Category: Globalism

Posted on

CV# 66(6): WHO Policy Paper On MANDATORY “Vaccines”, Admitting They’re Experimental

Less than a year ago, this was decried as a conspiracy theory cooked up by paranoid tinfoil hatters. Now, the World Health Organization is openly discussing policies of MANDATORY injections. And to clarify, all of these gene-replacement “vaccines” are still considered experimental. They are authorized for emergency measures, but are not actually approved.

WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Original)
WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Copy)
Section 30.1 Canada Food & Drug Act
September 2020 Interim Order From 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

Testing Product Insert AstraZeneca Interim Authorization
Testing Product Insert Janssen Interim Authorization
Testing Product Insert Moderna Interim Authorization
Testing Product Insert Pfizer Interim Authorization

Before going any further, it is time to distinguish between 2 completely different ways medical devices and substances can be advanced.

(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.

To be approved means that this thing has been rigorously tested, and has passed all safety measures, and that it has rigorously been examined. This is not what happened here. Instead, these “vaccines” were given interim authorization, because the Government has decided that it’s worth releasing it to the general public, and finishing the testing later. This is allowed under Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act, and an Interim Order was signed by Patty Hajdu.

Think this is an exaggeration? Take a look at the paperwork available from Health Canada. Not once do they refer to them as approved. Instead, they are “authorized under an Interim Order”. These are not the same thing, and cannot be used interchangeably. Now, let’s get to the WHO paper.

Vaccines are one of the most effective tools for protecting people against COVID-19. Consequently, with COVID-19 vaccination under way or on the horizon in many countries, some may be considering whether to make COVID-19 vaccination mandatory in order to increase vaccination rates and achieve public health goals and, if so, under what conditions, for whom and in what contexts

Right off the bat, there is no semblance of neutrality. The World Health Organization starts off with the assumption that these are safe and effective. So legitimate concerns about testing, long term side effects, and the necessity of these “vaccines” is minimized.

It is not uncommon for governments and institutions to mandate certain actions or types of behaviour in order to protect the well-being of individuals or communities. Such policies can be ethically justified, as they may be crucial to protect the health and well-being of the public. Nevertheless, because policies that mandate an action or behaviour interfere with individual liberty and autonomy, they should seek to balance communal well-being with individual liberties. While interfering with individual liberty does not in itself make a policy intervention unjustified, such policies raise a number of ethical considerations and concerns and should be justified by advancing another valuable social goal, like protecting public health.
.
This document does not provide a position that endorses or opposes mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. Rather, it identifies important ethical considerations and caveats that should be explicitly evaluated and discussed through ethical analysis by governments and/or institutional policy-makers who may be considering mandates for COVID-19 vaccination.

Interesting. This paper attempts to take a neutral and academic approach towards the idea of forced vaccinations (or gene replacement therapy). How exactly does someone take a neutral stance on forcing millions, or billions, or people to take experimental drugs? Is this really necessary for safety?

How do you balance: (a) your right to self autonomy and control over your own body, and (b) the doomsday predictions of sociopathic politicians, and corrupt scientists?

1. Necessity and proportionality
Mandatory vaccination should be considered only if it is necessary for, and proportionate to, the achievement of an important public health goal (including socioeconomic goals) identified by a legitimate public health authority. If such a public health goal (e.g., herd immunity, protecting the most vulnerable, protecting the capacity of the acute health care system) can be achieved with less coercive or intrusive policy interventions (e.g., public education), a mandate would not be ethically justified, as achieving public health goals with less restriction of individual liberty and autonomy yields a more favourable risk-benefit ratio.
.
As mandates represent a policy option that interferes with individual liberty and autonomy, they should be considered only if they would increase the prevention of significant risks of morbidity and mortality and/or promote significant and unequivocal public health benefits. If important public health objectives cannot be achieved without a mandate – for instance, if a substantial portion of individuals are able but unwilling to be vaccinated and this is likely to result in significant risks of harm – their concerns should be addressed, proactively if possible. If addressing such concerns is ineffective and those concerns remain a barrier to achievement of public health objectives and/or if low vaccination rates in the absence of a mandate put others at significant risk of serious harm, a mandate may be considered “necessary” to achieve public health objectives. In this case, those proposing the mandate should communicate the reasons for the mandate to the affected communities through effective channels and find ways to implement the mandate such that it accommodates the reasonable concerns of communities. Individual liberties should not be challenged for longer than necessary. Policy-makers should therefore frequently re-evaluate the mandate to ensure it remains necessary and proportionate to achieve public health goals. In addition, the necessity of a mandate to achieve public health goals should be evaluated in the context of the possibility that repeated vaccinations may be required as the virus evolves, as this may challenge the possibility of a mandate to realistically achieve intended public health objectives.

