BCOHRC Deliberately Misrepresents Basic Information In Vaccination “Guidance”

The following piece comes from a “guidance document” that the BC Office of the Human Rights Commissioner recently published. In short, people CAN lose their jobs or livelihood.

To be clear, the Government won’t mandate this for B.C. That being said, employers will have wide discretion to require it, if they deem it “essential”. Is enabling all that much better?

Their media representative, Elaine (her last name has been scrubbed) was evasive, and tap danced around important information. This included: (a) vaccines not being approved, but having interim authorization; (b) how experimental vaccines can be pushed given BC cancelled its state of emergency; (c) the lack of long term testing; and (d) indemnified manufacturers, among other things

In short, the BCOHRC seems more content with the “illusion” of protecting human rights, rather than “actually” protecting human rights.

If Elaine, or her employer, cared about so-called marginalized people, they wouldn’t allow for experimental injections to be a condition of certain jobs. Despite all the social justice nonsense on their website, it’s clear that it’s all just for show.

From page 3:

Policies that treat people differently based on whether they have been vaccinated—“vaccination status policies”—must remain consistent with the obligations legislated under B.C.’s Human Rights Code. Individuals must be protected from discrimination based on their place of origin, religion, physical or mental disability, family status or other Code-protected ground.

Employers, landlords and service providers (duty bearers) can, in some limited circumstances, implement vaccination status policies—but only if other less intrusive means of preventing COVID-19 transmission are inadequate for the setting and if due consideration is given to the human rights of everyone involved.

Vaccination status policies should be justified by scientific evidence relevant to the specific context, time-limited and regularly reviewed, proportional to the risks they seek to address, necessary due to a lack of less-intrusive alternatives and respectful of privacy to the extent required by law. In applying such a vaccination
status policy, duty bearers must accommodate those who cannot receive a vaccine to the point of undue hardship.

No one’s safety should be put at risk because of others’ personal choices not to receive a vaccine. Just as importantly, no one should experience harassment or unjustifiable discrimination when there are effective alternatives to vaccination status policies.

People must be protected based on certain identity groups. But humans as a whole aren’t worth consideration. Now, from page 6:

Evidence-based — Evidence (of the risk of transmission in the specific setting) is required to justify policies that restrict individual rights for the purpose of protecting collective public health or workplace safety. Such policies must be aligned with up-to date public health recommendations and reflect current medical and epidemiological understanding of the specific risks the policy aims to address.

But once again, these are not approved, and there is no long term testing. From page 7:

The COVID-19 vaccines approved by Health Canada have proven highly effective at protecting individuals from COVID-19 infection and serious illness.

Except they aren’t approved. From page 8:

Migrant and undocumented workers, many of whom do not have a Personal Health Number, may be unaware they are eligible for the vaccine or concerned about revealing their immigration status.

Interesting the concern for “undocumented workers”, which is a euphemism for illegal aliens. The BCOHRC cares more about people illegally in the country than legitimate safety concerns of their guidelines. From page 10:

In my view, a person who chooses not to get vaccinated as a matter of personal preference—especially where that choice is based on misinformation or misunderstandings of scientific information—does not have grounds for a human rights complaint against a duty bearer implementing a vaccination status policy.

It would be nice to know what “misinformation or misunderstandings” would apply here. And in fact, that question was posed to Elaine. But as stated, the BCOHRC seems more concerned about appearing to care about human rights, than actually caring about human rights. Continuing from page 11:

Conclusion
It is in challenging times that it is most critical to place human rights at the centre of our decision making. No one’s safety should be put at risk because of other people’s personal choices not to receive a vaccine, and no one should experience harassment or unjustified discrimination when there are effective alternatives to vaccination
status policies.

We must all guard against the impulse to react out of fear, speculation and stereotyping. Restrictions imposed in the name of safety must be justified based on the most current public health recommendations reflecting the best available medical and scientific evidence, relevant to a specific setting.

While these paragraphs sound great, the BCOHRC is more concerned about optics and pretending to care about human rights.

Though this document doesn’t officially call for mandatory injections, it’s intended to provide instructions on how employers can get around it.

