Ottawa Doling Out Grants For Development Of Artificial Intelligence, Job Market To Be Crushed

An issue that isn’t covered often enough is the role of automation and artificial intelligence on the labour market. While employment rates rise and fall, the prevalence of these new technologies is certain to have devastating effects on the amount of jobs available.

What happens when large numbers of people find that their fields no longer exist? What happens when professionals who have spent decades learning a trade or skill see it evaporate almost overnight? The long and short term effects of this are something essential to cover.

It should be noted that many who champion this next industrial revolution are also advocates of open borders and mass economic immigration. They also support so-called free trade, or globalization, which sees companies outsourced simply to reduce production costs. What happens when these are combined? In terms of supply and demand, this isn’t difficult to figure out.

[1] Continue high levels of immigration
[2] Outsource work to 3rd world to reduce costs (where possible)
[3] Slash available jobs and industries to work in locally

It gets even worse. Not only is this happening in Canada, but large amounts of taxpayer money are used to accelerate the collapse of the job market. The examples below are just a portion of what is being handed out under the title of “artificial intelligence”.

AbCellera Biologics Inc. Apr. 14, 2020 $175,631,000
AIMS Global Secretariat Aug. 26, 2020 $2,500,000
Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute Jul. 12, 2019 $2,750,000
Algolux Inc. Mar. 1, 2021 $667,000
AltaML Inc. Nov. 23, 2020 $1,000,000
Apollo Machine & Welding Ltd. Apr. 1, 2021 $581,500
Association des médecins vétérinaires practiciens Apr. 9, 2021 $998,456
Ayogo Health Inc. Oct. 2, 2018 $1,730,740
BoG of NorQuest Col & Concordia Uni Dec. 30, 2019 $1,150,000
CAE Inc. Jul. 16, 2018 $150,000,000
CAE Inc. Jan. 28, 2021 $190,000,000
Canadensys Aerospace Corporation Oct. 8, 2020 $2,498,664
Canadian Agri-Food Automation and Intelligence Network Inc. Jul. 6, 2020 $49,500,000
Canadian Agri-Food Automation and Intelligence Network Inc. Jul. 7, 2020 $30,000,000
Canadian Forage and Grassland Association Jul. 3, 2020 $996,032
Carleton University Aug. 15, 2019 $1,500,000
Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Nov. 19, 2020 $2,647,000
COENCORP Consultant Corporation May 1, 2021 $600,000
Cognitive Systems Corp. Aug. 22, 2018 $7,268,261
COREM Aug. 8, 2019 $860,000
Council of Canadian Academies Jan. 7, 2020 $1,147,956
Eddyfi NDT inc. Nov. 9, 2018 $1,550,675
Ecoation Innovative Solutions Inc. Aug. 24, 2020 $3,875,000
Element AI Inc. Jun. 10, 2020 $20,000,000
Enns Brothers Ltd. Jul. 1, 2020 $660,000
Fluidigm Canada Inc. Jun. 1, 2018 $650,000
Giatec Scientific Inc. Oct. 1, 2018 $800,000
Genov, Roman Apr. 1, 2017 $1,136,025
Governors of the University of Alberta Oct. 29, 2018 $2,500,000
Governing Council of the University of Toronto Aug. 3, 2018 $25,000,000
Governing Council of the University of Toronto Mar. 30, 2019 $17,000,000
Governing Council of the University of Toronto Dec. 1, 2020 $1,254,375
Imagia Cybernétique Inc. Aug. 31, 2018 $1,000,000
Information Technology Association of Canada Nov. 1, 2018 $1,980,358
Linamar Corporation Jul. 6, 2018 $49,000,000
Lytica Inc Nov. 6, 2019 $1,080,000
Mckee Demczyk, Debbie Mar. 7, 2018 $2,000,000
McMaster University Oct. 18, 2019 $1,479,441
MindBridge Analytics Inc. May 1, 2019 $14,500,000
Miru Smart Technologies Corp. Apr. 1, 2021 $600,000
Mission Control Space Services Inc. Feb. 3, 2021 $3,042,959
Montréal International Jul. 9, 2020 $9,480,000
North Inc. Nov. 8, 2018 $24,000,000
North Inc. Oct 31, 2018 $24,000,000
Octopusapp Inc. Sep. 1, 2020 $3,000,000
OCED Aug. 27, 2020 $982,000
Purdie, Thomas G Apr. 1, 2013 $651,061
Savormetrics Inc. Nov. 30, 2018 $867,000
Scale.AI Mar. 15, 2018 $229,765,127
Sheikhzadeh, Mehdi Mar. 7, 2018 $2,000,000
SSIMWAVE Apr. 1, 2019 $4,232,550
Sunnybrook Research Institute May 21, 2019 $49,000,000
Tangent Design Engineering Ltd. Feb. 1, 2017 $600,000
Tangent Design Engineering Ltd. Aug. 1, 2021 $700,000
Technologies Numetrix inc. Jun. 8, 2021 $608,288
Teledyne Digital Imaging Inc. Jul. 15, 2020 $1,000,000
Terry Fox Research Institute & Imagia Cybernetics Inc. Aug. 28, 2020 $49,000,000
Tessonics Inc. Apr. 1, 2021 $600,000
University of British Columbia Jan. 1, 2020 $1,203,433
University of Manitoba Mar. 5, 2021 $1,603,078
Valacta Limited Partnership Dec. 2, 2019 $566,617
Vineland Research and Innovation Centre Apr. 1, 2018 $4,138,197