Our “leaders” rely on computer modelling and data manipulation in order to drive these predictions. Therefore, the case of necessity can always be skewed. Liberties should not be challenged longer than necessary, yet the only way to achieve it — at some point — is to take experimental drugs.

Not only should we consider mandating these “vaccines”, we should also consider if more and more will be needed to deal with mutations of it.

There’s little to no concern about the long term effects of these “vaccines”. In fact, the authors parrot the talking points that they are safe and effective. The only issue seems to be about making it required if they cannot “educate” the public in sufficient numbers.

2. Sufficient evidence of vaccine safety
.
Data should be available that demonstrate the vaccine being mandated has been found to be safe in the populations for whom the vaccine is to be made mandatory. When safety data are lacking or when they suggest the risks associated with vaccination outweigh the risks of harm without the vaccine, the mandate would not be ethically justified, particularly without allowing for reasonable exceptions (e.g., medical contraindications). Policy-makers should consider specifically whether vaccines authorized for emergency or conditional use meet an evidentiary threshold for safety sufficient for a mandate. In the absence of sufficient evidence of safety, there would be no guarantee that mandating vaccination would achieve the goal of protecting public health. Furthermore, coercive exposure of populations to a potentially harmful product would violate the ethical obligation to protect the public from unnecessary harm when the harm the product might cause outweighs the degree of harm that might exist without the product. Even when the vaccine is considered sufficiently safe, mandatory vaccination should be implemented with no-fault compensation schemes to address any vaccine-related harm that might occur. This is important, as it would be unfair to require people who experience vaccine-related harm to seek legal remedy from harm resulting from a mandatory intervention. Such compensation would depend on countries’ health systems, including the extent of universal health coverage and how they address harm from vaccines that are not fully licensed (e.g., vaccines authorized for emergency or conditional use).
.
3. Sufficient evidence of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness
.
Data on efficacy and effectiveness should be available that show the vaccine is efficacious in the population for whom vaccination is to be mandated and that the vaccine is an effective means of achieving an important public health goal. For instance, if mandatory vaccination is considered necessary to interrupt transmission chains and prevent harm to others, there should be sufficient evidence that the vaccine is efficacious in preventing serious infection and/or transmission. Alternatively, if a mandate is considered necessary to prevent hospitalization and protect the capacity of the acute health care system, there should be sufficient evidence that the vaccine is efficacious in reducing hospitalization. Policy-makers should carefully consider whether vaccines authorized for emergency or conditional use meet evidentiary thresholds for efficacy and effectiveness sufficient for a mandate.

Here we get to the heart of it. The World Health Organization mentions that policy makers might consider a mandate, even if these gene replacement “vaccines” have only emergency or conditional authorization. As mentioned earlier, that is what status the chemicals in Canada have.

Vaccine compensation programs should be established, but that leaves out a key detail. It’s not the drug manufacturers who would be paying for such injuries. It would be funded by the public. Privatized profits, socialized losses.

There’s also the interesting question: if an experimental or emergency use “vaccine” is taken, who actually is responsible for it?

Mandatory COVID-19 vaccination in context
.
Authorized COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be safe and efficacious in preventing severe disease and death, and it is clear that vaccine supply will continue to increase globally, albeit inequitably. That being said, the nature of the COVID-19 pandemic and evidence on vaccine safety, efficacy, and effectiveness continue to evolve (including with respect to variants of concern). Consequently, the six considerations identified above are described generally so that they can be applied at any point in time and in any context. For illustrative purposes, we now turn our attention to the application of these ethical considerations in three settings for which mandatory vaccination is commonly discussed: for the general public, in schools, and for health workers.

Within this paragraph, it’s stated that authorized vaccines (again, not approved), are safe and efficacious. Then, it immediately claims this will continue to evolve. In other words, these “safety” guarantees are worth nothing.

Conclusions
Vaccines are effective for protecting people from COVID-19. Governments and/or institutional policy-makers should use arguments to encourage voluntary vaccination against COVID-19 before contemplating mandatory vaccination. Efforts should be made to demonstrate the benefit and safety of vaccines for the greatest possible acceptance of vaccination. Stricter regulatory measures should be considered only if these means are not successful. A number of ethical considerations and caveats should be explicitly discussed and addressed through ethical analysis when considering whether mandatory COVID-19 vaccination is an ethically justifiable policy option. Similar to other public health policies, decisions about mandatory vaccination should be supported by the best available evidence and should be made by legitimate public health authorities in a manner that is transparent, fair, non-discriminatory, and involves the input of affected parties.

WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Original)
WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Copy)

Use arguments first. Mandate only if that doesn’t work. In other words, if we can’t persuade people to take it willingly, then consider forcing them. Funny how “involves the input of affected parties” gets in there. If these are mandated, then of course input is removed.

Don’t you love it when academic debate what our human rights should be, and what bodily autonomy we should have?

References
1. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Public health: Ethical issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics; 2007
(https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/assets/pdfs/Public-health-ethical-issues.pdf).
2. Gravagna K, Becker A, Valeris-Chacin R, Mohammed I, Tambe S, Awan FA et al. Global assessment of national
mandatory vaccination policies and consequences of non-compliance. Vaccine. 2020;38:7865–73.
3. Colgrove J, Bayer R. Manifold restraints: Liberty, public health, and the legacy of Jacobson v Massachusetts. Am J Public
Health. 2005;95:571–6.
4. World Health Organization. COVID-19 virtual press conference 7 December 2020
(https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/covid-19-virtual-press-conference-transcript—7-december-2020).
5. World Health Organization. Interim position paper: Considerations regarding proof of COVID-19 vaccination for
international travellers. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021 (https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/interim-position-paper-considerations-regarding-proof-of-covid-19-vaccination-for-international-travellers).
6. Walkinshaw E. Mandatory vaccinations: The international landscape. Can Med Assoc J. 2011;183:e1167–8.
7. Gostin LO, Salmon DA, Larson HJ. Mandating COVID-19 vaccines. JAMA. 2020;325:532–3.
8. Halabi S, Heinrich A, Omer S. No-fault compensation for vaccine injury – The other side of equitable access to Covid-19
vaccines. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:e125.
9. Schwartz JL. Evaluating and deploying Covid-19 vaccines – The importance of transparency, scientific integrity, and
public trust. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1703–5.
10. Shetty P. Experts concerned about vaccination backlash. Lancet. 2020;375:970–1.
11. Giubilini A. Chapter 3, Vaccination policies and the principle of least restrictive alternative: An intervention ladder. In
Giubilini A, The ethics of vaccination. Cham (CH): Palgrave Pivot; 2019.
12. Goldenberg M. Vaccine hesitancy: Public trust, expertise, and the war on science. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh
Press. 2021.
13. Opel DJ, Lo B, Peek ME. Addressing mistrust about COVID-19 vaccines among patients of color. Ann Intern Med.
2021;M21-0055. doi: 10.7326/M21-0055.
14. Colgrove J. Immunization and ethics: Beneficence, coercion, public health, and the state. In: Mastroianni AC, Kahn JP,
Kass NE, editors. The Oxford handbook of public health ethics, New York City (NY): Oxford University Press; 2020:435–
44.
15. Sutton EJ, Upshur REG. Are there different spheres of conscience? J Eval Clin Pract. 2010;16:338–43.
16. Harris J, Holm S. Is there a moral obligation not to infect others? BMJ. 1995;311:1215–7.
17. Gruben V, Siemieniuk RA, McGeer A. Health care workers, mandatory influenza vaccination policies and the law. Can
Med Assoc J. 2014;186:1076–80.
18. Krystal JH. Responding to the hidden pandemic for healthcare workers: Stress. Nat Med. 2020;26:639.
19. Van Buynder PG, Konrad S, Kersteins F, Preston E, Brown PD, Keen D, et al. Healthcare worker influenza immunization
vaccinate or mask policy: Strategies for cost effective implementation and subsequent reductions in staff absenteeism due
to illness. Vaccine. 2015;33:625–8.
20. Caplan A, Shah NR. Managing the human toll caused by seasonal influenza: New York State’s mandate to vaccinate or
mask. JAMA. 2013;310:1797–8.
21. World Health Organization. Mask use in the context of COVID-19 – Interim guidance. Geneva: World Health
Organization; 2020. (https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/advice-on-the-use-of-masks-in-the-community-duringhome-care-and-in-healthcare-settings-in-the-context-of-the-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)-outbreak)

Posted on

Alberta Health Services: Mostly-Autonomous Corporation, Charity

Overview
Alberta Health Services (AHS) is the provincial health agency tasked with delivering health services to Albertans.
.
Alberta Health is the government department that sets policy, legislation and standards for the health system in Alberta. It also:
.
-allocates funding for and oversees AHS and many other health agencies and boards
pays physicians
-is responsible for primary care
-protects Albertans from infectious diseases
-administers provincial programs such as the Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan

From the governance page, it appears that Alberta Health Services, and Alberta Health are in fact 2 different entities. The former more of day to day operations, and the later more involved in budgets and administration.

