’t really require much commentary, as the quoted passages are pretty self explanatory.

Part 2 — Consent to Health Care
.
Consent rights
4 Every adult who is capable of giving or refusing consent to health care has
(a) the right to give consent or to refuse consent on any grounds, including moral or religious grounds, even if the refusal will result in death,
(b) the right to select a particular form of available health care on any grounds, including moral or religious grounds,
(c) the right to revoke consent,
(d) the right to expect that a decision to give, refuse or revoke consent will be respected, and
(e) the right to be involved to the greatest degree possible in all case planning and decision making.

General rule — consent needed
5 (1) A health care provider must not provide any health care to an adult without the adult’s consent except under sections 11 to 15.
.
(2) A health care provider must not seek a decision about whether to give or refuse substitute consent to health care under section 11, 14 or 15 unless he or she has made every reasonable effort to obtain a decision from the adult.

Elements of consent
.
6 An adult consents to health care if
(a) the consent relates to the proposed health care,
(b) the consent is given voluntarily,
(c) the consent is not obtained by fraud or misrepresentation,
(d) the adult is capable of making a decision about whether to give or refuse consent to the proposed health care,
(e) the health care provider gives the adult the information a reasonable person would require to understand the proposed health care and to make a decision, including information about
(i) the condition for which the health care is proposed,
(ii) the nature of the proposed health care,
(iii) the risks and benefits of the proposed health care that a reasonable person would expect to be told about, and
(iv) alternative courses of health care, and
(f) the adult has an opportunity to ask questions and receive answers about the proposed health care.

How incapability is determined
7 When deciding whether an adult is incapable of giving, refusing or revoking consent to health care, a health care provider must base the decision on whether or not the adult demonstrates that he or she understands
(a) the information given by the health care provider under section 6 (e), and
(b) that the information applies to the situation of the adult for whom the health care is proposed.

No emergency health care contrary to wishes
12.1 A health care provider must not provide health care under section 12 if the health care provider has reasonable grounds to believe that the person, while capable and after attaining 19 years of age, expressed an instruction or wish applicable to the circumstances to refuse consent to the health care.

However, depending on how malicious the higher ups may be, there are sections that could be twisted and perverted to force certain types of health care. That being said, the whole issue of consent seems pretty clear cut.

Threatening someone’s livelihood, finances, or general freedoms in order to obtain consent amounts to coercion. And that is exactly what forced “vaccines” and tests do. And yes, this has been brought up many times, but these aren’t even approved by Health Canada. They have interim authorization. Considering the emergency declaration was cancelled in Ontario and B.C., this should actually be illegal.

Also check out the Ontario Health Care Consent Act of 1996. So-called medical professionals aren’t allowed to do anything to you if you don’t give voluntary and informed consent.

(1) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96181_01#part2
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/ontario-health-care-consent-act-of-1996-fyi-for-vaccines-or-tests/
(3) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(4) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(5) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
(6) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf
(7) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-27/page-9.html#docCont
(8) 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

Getting Started With Your Own Freedom Of Information/Access To Information Requests

This article is going to be different. Instead of dropping a bunch of research, today we will get into conducting your own research. Specifically, how to go about filing freedom of information (or access to information) requests. FOI/ATI are essentially the same thing, a request for documents.

You don’t have to be a journalist, reporter, or researcher to file these requests. Anyone who is curious or concerned with what’s going on, or if they have a personal issue, can file one.

Now, this is just general information of filing such requests, and how it works. Take this article as a starting place, rather than as some gospel.

Depending on the jurisdiction and/or information sought, there may or may not be a fee. Also, the fee can go up if the the search is overly broad. As a general guideline: Government bodies will typically give a person their own information for free, but may charge for general information. Also, they typically won’t hand over SOMEONE ELSE’S private information without a signed waiver or agreement.

Depending on many factors, an FOI can take anywhere from a few days, to several months for a response. There’s no one answer for how long you will wait. Now, what will the agency you file with do?

In short, a few different outcomes can happen:
(a) Government body discloses records being sought
(b) Government body ignores or delays the request
(c) Government body admits that it has no such records
(d) Government body admits having records, but refuses to release them, for some reason. More on that later.