When specifically asked about approved v.s. authorized injections, Elaine pivots by claiming it’s not the place of the BCOHRC to provide medical advice. If she was being straightforward, this issue would have been addressed directly.

And no, this isn’t just some academic musings. Elaine made it clear that the BCOHRC intended for this document to be used as a guideline throughout B.C.

(1) https://bchumanrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/BCOHRC_Jul2021_Vaccination-Policy-Guidance_FINAL.pdf
(2) BCOHRC_Jul2021_Vaccination-Policy-Guidance_FINAL
(3) Section 30.1, Canada Food & Drug Act
(4) Interim (Emergency) Order Signed By Patty Hajdu
(5) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(6) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(7) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
(8) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

In case anyone thinks this may be unfair, here is the entire email exchange, going back to last week. Does it sound like a person giving straightforward answers?


From: Ronnie Lempert editor@canucklaw.ca
Sent: July 14, 2021 1:51 PM
To: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Subject: media request for information on document

Hello,

I run a small site in BC and came across this

https://bchumanrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/BCOHRC_Jul2021_Vaccination-Policy-Guidance_FINAL.pdf

There are some questions about its implementation, as it would impact readers.

Any chance of getting in touch?

Thanks,
Ronnie (Editor)
XXX-XXX-XXXX


From: “XXXXXXXX Elaine OHRC:EX” Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 2:09 PM
To: “editor@canucklaw.ca” editor@canucklaw.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Ronnie,

Thank you for reaching out to us.

The Commissioner is not doing media on this release, and of course implementation and roll out decisions are going to come from government and other agencies, not BCOHRC

However, if you have specific questions about the guidance that fall within our jurisdiction, if you send them to me via email, I will check and see if there is any more information we have to provide to you.

Thank you,
Elaine

Elaine XXXXXXX (she/her)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Communications
BC’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner
Office: 1-844-922-XXXX | Cell: 1-250-216-XXXX
bchumanrights.ca | @humanrights4bc


From: Ronnie Lempert editor@canucklaw.ca
Sent: July 14, 2021 2:33 PM
To: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Elaine

I’d hoped to ask in person, but here are the important parts.

(1) The Government takes its advice from the BCOHRC, does it not? So wouldn’t your reports and recommendations be considered, at a minimum?

(2) This document says on the top of page 10:
In my view, a person who chooses not to get vaccinated as a matter of personal preference—especially where that choice is based on misinformation or misunderstandings of scientific information—does not have grounds for a human rights complaint against a duty bearer implementing a vaccination status policy.

Okay, specifically, what would be a misunderstanding or what would count as misinformation?

(3) Middle of page 7, it’s stated that the vaccines are “approved by Health Canada”. However, when looking up the product inserts, they don’t say approved anywhere. They say “authorized under an interim order”.

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

So, are these vaccines approved, or are they given interim authorization? They are not the same thing.

(4) Considering that testing has gone on for about a year, how can the BCOHRC say with any confidence if and what any side effects would be in 5 or 10 years?

(5) Are the manufacturers indemnified against lawsuits from any injury?

(6) Will the BCOHRC assume any responsibility/liability if this policy were implemented for any injuries/deaths?

(7) What cost/benefit analysis was done in coming to the decision that mandatory vaccines may be required? Could I have a copy of those studies?

(8) Has the extensive legal history, particularly with Pfizer, been any sort of deterrent in coming to this kind of decision?

(9) Does imposing this vaccination requirement result in a backdoor vaccine passport?

(10) Considering BC ended its state of emergency June 30, what is the legal basis for allowing the requirement of these vaccines?

(11) If my boss fired me for refusing a vaccine based on the above questions, what would the BCOHRC do? Would you determine that the employer has a right to demand them? Would you determine that I am uninformed?

I realize this is a lot, but that document is a cause for concern.

Thanks,
Ronnie


From: “XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX” Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 3:14 PM
To: “editor@canucklaw.ca” editor@canucklaw.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hi Ronnie,

That’s a long list. I will see if I can help clarify where possible.

I am sure you understand several of these questions are out of scope.

It’s nearing end of day. Would you let me know of your deadline please?