Alberta Health is a Ministry in the Executive Council of Alberta. By contrast, Alberta Health Services is a semi-autonomous organization that actually runs the care in the Province.

From its 2017 governance chart, Alberta Health Services answers directly to the Ministry of Health, and then has power over other groups. However, the current Health Minister is Tyler Shandro, who has no background in health care, (much like Adrian Dix of B.C.).

A. ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES MANDATE
.
AHS is a corporate body consisting of members (Members), who are commonly referred to as the “Board”. The Board governs AHS, overseeing the management of its business and affairs. In accordance with the AHS Amended General Bylaws and subject to legislation governing public agencies, the Board may recruit, direct, evaluate, determine the compensation of and, if required, dismiss a chief executive officer (CEO). The CEO is responsible for the general supervision over the business and affairs of AHS. The Board has a fiduciary duty to carry out its responsibilities for the benefit, and in the interests, of AHS, within, and in accordance with, the applicable legislation.

Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH)
The CMOH is appointed by the Minister under the Public Health Act, which is paramount to all other provincial legislation with the exception of the Alberta Bill of Rights

.

There is also that “minor” detail that the Alberta Bill of Rights tops everything, including the Public Health Act, but that routinely gets ignored.

From its mandate letter, Alberta Health Services is subject to both the Public Agencies Governance Act, (PAGA), and the Regional Health Authorities Act, (RHAA).

AHS is structured as a corporate body. When it refers to “Members”, it means Board Members, not the tens of thousands of employees involved in health care.

An observation: the Board has an obligation to carry out its responsibilities for the benefit and interest of AHS. It doesn’t specify for the benefit and interest of the public. An oversight?

[By-Laws]
ARTICLE 12
PROTECTION OF MEMBERS, SENIOR EXECUTIVES AND OTHERS
12.1 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
Each Member, Official Administrator, Senior Executive, or Employee, acting in good faith and with a view to the best interests of AHS, shall not be liable for, and is hereby released from:
(a) the acts, neglects or defaults of any other Member, Official Administrator, Senior Executive or Employee;
(b) any loss, damage or expense happening through the insufficiency or deficiency of title to any property acquired;
(c) the insufficiency or deficiency of any security in or upon which any of the monies shall be invested;
(d) any loss, damage or expense arising from the bankruptcy, insolvency or tortious act of any person with whom any of the monies, securities or effects shall be deposited;
(e) any loss occasioned by any error of judgment or oversight on his or her part; and
(f) any other loss, damage or misfortune whatever which shall happen in the execution of the duties of his or her office or in relation thereto.
.
12.2 INDEMNITY
(a) To the greatest extent permitted by law including s. 2.5(1) of the Regional Health Authorities Regulation, a Member, Official Administrator, Senior Executive, Employee, a former Member, Senior Executive, or Employee, or a person who, at the Board’s request, acts or act as a director, officer, or employee of a body corporate in which the Board is or was a shareholder or creditor, shall be indemnified against all costs, charges, and expenses including an amount paid to settle an action or satisfy a judgment if reasonably incurred by him or her in respect of any civil, criminal, or administrative action or proceeding to which he or she is made a party by reason of being or having been a Member, Official Administrator, Senior Executive, or Employee, or director, officer, or employee of such body corporate, if:
(i) he or she acted honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of AHS; and
(ii) in the case of a criminal or administrative action or proceeding that is enforced by a monetary penalty, he or she had reasonable grounds for believing that such conduct was lawful.
(b) If a court order is required to provide the indemnity in Article 12.2(a), AHS shall proceed in good faith to obtain that order.
(c) The indemnity provided for in Article 12.2(a) shall be deemed to have been in effect from the date AHS or its legal predecessors were established unless a later date is stated in the indemnity.
.
12.4 APPLICATION
The indemnity provided in Article 12.2 shall:
(a) not operate in limitation of any other indemnity which is otherwise available;
(b) apply notwithstanding the fact that the person having the benefit of the indemnity may serve or has served in any other capacity; and
(c) not be included, for the purposes of any supplemental bylaw dealing with debt obligations, guarantees, indemnity obligations, and capital leases, in the calculation of outstanding debt obligations, guarantee obligations, indemnity obligations, and capital lease obligations.