All 4 outcomes have happened to FOI requests from here. The success rate at getting meaningful data has (anecdotally) been about 50%. That being said, these are still a valuable tool for truth seekers. If nothing else, these are quite easy to file.

A tip for making FOI requests: write it up in such a way that it’s clear you are asking for records. You likely won’t get a helpful response if this involves open ended questions. As an example:

Instead of: “Has anyone studied the physical or psychological consequences of forcing young children to wear masks?”

Try this: “I request records of any studies involving the physical or psychological effects of forcing young children to wear masks”

This may sound nitpicky and silly, but the wording does make a difference. If records are sought on a controversial topic, this could be used as an excuse to deny it, or at least delay it.

What kinds of documents can be requested?

  • Records of meetings, minutes
  • Names of people involved in a committee, study, or research
  • Conflict of interest disclosures
  • Studies or research conducted
  • Amounts of money paid to people or groups
  • Sources of funding
  • Reports filed publicly

Now, this should be commonsense, but if you wish to post your findings, consider scrubbing — removing — your personal details beforehand. At a minimum, don’t have your address splashed all over the internet, but even your name is important.

It’s worth pointing out that filing a formal FOI request may not always be necessary. Sometimes, if the information is already posted (or easy to find), just calling or emailing the Ministry or group in question may be enough to get it sent to you.

Also, if you don’t want to pay fees, or just don’t want to wait for a formal reply, see if someone has already made a similar request. In some jurisdictions, FOI results get posted online, in order to avoid duplication. If you do find what you want (from someone else), use that data. If you’re going to publish it, go ahead. Now, their personal info shouldn’t be disclosed, however, if it is, removing it would be appreciated. Their earlier work did you a favour after all.

  • Section 12: Cabinet confidences
  • Section 13: Advice or recommendations
  • Section 14: Legal advice
  • Section 15: Harm to law enforcement
  • Section 16: Harm to intergovernmental relations or negotiations
  • Section 17: Harm to financial or economic interests of a public body
  • Section 18: Harm to conservation of heritage sites
  • Section 19: Harm to individual or public safety
  • Section 20: Information to be published or released within 60 days
  • Section 21: Harm to business interests of a third party
  • Section 22: Harm to personal privacy
  • Section 22.1: Information relating to abortion services

It’s worth mentioning that Governments can (and often do) either refuse to release records, or redact parts of it. Using the BC FOIPP Act as an example, many items have exclusions (at least partially). Now, just because it’s a reason stated, doesn’t mean it’s legitimate.

When you get the results of the FOI request back, this might not be the end. There will almost always be some wording at the bottom saying that you can appeal, or request a review. Take this opportunity — especially if you’ve paid money or waited a long time — and ask for clarification on anything not understood.

As a closing thought, any readers who get something worthwhile are always welcome to submit their findings to Canuck Law. Results will be posted, with personal info removed.

P.S. Go check out Fluoride Free Peel for an extreme case on how to use FOIs to disprove a scam sprung onto the public.

ALBERTA
(a) Contact FOIP TO See If Records Already Available
(b) Service Alberta: Making A FOIP Request
(c) Alberts eServices: Make FOIP Request
(d) Freedom Of Information & Privacy Protection Act

BRITISH COLUMBIA
(a) Previously Released FOI Responses
(b) Getting Started With FOI Requests
(c) Submit General FOI Request
(d) Freedom Of Information & Protection Of Privacy Act

MANITOBA
(a) Listings Of Previously Received FOI Requests
(b) Freedom Of Information Main Portal
(c) Freedom Of Information & Privacy Protection Act

NEW BRUNSWICK
(a) Getting Started Searching For Information
(b) List Of Bodies Subject To FOI Requests
(c) Right To Information & Protection Of Privacy Act

NEWFOUNDLAND
(a) Previously Released ATIPP Results
(b) Filing Your Own Access To Information Requests
(c) ATIPP Coordinators
(d) Access To Information & Protection Of Privacy Act

NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
(a) ATIPP Reviews Posted
(b) ATIPP Main Page
(c) Access To Information request Forms
(d) Access To Information And Protection Act

NOVA SCOTIA
(a) Searching Previously Disclosed Access To Information Results
(b) Getting Started With Access To Information
(c) Guidelines For FOI And Privacy Requests
(d) Freedom Of Information & Protection Of Privacy Act