This is by no means all of the grants, just the larger ones listed.

Keep in mind, while Canada continues to bring record numbers of people into the country, we are automating entire industries. This will lead to massive losses of employment for those already here. The result is far more people, competing for far fewer positions. This sort of thing typically leads to much lower wages and benefits.

Getting artificial intelligence into aerospace and highly technical fields seems harmless enough, but it’s not going to stop there. Proponents of the AI trend never seem to realize that their jobs can also be automated out of existence as well.

This AI push will also impact the low skill market as well, and nothing is off the table. One such grant involves spending over $4 million to implement AI into the agricultural industry, and to automate a lot of the more “low skill” work. Another grant was for $30,000,000. Depending on the locations, this could mean the lack of any other options for many.

Far from being hyperbolic, automation replacing jobs has happened for decades, and will continue to do so. The service industry seems to be next on the list. Does anyone seriously think that workers will be hired back once replaced by robots? What happens to the people who can’t find work as a result of this?

Without an alternative in place for the people impacted by these drastic changes, expect chaos and instability to result from this initiative.

An interesting side note: the “political left” typically opposes free trade and globalization for the reason that it undercuts wages, and sees jobs shipped overseas. In short, decent work disappears. Mass automation will have much the same effect, and yet, silence from those same activists. How strange.

As for the “political right”: how exactly does gutting entire industries help secure an economic recovery? This trend is surely going to get worse.

Seriously, who thought this was a good idea for society?


Some Thoughts On Why Flair Airlines Supports The Mandatory Vaccination Policy

It seems a bit counter-intuitive that a discount airline would be so enthusiastic about the policy of mandatory vaccines for travelers. Flair Airlines is one such company. Then again, looking a bit deeper, there may be other reasons for doing this.

Specifically, it appears the Flair Airlines LTD. has been getting CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. Of course, they are likely getting other subsidies as well.

After all, this company went from serious financial hurt, to being able to expand its operations across Canada. Such a sudden shift requires a lot of money.

A quick look through the Federal Lobbying Registry shows that Flair has been quite busy getting the attention of public office holders. The middlemen they send are also worthy of a closer look.

1. Saad Baig, StrategyCorp Inc

Saad Baig is a Director in StrategyCorp’s Public Affairs group and brings six years of experience advising senior cabinet ministers in the Government of Ontario.
Most recently, Saad was Senior Policy Advisor to the Minister of Finance where he was a pivotal part of the team that tabled Ontario’s first balanced budget in ten years. He served as the lead advisor to the Minister on matters relating to tax policy, economic policy and municipal finance. Saad led the development of the 2016 Fall Economic Statement and 2017 Ontario Budget in key areas including transportation, infrastructure, economic development and international trade.
Prior to joining the Ministry of Finance, Saad spent over three years as the lead advisor for infrastructure policy to several ministers where he participated in key negotiations on federal-provincial infrastructure matters, designed municipal funding programs, developed infrastructure planning legislation and coordinated policy and issues for two crown agencies.
Saad has been involved in numerous political campaigns at the municipal, provincial and federal levels including the 2014 central campaign for the Ontario Liberal Party.

This lobbyist for the discount airline spent 6 years in the Ontario Government, in a variety of roles, working for Kathleen Wynne and Dalton McGuinty.