In its By-Laws, Alberta Health Services explicitly indemnifies (gives legal protection to) all employees, administration and board members for any action they do.

It also states that if necessary, AHS will go to court to obtain such indemnification.

We know that “vaccine” manufacturers are indemnified against liability. These By-Laws would also provide legal protection to doctors, nurses, or others who end up recommending them and/or injecting them. Just a reminder: interim authorization is not the same thing as approval.

Additionally, there’s an interesting clarification here. The indemnification will apply if the person act in the “best interests of AHS”. It doesn’t say they’ll be indemnified for acting in the best interests of the public. Poor wording, or is there something else?

The By-Laws also states that employees and the bosses will be indemnified even if they serve in another capacity. True, there is a conflict-of-interest declaration. However, in theory, the protections would apply even in those cases.

Article 8.6 states that only members, or specifically authorized people, may address the Board in meetings. So it isn’t really a place for genuine public input.

Regarding the Alberta Public Health Act: know that the current version was heavily based on Bill C-12, the 2005 Quarantine Act. That was derived on the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations, which are legally binding. PHAC, the Public Health Agency of Canada, is effectively an extension of the World Health Organization.

AHS is a mostly autonomous corporation delivering health care. The Chief Medical Officer (Deena Hinshaw) is not accountable to the public. Current laws were written by a Supra-National Body. You get it now?

Update To The Article

Alberta Health Services is actually a registered charity with the Canada Revenue Agency. In the last year, it took in some $15.3 billion, mainly from the Alberta Government

Receipted donations $138,000.00 (0.00%)
Non-receipted donations $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities $34,990,000.00 (0.23%)
Government funding $14,364,265,000.00 (93.67%)
All other revenue $936,343,000.00 (6.11%)
Total revenue: $15,335,736,000.00

Charitable programs $15,038,842,000.00 (97.10%)
Management and administration $448,398,000.00 (2.90%)
Fundraising $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $15,487,240,000.00

Total compensation for all positions: $7,824,089,000.00
Full-time employees: 50,899
Part-time employees: 65,004
Professional and consulting fees: $23,812,000.00
Compensated full-time positions $350,000 and over: 10

IMPORTANT LINKS
Alberta Announces (2008) Creation of Alberta Health Services
https://archive.is/ZLzN8
https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/about/about.aspx
https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/about/publications/ahs-ar-2017/governance.html
https://www.alberta.ca/governance.aspx
https://archive.is/rssLM
https://www.alberta.ca/ministries.aspx

https://extranet.ahsnet.ca/teams/policydocuments/1/clp-ahs-mandate-roles.pdf
Alberta Health Services – Mandate And Role
Alberta Health Services – Bylaws And Rules
Alberta Health Services – Delegation And Authority
https://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/A31P5.pdf
Alberta Public Agencies Governance Act
https://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/R10.pdf
Alberta Regional Health Authorities Act

PREVIOUS CANUCK LAW POSTS
(1) WHO International Health Regulations Legally Binding
(2) A Look At International Health Regulation Statements
(3) Quarantine Act Actually Written By WHO, IHR Changes
(4) Provincial Health Acts Domestic Implementation Of WHO-IHR, Part I
(5) Provincial Health Acts Domestic Implementation Of WHO-IHR, Part II
(6) World Health Treaty Proposed, Based On WHO-IHR

(A) Public Health Agency Of Canada Created As UN Outpost
(B) BC Provincial Health Services Authority A Private Corporation

Posted on

CV #17(E): Airline Industry Lobbying Recently, Main Beneficiaries Of Local Border Closures

Within the last week, the freedoms of Canadians to travel within Canada have been seriously eroded. Ground travel between Ontario and Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, and within British Columbia has been stopped except for “approved” reasons. Was this done for safety, or something else altogether?

A few observations here. First, stopping ground travel makes travel by air the only realistic option for many people. Second, this makes movement of people easier to control. Third, it can be expected to generate a boost in business and revenue for airlines.

It’s possible that airlines are playing along with these increased control measures because it’s generating much needed business for them. And giving them near exclusive rights over Canadian travel insures that only approved passengers will be able to enjoy their “freedoms”.

A look through the Office of the Lobbying Commissioner’s website shows some interesting activity in recent weeks. This “could” all be a bizarre coincidence, but it doesn’t present that way.