Thank you,
Elaine


From: Ronnie Lempert editor@canucklaw.ca
Sent: July 14, 2021 4:06 PM
To: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Elaine,

There isn’t a specific deadline, but whenever they can be done.

If there is someone in a different department or division who might have insight on some of them, they are welcome to add it in as well.

I realize this is a lot, but the kind of audience I write for doesn’t like the idea that their livelihoods could be conditional on taking this, for the issues outlined below

Thanks,
Ronnie

P.S. you are always welcome to visit the site if any of the content interests you.
https://canucklaw(dot)ca


From: “XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX” Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 2:14 PM
To: “editor@canucklaw.ca” editor@canucklaw.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hi Ronnie,

I am able to get back to you today with clarifications from our Office.

This document is intended to provide guidance to duty bearers under B.C.’s Human Rights Code, including employers, housing providers, service providers, and government insofar as government plays each of these roles. Our hope is that duty bearers will consider – and follow – our recommendations.

You will note that this guidance does not contain a recommendation that government put into place a mandatory vaccine requirement, but it does allow for proof-of-vaccine requirements in some circumstances.

Our legislative mandate empowers us to provide public guidance and recommendations on matters of public policy by clarifying existing human rights laws and advising how new laws and public policy must be adapted to adhere to them. You can read the provisions of B.C.’s Human Rights Code here.

It is not within our mandate to provide medical advice. We rely on public health guidance issued by the Office of the Provincial Health Officer and the BC Centres for Disease Control, and invite you to refer to their work.

It is also not within our mandate to address individual human rights complaints. All human rights complaints in the province – including those made concerning COVID-19 accommodations such as masking and vaccination – are managed by a separate entity, the BC Human Rights Tribunal. You can read more about the purpose and function of the BC Human Rights Tribunal here.

Thank you,
Elaine


From: Ronnie Lempert editor@canucklaw.ca
Sent: July 15, 2021 3:08 PM
To: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Elaine,

If you hope that your recommendations will be followed, then what’s wrong with getting clarification from your office? I’m trying to determine exactly what you are calling for.

As just one example, these vaccines have interim authorization under an emergency order, (an emergency now cancelled in BC). See attached screenshots. On page 7 of the document they are referred to as “approved”, which distorts the truth. Does this concern you?

On page 10 of the document, it’s stated that people who refuse to get it for person reasons will not be protected. It also states that misinformation or misunderstandings are not an excuse. It’s a valid question to ask what qualifies as “misinformation”.

Also, does pointing out the lack of long term testing, or manufacturer indemnification count as misinformation?

To be blunt, it appears that the BCOHRC is empowering employers and others to force/coerce people into taking it, while glossing over the experimental status of these vaccines.

A human rights approach to proof of vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic (bchumanrights.ca)

Hopefully I’m wrong,
Thanks,
Ronnie


From: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX” Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 5:07 PM
To: “editor@canucklaw.ca” editor@canucklaw.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Ronnie,

As discussed last week, here is additional clarification from our Office.

To clarify, our Office focuses on promoting and protecting human rights through education, research, advocacy, monitoring and public inquiry into issues of systemic discrimination in the province. Our legislative mandate is specifically focused on systemic discrimination, and therefore we are not able to comment on individual cases nor can we provide legal advice.

The vaccination status guidance offers general advice on how duty bearers can respect human rights if developing vaccination status policies — that is, policies that treat people differently based on whether or not they have been vaccinated against COVID-19.

B.C.’s Human Rights Commissioner Kasari Govender and our Office have not advocated for mandatory vaccination.

The purpose of the guidance document is to provide a human rights based lens to the development of vaccination status policies. It offers general advice on how duty bearers should respect human rights law when developing policies that treat people differently based on whether or not they have been vaccinated against COVID-19. The document follows current health guidance from the PHO and BCCDC, as well as sources cited in the guidance document and footnotes.

It is the position of BCOHRC that human rights law provides that duty bearers (such as employers) can implement vaccination status policies, only if less intrusive means of preventing transmission are not possible and with accommodations in place, as per the guidance. Vaccination status policies must remain consistent with the obligations legislated under B.C.’s Human Rights Code.