2. Garry Keller, StrategyCorp Inc

Garry has served in several key leadership roles in Canadian politics, including as Chief of Staff to Canada’s Foreign Minister, John Baird; Chief of Staff to the Leader of the Opposition Rona Ambrose, and chief Parliamentary advisor to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He also served as a Chief of Staff to the Government House Leader and the Chief Government Whip, Director of Communications to the Minister of the Environment and Director of Parliamentary Affairs to the President of the Treasury Board. He also served as Acting Chief of Staff to the United Conservative Party Caucus in Alberta in 2017.
As the Chief of Staff to the Foreign Minister, Garry was required to deliver strategic, communication and political advice on both international and domestic matters. He has experience in dealing with regulatory and legal matters, national security matters, trade negotiations, as well as the promotion of Canadian interests and Canadian values on the world stage. He is also an experienced practitioner of the Access to Information Act.
Garry regularly provides commentary on domestic and international politics for CTV News Channel, TVO’s The Agenda and a variety of talk radio shows across Canada. His commentary has also appeared in the National Post and the Globe and Mail, and he has appeared on a number of panels for associations and other organizations on Canadian politics.

Keller spent many years as a Conservative Party of Canada operative, and handler for various politicians. He also moved on to Alberta politics.

3. Sébastien Labrecque, StrategyCorp Inc

Before pivoting to government relations, Sébastien worked in the federal government, which led him to develop a thorough understanding of the inner workings of policy and research development in the public service. Thanks to his experience at Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, Sébastien possesses an extensive knowledge of the policy and stakeholder ecosystems in the areas of housing finance and the digital economy.

Labrecque spent over a year and a half working for the Federal Government before he switched over and became a lobbyist.

4. Kristina Martin, Loyalist Public Affairs

Kristina is a seasoned strategic communications and government relations expert with over a decade of experience working in politics, government relations and the non-profit sector. Based in Ottawa, she knows the inner workings of Parliament Hill and is recognized as a connector and go-to advisor for corporate and nonprofit leaders to advance complex policy agendas.
Before joining Loyalist Kristina worked as Director of Communications and Public Affairs at Canada’s largest science and technology outreach organization, Actua. Prior to that she worked at a national government relations and strategic communication firm.
Kristina has also served as a communications and political advisor to federal elected officials.

Kristina Martin spent many years with the Federal Liberals when they were in opposition. Now that they are back in power, she’s in a position to wield some real influence.

5. Conal Slobodin, StrategyCorp Inc

Slobodin has since left StrategyCorp and gone to Walmart. However, he has held roles in the Federal Government, and is a former consultant for the Yukon Liberal Party. Small world.

6. Andrew Steele, StrategyCorp Inc

As a Vice President at StrategyCorp, Andrew emphasizes client service, creative solutions and professionalism. He provides counsel on management consulting projects, communications challenges and government relations files at the federal, provincial and municipal level.
Previously, Andrew served as Senior Advisor to the Premier of Ontario, as well as Chief of Staff in several Ministries. He has held senior campaign roles for the Liberal Party of Canada and the Ontario Liberal Party.
Andrew was the founding CEO of the Pecaut Centre, a non-profit management consulting firm housed at the Boston Consulting Group. More recently, Andrew was essential to implementing the strategic transformation of public broadcaster TVO into the province’s partner for digital learning inside the classroom.
A director of the board of the Michael Garron Hospital, Andrew graduated with distinction from the MBA program at Ivey. He writes regularly on public policy as an opinion columnist for the Globe and Mail and others.

Steele, by his own admission, has held senior campaign roles for both the Ontario Liberals, and the Federal Liberals. The connection to Michael Garron Hospital is an interesting one. That’s where Michael Warner, the pro-lockdown doctor, Michael Warner works. Melissa Lantsman, MP-elect for Thornhill, is also a Director.

As for Kenzie McKeegan, Dan Mader and Chris Froggatt, check out this piece on their recent work as Pfizer lobbyists. Have to wonder what all of these political hacks arranged in order for Flair to get onboard with these passports.

There doesn’t seem to be an obvious mention of a bailout, but it’s the most likely thing to search for. And they are definitely getting CEWS from the taxpayers.


Bill C-11: Parliamentary Hearing On Facial Recognition Technology (May 10, 2021)

This was from a May 10, 2021 Parliamentary Committee Meeting on Bill C-11, and facial recognition. In some sense this hearing is academic, as Parliament was was dissolved over the summer. Nevertheless, it’s entirely possible that it will be brought back once the new session starts.

Also, as this so-called “pandemic” drags on, and resistance builds, will facial recognition become the norm at protests? Will this be a way to identify and target peaceful demonstrators?

Another point: while law enforcement or Canadian intelligence may be barred from using this facial recognition, will they simply outsource it to private companies? A possible argument would be that the police aren’t actually violating privacy laws, but just taking advantage of others that do.