NUNAVIT
(a) How To Place ATIPP Request

ONTARIO
(a) Directory Of Records
(b) Access To Information Forms
(c) Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Provincial
(d) Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Municial

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
(a) Making A Request Under FOIPP
(b) List Of Public Bodies Covered Under Act
(c) Freedom Of Information & Protection Of Privacy Act

QUEBEC
(a) Previous ATIPP Disclosures — French Only
(b) How To Make An Access Request
(c) General Information On ATIPP
(d) Act Respecting Access to Documents Held By Public Bodies

SASKATCHEWAN
(a) Access To Information — Provincial And Municipal Acts

YUKON
(a) Searching Archives Of ATIPP Requests
(b) Access to Information Registry
(c) ATIPP Request For Access To Information
(d) ATIPP Coordinators

FEDERAL
(a) Search Existing Access To Information Requests
(b) Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Online Request
(c) Complete List Of Institutions
(d) List Of ATIP Coordinators

CPSBC Confirms No Jurisdiction To Handle Complaints Against “Public Health” Officials

In a response that should surprise no one, the CPSBC, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, has said that it has no jurisdiction to handle complaints lodged against any of its members, as long as they are acting in a “public health” capacity.

Bonnie Henry Complaint CPSBC

For some context, the typical doctor can be fined, suspended, or even lose their licenses altogether, depending on the circumstances. But doctors working as public health officials — and whose decisions impact everyone — cannot be held liable.

Of course, given that these people are appointed by politicians, there is an inherent conflict of interest. They aren’t going to be too critical of political decisions. In fact, these “top doctors” provide a level of cover for their bosses.

Then again, the CPSBC doesn’t seem to take complaints against its members too seriously, as shown in some of their recent decisions.

For more on what’s really going on in Canada, check out the CV series, and the one on health in Canada.

(1) https://www.cpsbc.ca/
(2) https://www.cpsbc.ca/about-us/annual-report
(3) https://www.cpsbc.ca/files/pdf/2020-21-AR-Disciplinary-Outcomes.pdf

A Guide For Spotting Controlled Opposition Among “Lockdown Critics” (My Take)

There are a few ways the press can do this. “Journalists” can quite openly support government restrictions, and take their subsidies. They can provide the faintest opposition to it. They cover stories while leaving out important details. None of this helps the public.

This problem exists in political spheres as well. Politicians can generally be lumped into 1 of 2 categories:

[1] Pro-Vaccine, Pro-Lockdown/Restriction
[2] Pro-Vaccine, Anti-Lockdown/Restriction

See how this works? Even the lockdown resisters support poisoning the public with God knows what.

DISCLAIMER: People who are unaware of certain things should not be lumped into this. If a person is genuinely oblivious, then they should be given the chance to get informed. The following distinction typically applies to politicians, media and other public figures.

There are the points that it’s acceptable to oppose, and to publicly come out against. Typically, they will only oppose the coercion element, but support the overall plan. Granted, they are still ahead of the subsidized media, and most politicians

ACCEPTABLE TOPICS TO OBJECT TO:
-Vaccine passports should be opposed
-Vaccines must be voluntary
-Forced PCR testing must be prevented
-Modelling projections don’t justify what’s happening
-Business closures are unjustified
-Media isn’t reporting what’s really happening
-Travel bans/restrictions are unjustified
-Mask mandates accomplish little

UNACCEPTABLE TOPICS TO OBJECT TO:
-Companies like Pfizer and their sketchy history
-The vaccines are experimental
-The vaccines have “interim authorization” not approval
-The vaccines have another 1 to 2 years of testing
-There are no longitudinal studies on the effects of such vaccines
-Governments handing out money to “increase vaccine confidence”
-Manufacturers are indemnified against lawsuits or legal action
-PCR testing is completely fraudulent when used in this way
-Modelling is a bogus pseudo-science
-This “virus” has never been isolated, possibly doesn’t exist
-Virus patents owned by Gates, Rothschild
-Media in Canada is being heavily subsidized
-Media in Canada is paid to not report the full truth
-“Fact Checker” groups in Canada are heavily subsidized
-Masks cause long term health problems, and this is done deliberately
-Biological tracking has been in the works for a long time
-Larger social agenda at play here, Great Reset
-People like Gates, Bell, Rockefeller are eugenicists
-These scenarios have been going on for years (Dark Winter, Atlantic Storm, Theresa Tam’s film, Clade X, Event 201….)
-Politicians are lobbied for their stance. (See below)

It gets a bit trickier when a public figure will wade a little bit into the unacceptable topics. That said, this should distinguish between the people pretty accurately.