I hope this clarifies for you. We don’t have anything to add that isn’t already in the guidance, so suggest if you are looking for more specific details on potential future scenarios or the legal parameters of instituting proof of vaccination policies (these are still evolving as this is such a new issue across the board), that you seek context from a lawyer experienced in human rights, privacy and workplace law.

Thank you,
Elaine


From: Ronnie Lempert editor@canucklaw.ca
Sent: July 19, 2021 6:59 PM
To: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Elaine,

My biggest concern — one which is getting sidestepped here, it that you are laying out guidelines for EXPERIMENTAL and UNAPPROVED vaccines (interim authorization is not approved), and never make it clear that that this is the case. In short, the recommendations are based on misleading, or at best, incomplete information.

Saying “we don’t provide legal advice” is a bit of a cop out, since policies will likely be drafted based on the recommendations your office makes.

For the record, is it BCOHRC’s position that these are fully approved? Or just authorized for emergency use?

On a semi-related note: I’m curious what studies or cost/benefit analysis has been done, either for this, or for you recommendations on masks. Anything that debated or considered physical or psychological harms? Do you have anything you could share? Alternatively, is there anything publicly posted that you relied on? I’d like to see specifically what science has been relied on.

Thanks.
Ronnie


Hi Ronnie,

You can read all of our current and past COVID-19 guidance, including footnotes and references here: https://bchumanrights.ca/key-issues/covid-19/

You can read Health Canada information about vaccines here: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drugs-vaccines-treatments/vaccines.html

We have nothing further to add or say that has not already been published.

Thank you,
Elaine


An astute person will realize that not once did she address the issue of these “vaccines” being authorized under a (now cancelled) emergency order, and not approved.

Meet Dr. Abdu Sharkawy: Paid, Professional Commentator For Vaccines And Lockdowns

Abdu Sharkawy frequently appears on CTV News as an “infectious diseases expert”. Strange thing however, it’s not disclosed that he’s actually a professional speaker, who makes money on the circuit. He is part of the NSB, or National Speakers Bureau. This is an agency that connects speakers with organizations searching for someone on a particular topic. It’s a sort of referral agency.

The NSB will connect people with a speaker on a variety of different subjects. These include: current events, education, finance, health, leadership, media, motivational speaking, and much more. This group claims not to charge a fee, which implies that it will be getting a piece of whatever contract is signed with the speaker in question.

While there is nothing inherently wrong with making money, these types of arrangements show that a person is interested in doing this for the long haul. This isn’t just a one time event, or a special occasion. Sharkawy, like the others, see this as just a way of doing business.

It can also create serious conflicts of interest, depending on who the audience is, and in what context. It’s even worse when these payments are not disclosed, as seems to be the case here.

Having a handler arrange for people to appear in the media as an “expert” brings back memories of Tom Quiggin and One Godless Woman.

Sharkawy is hardly the only person who moonlights with a conflicting job. Michael Warner is head of the Canadian Division of askthedoctor.com. Kumar Murty of OST runs a technology company called PerfectCloudIO, which stands to profit from lockdowns. Kwame McKenzie of OST led the research into the 2017 UBI project in Ontario. And on a related note: Trillium Health Partners got a $5 million gift from a company that makes face masks.

Speaker Biography
.
Dr. Abdu Sharkawy is a world-renowned internal medicine and infectious diseases specialist who is based in Toronto, Canada.
.
From the outset of the Covid-19 Pandemic, Dr. Sharkawy was one of the key authorities speaking on and educating the public about the Covid-19 pandemic on a global stage.
.
Dr. Sharkawy has provided extensive knowledge about the Covid-19 pandemic to many audiences on a global stage. He has spoken about the pandemic on well-known media platforms, such as Dr. Phil, ABC News, Al-Jazeera and BBC News, and he is the leading source of COVID-19 information for the biggest news network in Canada, CTV News. Millions of Canadians rely upon Dr. Sharkawy’s medical expertise, as a part of their daily routines.
.
Working on the frontlines of the COVID-19 pandemic, in one of the largest hospital networks in Canada, has undoubtedly allowed Dr. Sharkawy to have a unique perspective on the pandemic. Dr. Sharkawy has spoken on several key areas of the pandemic, including but not limited to, the vaccines, the trajectory of the virus, and the best/worst case scenarios for the future.