Clearview AI provides law enforcement agencies with greater insight and lead generation through the use of our investigative platform. Our platform includes the largest known database of 10+ billion facial images sourced from public-only web sources, including news media, mugshot websites, public social media, and many other open sources.
Agencies that use our platform can expect to receive high-quality leads with fewer resources expended. These leads, when supported by other evidence, can help accurately and rapidly identify suspects, persons of interest, and victims to help solve and prevent crimes.

Clearview AI provides law enforcement agencies with investigative opportunities through the use of our research tool. Our platform includes the largest known database of 10+ billion facial images sourced from public-only web sources, including news media, mugshot websites, public social media, and many other open sources.

Clearview is called out by name in the House of Commons meeting. It’s quite interesting. Remember those pictures with your college buddies from 10-15 years ago on Facebook? Guess what, those may have been copied, real names attached, and used as reference points in the near future.

Of course, some private companies have already been using this type of technology for years. It’s not exactly revolutionary at this point. Last October, the story about Cadillac Fairview using this without people’s knowledge or consent in Ontario was broken

Anyhow, this story will need to be followed up on. In the meantime, it’s pretty chilling to see how accepting and tolerant public officials have become about its use.

(2) May 10 Facial Recognition Parliamentary Hearing

Canadian Biosafety Handbook: Information On Masks And Respiratory Protection (May 2016)

Ever wonder what the Federal guidelines say on employees having to wear masks or respirators? Take a look at the Canadian Biosafety Handbook, Second Edition, from May 2016. Section 9.1.6 has some pretty interesting information on that subject.

Incidently, thank you to this man, David Dickson, who mentioned the CBH in his speech, even in passing. See 23:10 for him addressing the issue. The original was posted by Angry Albertan. Yes, this brief statement warranted an investigation, and his reference turned out to be accurate.

Note: this is not to make any guarantee that the information in this handbook. Nonetheless, there is some interesting information available here.

2.2 Viruses
Viruses are the smallest of replicating organisms. Their small size (20-300 nm) allows them to pass through filters that typically capture the smallest bacteria. Viruses have no metabolism of their own and redirect existing host machinery and metabolic functions to replicate. Structurally, the simplest viruses consist of nucleic acids enclosed in a protein capsid (nucleocapsid). Enveloped viruses have a more complex structure in which the nucleocapsid is enclosed inside a lipid bilayer membrane; this membrane facilitates the virus’s interaction with the host cell.

Let’s look at this for a moment. Setting aside the issue that epidemiology is a pseudo-science at best, the Canadian Government claims viruses are between 20-300 nm, or nanometers. However, the mask guidelines listed below fall far, far below that standard.

If viruses actually were airborne, then these masks would provide no protection whatsoever. Then again, does this “virus” even exist?