Of course, there is another type to watch out for. There are people who tell the truth, but conduct themselves in such a way as to deliberately appear crazy. This is extremely off putting to the normies.

Jordan Peterson became famous for rejecting authoritarianism and compelled speech for gender pronouns. That said, he asks people to “suspend judgement another 6 months”, and supports mass vaccinating the public.

Maxime Bernier made a name for himself opposing lockdown measures. However, he still supports vaccinating Canadians, and claims to have recommended to his own father to get it. To be fair, Derek Sloan may very well be controlled as well, given his fairly tame objections.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis became a bit of a folk hero in Canada for his recent stances, particularly coming out against vaccine passports. That said, he still supports mass vaccinating his people his an experimental, unapproved concoction, with the manufacturers indemnified. See this earlier piece.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott, much like DeSantis made headlines by banning vaccine passports. That being said, he still supports injecting people in his own state, on a major scale.

South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem is held in high regard for not imposing any lockdown measures in her state. That said, she is completely on board with the vaccination agenda.

Do you get it now? All of these supposed “freedom fighters” still want to inject everyone with the experimental poison. These people are not on our side.

One would think that this admission from John Bell (AstraZeneca Chief) would lead to immediate demands to pull the drug, and open criminal investigations. Strangely, it hasn’t.

(1) Unifor, Media, In Bed With Gov’t, $595M
(2) Government Subsidizes Media To Ensure Positive Coverage
(3) Postmedia Subsidies/Connections, Lack Of Real Journalism
(4) Nordstar; Torstar; Metroland Media; Subsidies & Monopoly
(5) Aberdeen Publishing Takes Handouts, Ignores Real Issues
(6) More Periodicals Taking Grants, Parroting Gov’t Narrative
(7) Tri-City News, LMP Pulls Bonnie Henry Article; Pandemic Bucks
(8) Subsidized Fact-Check Outlets Run By Political Operatives
(9) Groups Funded By Tax Dollars To Combat “Misinformation”
(10) PHAC Supporting #ScienceUpFirst Counter Intel Effort
(11) Even More Subsidies Canadian Outlets Are Dependent On
(12) Media, Banks, Credit Unions Getting CEWS
(13) John Tory’s Sister Board Member At Bell; CEWS; Subsidies
(14) Advertising And Marketing In Promoting “Pandemic” Narrative
(15) NSERC/SSHRC/CIHR Grants In “Confidence”; Mandatory Vaxx

Ontario Health Care Consent Act Of 1996: FYI For Vaccines Or Tests

A disclaimer: this article is merely information about what laws exist. It does not constitute advice. Read, research, research further, and come to your own conclusions.

That being said, a request in Ontario had been made asking about was on the books regarding forced (or coerced) tests. This is course refers to the nasal rape sticks that are being passed off as coronavirus tests. Here is what some digging uncovered. Again, take this as information, and then decide for yourself.

On the issue of masks as a human rights issue, recent Clown Rights Tribunals have found that these demands from stores can be enforced in most cases. Simply having breathing issues is not sufficient. How it would be enforced in a health care setting is a bit more complicated. That said, let’s take a look at the poking stuff.

https://www.cpso.on.ca/About/Legislation-By-Laws
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/930856
https://www.cpso.on.ca/Physicians/Policies-Guidance/Policies/Consent-to-Treatment/Advice-to-the-Profession-Consent-to-Treatment
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-1996-c-2-sch-a/latest/so-1996-c-2-sch-a.html
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-51.html#docCont
https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-27/page-8.html#h-234517
Interim Order From Patty Hajdu

  • Know What Is Actually Considered Malpractice
  • Understand What Consent Really Is
  • Applicable Legislation: Health Care Consent Act, 1996
  • Canada Criminal Code
  • Approved v.s. Interim Authorized Treatments