That is from Sharkawy’s professional profile with NSB. He has spoken not just in Canada, but internationally on this subject. Millions of Canadians rely on his medical expertise.

All of that said, it doesn’t appear that his arrangement his NSB (or any other agency), or his fees, have ever been publicly discussed. He is referred to as a doctor, and an infectious diseases expert, but not as a paid actor. This is pretty important information to leave out.

Yes, he does appear quite regularly on CTV, spreading fear-porn each time. However, this arrangement as a professional speaker is not disclosed. Here are a few examples of what he has been saying.

If they were going to use him at all, CTV should have disclosed Sharkawy’s side job as a professional speaker. It should be done at least once each appearance. Being working for CTV, he does have other clients.

On March 19, 2021, Sharkawy spoke with the B.C. Pharmacists Association on the subject of vaccine rollouts. May 6, 2021, he talked about these mysterious variants that were overwhelming Canada.

  • Abbott
  • Amgen
  • AstraZeneca
  • Janssen (owned by Johnson & Johnson)
  • London Drugs
  • Merck
  • Pfizer
  • PriceSmart Food Pharmacies
  • Sandoz (part of Novartis)
  • Save On Foods Pharmacy
  • Urban Fare Pharmacy
  • Westland Insurance

It gets even worse, as the B.C. Pharmacists Association has is funded by big pharma. However, this isn’t surprising. If you view companies like Pfizer and Merck as the manufacturers or wholesalers, pharmacies are just the retail end of it.

Sharkawy promotes vaccines for one of his clients that is funded by big pharma. Is there anything wrong with this?

Shawkawy has also been promoting the group ThisIsOurShot. It’s been targeting minority populations for vaccination, while downplaying the actual risk. The group is also selling T-shirts, which is going to help Kids Help Phone. This is morbid, considering that child mental health has deteriorated in large part due to the lockdowns that Sharkawy supports.

Go on his Twitter account. He spends a lot of time posting and retweeting about vaccination and more restrictions.

Sharkawy is also an Assistant Professor at the University of Toronto, which has endless connections to the Ontario Science Table, promoting lockdowns in that Province. The OST also has numerous conflicts of interest, which has been outlined on this site.

With all of the side work that Sharkawy does, when does he find the time to actually practice as a doctor? This isn’t even sarcasm.

Now, a few points must be addressed about CTV itself.

This is a summary of CTV News policies and is not meant to be comprehensive. CTV News is committed to producing journalism that is accurate, fair and complete. Our journalists act with honesty, transparency, and independence, including from conflicts of interest.

CTV claims that it has a strong ethics code, which specifically includes conflicts of interest. Fine, but what about the experts they bring on? This wasn’t difficult to find. Was no due diligence done before giving Abdu Sharkawy the microphone? Or have they known about these other interests, but just kept silent? Was he recruited using the NSB group?

CTV is also part of the Trust Project, which sounds Orwellian.

UPDATE TO ARTICLE

The National Speakers Bureau did respond to an inquiry on Sharkawy. His fee for a virtual event would be $12,000. An in person event would presumably cost much more. Now, who would pay this kind of money, unless they had a financial interest in what he had to say?

(1) https://www.nsb.com/
(2) https://www.nsb.com/speakers/abdu-sharkawy/#/!
(3) https://www.nsb.com/topics/
(4) https://archive.is/CCpOf
(5) Abdu Sharkawy On How Schools Should Become
(6) Abdu Sharkawy Pushing Vaccines On Canadians
(7) Abdu Sharkawy On The Terrifying “Second Wave”
(8) https://www.bcpharmacy.ca/conference/agenda-speakers
(9) https://archive.is/o1l6q
(10) https://www.bcpharmacy.ca/conference/sponsors
(11) https://www.bcpharmacy.ca/news/bcpha-2021-conference-highlights-dr-abdu-sharkawy
(12) https://archive.is/o27zw
(13) https://twitter.com/SharkawyMD/status/
(14) https://twitter.com/SharkawyMD/status/1391100381766189065
(15) https://facdir.deptmedicine.utoronto.ca/Detail.aspx?id=1640&fromone=1
(16) https://canucklaw.ca/health-care-reviews/
(17) https://www.ctvnews.ca/editorial-standards-and-policies
(18) https://thetrustproject.org/

CV #66(E): Ontario Inserts, Then Removes Protection Against “No Jab, No Job” By Employers

Worker rights are always important, especially if employers want to mandate they take experimental, unapproved gene replacement therapy. But what does the Ontario Government have to say?