9.1.6 Masks and Respiratory Protection
Safe operational practices and the use of primary containment devices can limit the creation of, and exposure to, infectious aerosols or aerosolized toxins. Surgical masks and many types of dust masks offer little protection from airborne pathogens, infectious aerosols, or aerosolized toxin, but will protect mucous membranes of the nose and mouth from spills and splashes. Masks are not intended to be used more than once. Respirators are used when there is a risk of exposure to aerosolized toxins or infectious aerosols that can be transmitted through the inhalation route. Respirators are divided into two classes: air purifying respirators and atmosphere-supplying respirators. The type of respirator selected will depend on the hazard associated with the particular activity being carried out. Personnel education on airborne hazards and training on respirator selection, fit, inspection, and maintenance are some examples of elements of a workplace respiratory protection program, which is required for any workplace where respirators are used. Where applicable, respiratory protection should conform to standard CSA Z94.4, Selection, Use and Care of Respirators. Respirator Fit
All respirators need to fit properly in order to function as intended. Some types of respirators require a seal between the apparatus and the wearer’s face in order to provide adequate protection. Using the wrong respirator or misusing one can be as dangerous as not wearing one at all. The respirator should be individually selected and fitted to the operator’s face, and fit tested for its seal. Facial hair, imperfections of the skin, cosmetics, and changes in a person’s weight can affect respirator fit. Most jurisdictions within Canada currently require qualitative or quantitative fit-testing to be conducted to demonstrate proper fit for the selected respirator(s) before an individual carries out any activities that require respiratory protection. In addition, standard CSA Z94.4, Selection, Use, and Care of Respirators, requires that an employer take reasonable precautions to verify that an individual is medically cleared to wear a respirator. Proper use and care of respiratory protection equipment is a core component of the training program in workplaces where respirators are used. Air Purifying Respirators
Air purifying respirators help reduce the concentration of microorganisms and particulates in the air inhaled by the user to an acceptable exposure level by passing the air through a particulate filter or chemical cartridge. Half-mask air purifying respirators cover the nose and mouth but not the eyes, while full-face air purifying respirators cover the entire face. Disposable half-mask air purifying respirators, including the N95 and N100 type respirators, are designed for single use. Non-powered half-mask and full-face respirators can also use disposable filter cartridges to provide a similar level of protection. Non-powered respirators work through the creation of negative-pressure inside the respirator during inhalation. There are nine classifications of particulate filters used with non-powered respirators approved by the United States National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). These are the N-Series (N95, N99, N100; not resistant to oil), R-Series (R95, R99, R100; oil-resistant), and P-Series (P95, P99, P100; oil-proof). The associated numbers identify the efficiency in removing contaminants. Respirators rated at N95 or higher are adequate to protect personnel carrying out most activities with microorganisms. Powered Air Purifying Respirators
Powered air purifying respirators (PAPRs) create a positive-pressure around the wearer’s head. PAPRs are designed to be decontaminated and reused, and the disposable filter cartridges are replaced on a regular basis, as determined by an LRA. Particulate filters for PAPR units are all high efficiency (HE), which are certified to be 99.97% efficient at filtering the most penetrating particle size (0.3 µm). Due to the effects of impaction, diffusion, and interception, high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters are even more efficient for particles that are either smaller or larger than 0.3 µm. Most PAPR filters are suitable for use against oil-based aerosols; however, this is not always the case and users should check the manufacturer instructions before use in oil environments. Atmosphere-Supplying Respirators
Atmosphere-supplying respirators deliver clean, breathable air from a source such as a compressed air cylinder or tank. These are generally supplied-air respirators, but could be a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). Supplied-air respirators deliver air through a small hose connected to an air compressor or a cylinder of compressed air, whereas SCBAs supply breathable air from a portable cylinder worn on the back.

Now, remember that viruses are (allegedly) 20-300 nanometers, according to Section 2.2. That is quite the range, and we are taking what they say at face value.

Section 9.1.6 starts by stating: “Surgical masks and many types of dust masks offer little protection from airborne pathogens, infectious aerosols, or aerosolized toxin, but will protect mucous membranes of the nose and mouth from spills and splashes”. So your bandana or teflon coated dental mask will achieve nothing.

Turning to, Powered air purifying respirators (or PAPRs) claim to be 99.97% effective at filtering particles of 0.3 µm, or 0.3 micrometers. However, do a little conversion: 0.3 µm = 300 nm. Considering that viruses are (supposedly) between 20-300 nm, even pressurized protection will only be effective at the upper range of this.

Funny how the experts never seem to address this.

(3) Canada Biosafety Handbook May 2016

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:

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.

(2) BCOHRC_Jul2021_Vaccination-Policy-Guidance_FINAL
(3) Section 30.1, Canada Food & Drug Act
(4) Interim (Emergency) Order Signed By Patty Hajdu

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
Sent: July 14, 2021 1:51 PM
Subject: media request for information on document


I run a small site in BC and came across this

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

Any chance of getting in touch?

Ronnie (Editor)

Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 2:09 PM
To: “”
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 XXXXXXX (she/her)
BC’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner
Office: 1-844-922-XXXX | Cell: 1-250-216-XXXX | @humanrights4bc

From: Ronnie Lempert
Sent: July 14, 2021 2:33 PM
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”.

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.


From: “XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX”
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 3:14 PM
To: “”
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,

From: Ronnie Lempert
Sent: July 14, 2021 4:06 PM
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


P.S. you are always welcome to visit the site if any of the content interests you.

From: “XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX”
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 2:14 PM
To: “”
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,

From: Ronnie Lempert
Sent: July 15, 2021 3:08 PM
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 (

Hopefully I’m wrong,

Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 5:07 PM
To: “”
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,

From: Ronnie Lempert
Sent: July 19, 2021 6:59 PM
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.


Hi Ronnie,

You can read all of our current and past COVID-19 guidance, including footnotes and references here:

You can read Health Canada information about vaccines here:

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

Thank you,

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 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.


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?

(5) Abdu Sharkawy On How Schools Should Become
(6) Abdu Sharkawy Pushing Vaccines On Canadians
(7) Abdu Sharkawy On The Terrifying “Second Wave”