  • March 29 – Greater Toronto Airports Authority
  • March 30 – Air Transport Association Of Canada
  • March 30 – Air Transport Association Of Canada
  • March 30 – Canadian Airports Council
  • March 31 – Hamilton International Airport
  • March 31 – Hamilton International Airport
  • March 31 – Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
  • March 31 – Greater Toronto Airports Authority
  • March 31- Association Of Canadian Travel Agencies
  • April 8 – Canadian Air Traffic Control Association
  • April 12 – Canadian Airports Council
  • April 13 – Canadian Airports Council

In the weeks leading up to the April 16 border closures, there were several meetings between Ottawa and groups interested in boosting the airline industry.

To address the elephant in the room, the lobbying was done Federally, but the travel restrictions were imposed Provincially. The reason is simple. Trudeau would have a hard time demanding domestic travel stop, while foreigners flood in. However, Premiers could implement the restrictions, under the pretense of trying to protect their Provinces. Is this sleazy? Yes, but this kind of collusion isn’t that farfetched.

Now, Doug Ford has set up roadblocks for people entering Ontario from Manitoba or Quebec, BY GROUND. However, this doesn’t seem to apply to airplanes, both entering from other Provinces, or coming internationally.

B.C. has gone even farther, announcing that people cannot travel between regions without a permitted excuse. However, this also seems to apply only to travel from the ground.

What is the result of this? Airlines now have an effective monopoly for the bulk of travel into, out of, and within Canada.

While this claim may seem farfetched, consider this: Ford ordered the closure of small businesses across Ontario. Many went under completely, and countless lost their livelihoods. The terms of the orders seemed arbitrary and illogical. However, when you realize that the Ford Government had been lobbied by places like Walmart — who benefitted financially, things start to make sense.

Take a look on Air Canada or Westjet. Flights are still available. And flights are also coming in daily from China, India, the Middle East, and elsewhere.

You are still welcome to fly anywhere you like, as long as you play along with the “pandemic” measures. It was always about control, and never safety. Keep in mind, people like Ford have never publicly complained about people coming into Canada at all.


https://twitter.com/erinotoole/status/1384154709343162374

As for the idea that a “conservative” Prime Minister would be any better than Trudeau, consider this recent tweet. Erin O’Toole panders to the Polish and Jewish crowd, as a reminder of standing up to German occupation during the 2nd World War. He does this unironically, even as Canada is under varying degrees of martial law. Then again, he always supported stripping freedoms away. And even as he condemns China for human rights abuses and forced sterilizations, he pushes experimental vaccines that would likely sterilize most people.

As for opposition to these human rights abuses at the local level, it seems almost non-existent. Most “opposition” politicians whine that not enough is being done.

Trudeau, Premiers, and “Opposition” is a dog-and-pony show.
Do you get it now?

Posted on

BC Provincial Health Services Authority Is A Private Corporation, Charity

The PHSA, or Provincial Health Services Authority of British Columbia, is a private organization that runs health care in the Province. It operates similar to SROs, or self-regulating organizations in other Provinces. It was founded in 2001. True, it receives FUNDING from the public, but is set up as a corporation, and acts in an autonomous manner.

Part 2 — Fundamental Matters in Relation to Societies
.
Division 1 — Nature of Societies
.
Purposes
2(1) Subject to subsection (2), a society may be formed under this Act for one or more lawful purposes, including, without limitation, agricultural, artistic, benevolent, charitable, educational, environmental, patriotic, philanthropic, political, professional, recreational, religious, scientific, social or sporting purposes.
.
(2) A society must not have, as one of its purposes, the carrying on of a business for profit or gain, but carrying on a business to advance or support the purposes of a society is not prohibited by this subsection.
.
(3) The registrar may, in writing and giving reasons, order a society to alter its purposes if the registrar considers one or more of those purposes to be contrary to this Act or otherwise unlawful.

Liability of members
5 A member of a society is not, in that capacity, liable for a debt or other liability of the society.
.
Capacity and powers of society
6 A society has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of an individual of full capacity.

Division 3 — Incorporation of Societies
.
Application for incorporation
13 One or more persons may incorporate a society by filing with the registrar an incorporation application that
.
(a) sets out the name reserved under section 9 [name] for the society and the reservation number given for that name,
.
(b) contains
(i) a constitution,
(ii) bylaws, and
(iii) a statement of directors and registered office, and
(c) sets out the full name and contact information of each of the applicants for incorporation.

The PHSA, is a corporation that acts under the BC Societies Act. It has the by-laws and constitution like any other company, and has the legal protections and rights of a full person.