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/r20228
https://archive.is/pZoao (May 29, 2020)
https://files.ontario.ca/books/ontariogazette_153-24.pdf
Ontario Gazette June 13 Page 59 ESA Protections
https://archive.is/A03GF (March 2, 2021)
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/r20228 (as of today)
https://archive.is/6atpm (as of today)

Section 30.1, Canada Food & Drug Act
Interim (Emergency) Order Signed By Patty Hajdu
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

The Infectious Disease Emergency Leave Provisions of the Employment Standards Act came into effect in May 2020. They were written up to be retroactive to January 2020. Sounds reasonable enough.

Now, this portion of the Ontario Employment Standards Act has undergone revision, several times. That being said, there is one particularly interesting provision. Specifically: protections were put in, then removed, for workers who don’t want to receive the “vaccine”.

Reasons an employee may take infectious disease emergency leave
.
Employees can take infectious disease emergency leave if they will not be performing the duties of their position because of any of the following reasons:
.
(4) The employee is under a direction given by their employer in response to the employer’s concern that the employee might expose other individuals in the workplace to a designated infectious disease. The ESA does not require employers to pay employees during that time.
Examples include where the employer:
(a) is concerned that employees who have not received the COVID-19 vaccine may expose others in the workplace to COVID-19 and tells them not to come to work until they have been vaccinated
(b) directed an employee to stay at home for a period of time if the employee has recently travelled internationally and the employer is concerned the employee may expose others in the workplace to a designated infectious disease

Reasons an employee may take infectious disease emergency leave
.
(4) The employee is under a direction given by their employer in response to the employer’s concern that the employee might expose other individuals in the workplace to a designated infectious disease. The ESA does not require employers to pay employees during that time.
.
Examples include where the employer directed an employee to stay at home for a period of time if the employee has recently travelled internationally and the employer is concerned the employee may expose others in the workplace to a designated infectious disease

The top quote is how the March 2, 2021, and the lower quote is how the law currently reads. The April 2021 update keeps the provision for international travel, but removes the protection for workers who don’t want to be vaccinated.

Now, it could be argued that this removal isn’t conclusive, and that the Government still could enforce such protections anyway. In that case, why was it removed then? The people drafting it saw a need to specifically include protections against forced vaccination. There was a concern they were addressing. Then they specifically wrote it out.

To further 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. Commonly referred to as an emergency use authorization.

These “vaccines” fall under the second category. They were authorized under a temporary order, because politicians declared that it was worth the risk. They are not, and have never been, approved.

And Doug Ford’s Government removed protections for workers that would have provided cover from bosses who make this demand. Once again, these were never approved, and simply given temporary authorization. So much for his slogan: “For The People”.

A Serious Proposal: Economic Warfare Against Businesses Forcing Vaccines

https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1355245943826894850

We are told in the West that the free market and personal choice are what make some businesses thrive, all while others die off. It’s time to really test that theory.

1. Disclaimer Against Physical Violence

This should go without saying, but will be anyway: This is NOT a call for physical violence, or breaking the law. Rather it is using the power as consumers to cripple businesses who engage in practices the public finds abhorrent. And forcing employees to take an experimental, mRNA vaccine to combat something with a 99% recovery rate is about as bad is gets. So let these places die off.

2. Bankrupt Companies Who Do This

The above video went viral (no pun intended), on Twitter. The man argues that this policy will be necessary for all new employees. Interestingly, the virus is so smart that legacy or grandfathered employees are not at risk. That alone guts any real argument that it’s necessary

What he doesn’t seem to realize is that those same “safety” arguments can be turned around against him. He may claim that it’s required to protect the public. We could just as easily argue that bankrupting such businesses — and deterring others in the future — is in the public interest. These mRNA injections aren’t really even vaccines, but more of a gene replacement therapy.