1. How College Of Physicians Views Malpractice

Medicine Act, 1991
Loi de 1991 sur les médecins
ONTARIO REGULATION 856/93
PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
Consolidation Period: From December 3, 2010 to the e-Laws currency date.
Last amendment: 450/10.
This Regulation is made in English only.
.
1. (1) The following are acts of professional misconduct for the purposes of clause 51 (1) (c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code
.
2. Failing to maintain the standard of practice of the profession.
.
3. Abusing a patient verbally or physically.
.
7. Discontinuing professional services that are needed unless,
i. the patient requests the discontinuation,
ii. alternative services are arranged, or
iii. the patient is given a reasonable opportunity to arrange alternative services.
.
8. Failing to fulfil the terms of an agreement for professional services.
.
9. Performing a professional service for which consent is required by law without consent.
.
12. Failing to reveal the exact nature of a secret remedy or treatment used by the member following a proper request to do so.
.
13. Making a misrepresentation respecting a remedy, treatment or device.
.
14. Making a claim respecting the utility of a remedy, treatment, device or procedure other than a claim which can be supported as reasonable professional opinion.

On the College of Physicians and Surgeons for Ontario website, they have a link to a very extensive list of what is considered to be malpractice. On the surface, forcing “Covid tests” would certainly seem to qualify as misconduct on several counts. If a person cannot access health care in a normal fashion without having this pushed on them, it would appear to count as misconduct, at least in Ontario.

Also, #12 makes it very clear that the exact nature of whatever medical procedure must be explained. That includes the process, and the risks. This cannot be shrugged off. Obviously, they will be at a loss to explain how these “Covid tests” or these “vaccines” actually work.

2. CPSO Describes Consent For Treatment

Source of Obligations
What is the source of my consent obligations?
.
Physicians have both legal and professional obligations to obtain consent prior to providing treatment. Although the policy does not contain an exhaustive catalogue, it does highlight many of the legal obligations set out in the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 (HCCA). It also sets out certain obligations that are not codified in the HCCA, but are professional expectations of physicians set by the College.

My patient is refusing to consent to a treatment that I think they should have. Does this mean they are incapable?
.
Not necessarily. Patients and SDMs have the legal right to refuse or withhold consent. Consent can also be withdrawn at any time, by the patient if they are capable with respect to the treatment at the time of the withdrawal, or by the patient’s SDM if the patient is incapable.
.
Patients or SDMs may sometimes make decisions that are contrary to the physician’s treatment advice. You cannot automatically assume that because the patient is making a decision you do not agree with, that they are incapable of making that decision.
.
It is possible, however, that a patient’s decision may cause you to question whether the patient has the capacity to make the decision (e.g., that the patient may not truly understand the consequences of not proceeding with the treatment). Where this is the case, you may want to consider doing a more thorough investigation of the patient’s capacity to ensure the patient’s decision is informed and valid.
.
It is important to remember that it is inappropriate for a physician to end the physician-patient relationship in situations where the patient chooses not to follow the physician’s treatment advice (for more information, see the College’s Ending the Physician-Patient Relationship policy).

The CPSO makes it clear that consent is MANDATORY in order to do anything to the patient. Moreover, it is explicitly stated that it’s considered inappropriate to terminate the patient-physician relationship just because the doctor doesn’t personally agree with the patient’s decision(s).

3. Ontario Health Care Consent Act, 1996

Purposes
.
1 The purposes of this Act are,
(a) to provide rules with respect to consent to treatment that apply consistently in all settings;
(b) to facilitate treatment, admission to care facilities, and personal assistance services, for persons lacking the capacity to make decisions about such matters;
(c) to enhance the autonomy of persons for whom treatment is proposed, persons for whom admission to a care facility is proposed and persons who are to receive personal assistance services by,
(i) allowing those who have been found to be incapable to apply to a tribunal for a review of the finding,
(ii) allowing incapable persons to request that a representative of their choice be appointed by the tribunal for the purpose of making decisions on their behalf concerning treatment, admission to a care facility or personal assistance services, and
(iii) requiring that wishes with respect to treatment, admission to a care facility or personal assistance services, expressed by persons while capable and after attaining 16 years of age, be adhered to;

No treatment without consent
.
10 (1) A health practitioner who proposes a treatment for a person shall not administer the treatment, and shall take reasonable steps to ensure that it is not administered, unless,
(a) he or she is of the opinion that the person is capable with respect to the treatment, and the person has given consent; or
(b) he or she is of the opinion that the person is incapable with respect to the treatment, and the person’s substitute decision-maker has given consent on the person’s behalf in accordance with this Act.