In section 2.1 of its By-Laws, the PHSA specifies that there must always be at least one person appointed from the University of British Columbia. Very strange to have a quota system from an institution. It’s even more strange since Adrian Dix and several members running PHSA also have attended UBC.

Members are also able to rack up large debts in the name of the PHSA, but won’t be held personally responsible for any of them.

Why does all of this matter? Because the PHSA is the group that oversees all health care in British Columbia. According to a 2018 mandate letter from Health Minister Adrian Dix:

PHSA is directed to develop, review, and/or update evidence informed provincial clinical policy, in alignment with the policy direction set by the Ministry, to ensure appropriate, consistent, and equitable patient care services to strengthen the quality of our system of health care, in the following areas:
• Cancer Health
• Women’s Health
• Perinatal Health
• Children’s Health
• Mental Health and Substance Use (as requested by the Ministry of Mental Health and
Addictions)
• Forensic Psychiatric
• Health Care for Provincial Correctional Institutions
• Out-of-Hospital Emergency Health
• Disease control
• Renal Health
• Cardiac Health
• Organ Donation and Transplantation Health
• Trans Health
• Trauma Care
• Stroke Care
• Laboratory Medicine
• Provincial Blood and Blood Product Utilization
• Other areas as requested by the Ministry.

The mandate letter from Dix also specifies the PHSA is to “provide effective provincial oversight which includes provincial planning, coordination , monitoring, evaluating, and reporting on province-wide results and health outcomes for the following specialized provincial services”. In essence, PHSA is to be the brains and coordination behind health care in BC.

Keep in mind, Adrian Dix became Health Minister without being a doctor, or having any medical background whatsoever. His education consists of studying history and political science at the University of British Columbia. He is a former Chief-of-Staff for ex-Premier Glen Clark. It’s political climbing, not skill, that landed him in this current role. So he likely serves as little more than a yes-man.

In May 2008, the BC Health Act was replaced by the BC Public Health Act, also, implementing provisions from the 2005 Quarantine Act (Bill C-12). This included “Modernization of powers and duties of public health officials for communicable disease prevention and control, environmental health hazard response, chronic disease and hazard prevention, and public health emergency response; e.g. updated inspection powers, powers to issue orders, quarantine and isolation provisions”.

The Public Health Act also requires that there be a “Provincial Health Officer” appointed, and that such person be given broad powers. Currently, it’s Bonnie Henry, who has never had her name on any ballot.

There are references to “the Authority” in the Public Health Act, but it isn’t clear if it refers to the PSHA. Likely it means the people enforcing the various orders, not the policy heads. In any event, it goes on and on about the power to enforce “safety measures“.

What does all of this mean? It means that health care policy in BC is being determined by an autonomous group that isn’t really part of the Government. Yes, they receive public money, but they act on their own to determine how care shall be provided. While technically answering the Minister of Health, Adrian Dix has no qualifications, and can’t act to check that power. Not only that, the Public Health Act was modelled after the WHO International Health Regulations and 2005 Quarantine Act.

A body that isn’t accountable to the public, and a “Provincial Health Officer” who can’t be easily replaced are enforcing laws written by the World Health Organization. This is the state of affairs in British Columbia. With a set up like this, it’s no wonder that people like Bonnie Henry, Adrian Dix, John Horgan and Mike Farnworth are able to get away with so much. Collusion between political parties doesn’t help.

Update To Article

Pardon the oversight, but the B.C. Provincial Health Services Authority actually has charity status with the Canada Revenue Agency. In the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020, this group took in some $3.8 billion in revenue from various sources.

Receipted donations $37,800.00 (0.00%)
Non-receipted donations $172,585.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities $754,945,753.00 (19.86%)
Government funding $2,947,928,518.00 (77.55%)
All other revenue $98,427,173.00 (2.59%)
Total revenue: $3,801,511,829.00

Charitable programs $3,536,901,905.00 (93.05%)
Management and administration $264,235,205.00 (6.95%)
Fundraising $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $3,801,137,110.00

Total compensation for all positions: $1,373,060,592.00
Full-time employees: 8760
Part-time employees: 6403
Professional and consulting fees: $83,454,434.00