Is this coercion? Absolutely not! Businesses fail all the time because they charge do much, offer poor products of services, or get squeezed out by better competitors. It’s the free market doing its thing. And by that logic, companies who DON’T pressure people into risking their lives are a superior alternative.

Yes, he (most likely) does have the right to stick that in an employment contract for new employees. And we, as consumers, have the right to cripple his business, and any other such business.

In the show “Game of Thrones”, heads were put on spikes as a warning to others. It’s possible to do the ECONOMIC equivalent here: ruin businesses who mandate these “vaccines” as a warning to others considering similar policies.

If imposing this requirement is personal choice, then so is the decision to shut down companies who are involved in it. In a way, this isn’t much different than what some vegans do, but it’s easier to rally people behind.

  • Refuse to shop there
  • Discourage friends and family to shop there
  • Publicize these companies
  • Prospective employees: file lawsuits, complaints
  • (To business owners), refuse to provide service to such people

Will companies facing bankruptcy feel that forcing poisonous injections is necessary? Probably not, as principles tend to fly by the wayside when money is involved.

3. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the GREAT RESET. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. The International Health Regulations are legally binding. The media is paid off. The virus was never isolated, PCR tests are a fraud, as are forced masks, social bubbles, and 2m distancing.

Bill C-405: Erin O’Toole Tried To Make It Easier For Companies To Transfer Employee Pensions In 2018

In 2018, the CPC MP for Durham, Erin O’Toole, introduced C-405, a Private Member’s Bill to make changes regarding employee pension plans. While touted as some great overhaul for workers, things are not what they appear to be.

1. Pensions, Benefits, Worker Entitlements

The public is often unaware of what is happening with their pensions and other social benefits. Often, changes are made with little to no input from the people who are directly impacted by it. Unfortunate, but we need to constantly be on top of these things.

2. Important Links

Private Member’s Bill C-405 Introduced By Erin O’Toole
Text Of Bill C-405 (First Reading)
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985
Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act
Open Parliament: Announcement From Erin O’Toole
Open Parliament: Debate On Bill C-405

3. Bill C-405 Introduced In June 2018

Bill for Private Members rarely get far in the House of Commons, let alone pass. Often, they are just a way to signal to the sponsor that efforts are being made. O’Toole’s Bill didn’t get anywhere in Parliament, but it’s unclear how serious he was about pushing it.

4. Pension Benefits Standards Act

Termination and Winding-up of Pension Plans
Marginal note:Deemed termination
.
29 (1) The revocation of registration of a pension plan shall be deemed to constitute termination of the plan.

Effect of termination on assets
.
(8) On the termination of the whole of a pension plan, all assets of the plan that are to be used for the purpose of providing pension benefits or other benefits continue to be subject to this Act.

The language of section 29(8) of the Pension Benefits Standards Act is quite clear. Once a pension plan is terminated, the funds must be dispersed to those who have contributed to the plan. Here is part of what O’Toole wanted to add.

Amendment — liquidation, assignment or bankruptcy of the employer
(8.‍1) If an employer is the subject of proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act or Part III of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the amount required to permit a pension plan to satisfy all obligations with respect to pension benefits and other benefits to be provided under the plan is greater than the assets of the plan, the administrator may
.
(a) despite subsection 10.‍1(2) and the terms of the plan, amend the plan to change the nature or form of the pension benefits and other benefits to be provided under the plan; or
.
(b) apply to the Superintendent for permission to transfer or permit the transfer of any part of the assets or liabilities of the pension plan to another pension plan.
Consent to amendment
.
(8.‍2) Before a pension plan may be amended or part of its assets or liabilities transferred in accordance with subsection (8.‍1),
.
(a) the administrator must provide any prescribed information, in the prescribed manner, to the members or former members, to any other persons entitled to pension benefits and to the representatives of the members or former members and of any other persons entitled to pension benefits; and
.
(b) the amendment or transfer must be approved by more than one third of the members or former members and of any other persons entitled to pension benefits or by the representatives of more than one third of the members or former members and of any other persons entitled to pension benefits.
.
No action against administrator
(8.‍3) No action lies against any administrator for amending a plan or for transferring or permitting the transfer of any part of the assets or liabilities of a pension plan to another pension plan in compliance with subsections (8.‍1) and (8.‍2).