Elements of consent
.
11 (1) The following are the elements required for consent to treatment:
1. The consent must relate to the treatment.
2. The consent must be informed.
3. The consent must be given voluntarily.
4. The consent must not be obtained through misrepresentation or fraud.
.
Informed consent
(2) A consent to treatment is informed if, before giving it,
(a) the person received the information about the matters set out in subsection (3) that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would require in order to make a decision about the treatment; and
(b) the person received responses to his or her requests for additional information about those matters
.
Same
(3) The matters referred to in subsection (2) are:
1. The nature of the treatment.
2. The expected benefits of the treatment.
3. The material risks of the treatment.
4. The material side effects of the treatment.
5. Alternative courses of action.
6. The likely consequences of not having the treatment.

The 1996 Health Care Consent Act makes it clear that consent to any medical treatment must be voluntary, informed, and the risks spelled out. These are not things that can just be ignored under the guise of an “emergency”.

For the nasal rape sticks: ask probing questions. Ask what are the effects of putting cotton almost to the brain barrier? Ask if they have verified themselves the sticks are not contaminated in any way. Ask how the PCR test works, and get specific information.

For the gene replacement “vaccines”: ask about the lack of testing on certain groups. Ask about the ongoing testing, and how they can be sure they are safe. Ask if they know and understand what is even in them. This shouldn’t be controversial.

Offences Against the Person and Reputation (continued)
Duties Tending to Preservation of Life (continued)
Marginal note:Duty of persons undertaking acts dangerous to life

4. Canada Criminal Code Provisions

Duty of persons undertaking acts dangerous to life
.
216 Every one who undertakes to administer surgical or medical treatment to another person or to do any other lawful act that may endanger the life of another person is, except in cases of necessity, under a legal duty to have and to use reasonable knowledge, skill and care in so doing.

Duty of persons undertaking acts dangerous to life
Marginal note: Duty of persons undertaking acts
.
217 Every one who undertakes to do an act is under a legal duty to do it if an omission to do the act is or may be dangerous to life.

Duty of persons undertaking acts dangerous to life
Marginal note: Duty of persons directing work
.
217.1 Every one who undertakes, or has the authority, to direct how another person does work or performs a task is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task.

Criminal negligence
.
219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
(a) in doing anything, or
(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,
shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
.
Definition of duty
(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

Assault
.
265 (1) A person commits an assault when
(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;
(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or
(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.
.
Marginal note: Application
.
(2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault.
.
Marginal note: Consent
.
(3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of
(a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;
(b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;
(c) fraud; or
(d) the exercise of authority.

Just a take on this, but could pressuring people to take needles into their arms, or sticks up their nose, be seen as breaching the Criminal Code of Canada? Serious crimes can’t be masked simply by classifying them as medical care.

5. Interim Authorization V.S. Approval

To make this point, consider these categories:

(a) 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
(b) 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, if an Interim Order is signed. Commonly referred to as an emergency use authorization.

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

Here’s a question that even small children should be able to understand: Looking at the product monographs, does it say these “vaccines were approved? Or does it say they were authorized under section 5 of an Interim Order? If the person doesn’t know, (and most won’t), pushing for vaccination would probably be malpractice.

It can’t really be informed consent if the people pushing it have no information about the product in question.

6. No Science Behind Any Of This

Too long to detail here, but there is no real science behind any of this so called “pandemic”. As an example, these “gold-standard” PCR tests are unable to distinguish between dead genetic material and an active infection. Using them at all is fraudulent. Feel free to argue any of this.

Now, just because these protections are in place, it doesn’t mean that health care workers actually know about them. It also doesn’t mean that they will care if push comes to shove.

That being said: at least know what you are talking about when you try to assert your rights. Perhaps bring a recording device if possible. That should make it easier for the patient.

To reiterate from before: all of this content is for informational purposes, and should not be considered professional advice. Please, do your own homework.