Bill C-405 would have allowed employers to transfer the pension funds rather than pay out if the company were in serious financial difficulties.

As for the consent, that is an extremely low threshold. Forget a super majority, or even a simple majority. Only 1/3 would have to approve for this to happen. Even worse, the “representatives”, or people claiming to represent the workers could simply approve on their behalf. This seems ripe for abuse.

While transferring pension funds to another company may make that more solvent, the reality is, those employees did not sign up for it initially. An argument can be made that they should simply be allowed to collect on their entitlements, and walk away. If an opt-out were provided so individual members could cash out, it would nullify a lot of the criticism.

5. Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act

Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act
.
3 The Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act is amended by adding the following after section 11.‍52:
.
Limitation — pension plans
11.‍53 No order may be made under this Part respecting the approval of a plan offering incentives to certain directors, officers or employees to remain in the employ of the debtor company for the period during which the com­pany is expected to be subject to proceedings under this Act unless the court is satisfied
.
(a) if the debtor company participates in a prescribed pension plan for the benefit of its employees, that the relevant parties have entered into an agreement, approved by the relevant pension regulator, respecting the payment of the amounts referred to in subparagraphs 6(6)‍(a)‍(ii) and (iii);
.
(b) that the directors, officers or employees are necessary for the successful restructuring or liquidation of the debtor company or for the protection and the maximization of the value of the company’s property;
.
(c) that the directors, officers or employees have received a job offer from another person than the debtor company and the offering of the incentives is necessary for their retention in the employ of the debtor company; and
.
(d) that the amount of the incentive offer
.
(i) is not greater than ten times the amount of a similar incentive offer given to an employee of the debtor company for any purpose during the previous calendar year; or
.
(ii) if no incentive referred to in subparagraph (i) was offered, is not greater than an amount equal to 25% of the amount of any similar incentive given to a director or officer of the debtor company for any purpose during the previous calendar year.

Incentives and bonuses (primarily aimed at officers and directors), would still be allowed to be offered, and not be vulnerable to a court order. However, those incentives would be capped. Seems strange that heads of failing companies should be offered any type of incentives.

6. Does This Bill Benefit Workers?

If a company is failing, and going under, the right thing to do is to pay out its pension holdings to the people who have contributed to it. Transferring elsewhere, especially with such a low threshold, seems like shifting the goal posts. At a minimum, those who have contributed should be able to just take a pay out and leave.

People who run failing companies shouldn’t be getting bonuses, even if they are capped. This just rewards incompetence, often at the cost of other assets of the company.

The legislation was promoted as a way to protect pensions and to keep them going. However, such transfers (possible with just a minority of support), potentially remove all control from workers. And as with everything, the devil is in the details.

For now, it appears to be dead.

Babylon Beaver Endorses Eric O’Toolie For Prime Minister (Satire)

After serious consideration, staff at the Babylon Beaver have decided to support Eric O’Toolie for Prime Minister in the next Federal election.

Anti-free speech elements in the CPC have tried to get this parody account banned from Twitter, claiming it is misrepresentation and impersonation. The producers here at the Beaver do not support censorship or deplatforming of anyone, especially political candidates.

Parody accounts in particular need the most protection, as the truth is too painful for most people to grasp.

Eric (with the goatee), never worked as a Facebook lobbyist, or for Heenan Blaikie, or supported FIPA or CANZUK, or sold Canadians out to foreigners. Eric has also never celebrated walking around in red high heel shoes. That makes him a far more attractive choice then Erin (without the look).

Sure, there are concerns that Eric is just an internet meme, and not a real person. However, the Babylon Beaver recognizes that no one is perfect, and is willing to work with Eric.

And yes, it’s true that Eric has no platform, stands for nothing, and speaks in empty and vacuous platitudes. However, that just shows that he has the experience for the job.