It’s also worth pointing out that 10 people made at least $350,000

LAWS, POLICIES, DOCUMENTS
(1) BC Societies Act, Full Text
(2) BC Public Health Act Announcement
(3) Full Text Of BC Public Health Act, Effective 2008
(4) http://www.phsa.ca/about/leadership/corporate-governance#About
(5) http://www.phsa.ca/about-site/Documents/PHSA%20Bylaws.pdf
(6) Provincial Health Services Authority BC Bylaws
(7) http://www.phsa.ca/about-site/Documents/PHSA%20Constitution.pdf
(8) Provincial Health Services Authority BC Constitution
(9) http://www.phsa.ca/about-site/Documents/PHSA%20Foundational%20%20Mandate.pdf
(10) Provincial Health Services Authority Foundational Mandate 2018
(11) http://www.phsa.ca/about-site/Documents/2019-20%20PHSA%20Mandate%20Letter.pdf
(12) Provincial Health Services Authority Foundational Mandate 2019
(13) http://www.phsa.ca/about/leadership/board-of-directors

PREVIOUS CANUCK LAW POSTS
(1) WHO International Health Regulations Legally Binding
(2) A Look At International Health Regulation Statements
(3) Quarantine Act Actually Written By WHO, IHR Changes
(4) Provincial Health Acts Domestic Implementation Of WHO-IHR, Part I
(5) Provincial Health Acts Domestic Implementation Of WHO-IHR, Part II
(6) World Health Treaty Proposed, Based On WHO-IHR
(7) Public Health Agency Of Canada Created As UN Outpost

Posted on

Grants Still Coming For Gay Pride Parades, Even During So-Called Pandemic

We are supposedly in the middle of a “global pandemic”, but why should that get in the way of open degeneracy, funded by public money? There are supposed to be limits on public gatherings, but perhaps pride marches will be exempt. Just wear a mask, and pretty much anything else goes, it seems.(Stock photo found online)

https://search.open.canada.ca/ (FEDERAL)

1. Federal Grants To Pride Groups

NAME DATE AMOUNT
Buddies In Bad Times Theatre Apr. 15, 2021 $11,800
Calgary Pride Planning Comm. Aug. 28, 2020 $25,600
Calgary Pride Planning Comm. Aug. 28, 2020 $102,500
Calgary Pride Planning Comm. Dec. 1, 2020 $100,000
Fernie Pride Society Sep. 5, 2020 $8,400
Fernie Pride Society Nov. 30, 2020 $57,139
Fierté Canada Pride Jun. 1, 2020 $50,000
Fierté Fredericton Pride Inc. Oct. 1, 2020 $161,604
Fierté Timmins Pride Nov. 20, 2020 $125,000
Jasper Pride Festival Society Oct. 1, 2020 $65,400
Kemptville Pride Nov. 25, 2020 $93,471
Lac La Ronge Regional Pride Comm. Jun. 26, 2021 $9,600
Moosejaw Pride Inc. Apr. 1, 2021 $11,000
Nanaimo Pride Society Apr. 1, 2021 $24,500
Niagara Senior Pride Network Nov. 23, 2020 $24,400
PEI Pride Inc. Jul. 28, 2020 $20,000
Peterborough Pride Committee Apr. 1, 2021 $5,300
Pride In Art Society Apr. 1, 2021 $63,300
Regina Pride Inc. Apr. 1, 2021 $19,400
Saskatoon Diversity Network Apr. 1, 2021 $14,700
Taber Equality Alliance Apr. 1, 2021 $5,000
Thunder Pride Association Nov. 9, 2020 $20,265
Toronto Pride Jun. 1, 2020 $25,600
Toronto Pride Jun. 1, 2020 $102,500
Toronto Pride Jun. 1, 2021 $63,500
Truro Pride Society Nov. 4, 2020 $17,204
UR Pride Centre for SGD Inc. Aug. 25, 2020 $25,000
Vancouver Pride Society Jul. 1, 2020 $25,600
Vancouver Pride Society Jul. 1, 2020 $102,500
Victoria Pride Society May 1, 2021 $18,100
Windsor Pride Community Nov. 30, 2020 $28,800
Winnipeg Gay & Lesbian Film Oct. 13, 2020 $5,000
Winnipeg Gay & Lesbian Film Oct. 13, 2020 $15,200
Winnipeg Pride Festival Apr. 1, 2021 $25,500
York Pride Fest May 1, 2021 $15,500
Yorkton Pride Apr. 1, 2021 $6,900
Yukon Queer Society Apr. 1, 2021 $19,700

Even as there are bans on people gathering, and meeting with others outside your “safety bubble”, grants for pride events keep being issued. Churches are ordered closed, but open degeneracy is allowed. Ever get the sense these people aren’t on your side?

Businesses are being shut down, and many more forced into bankruptcy. People’s livelihoods are wrecked, as they are forced onto CERB, CRB or EI. But the Government still has money for this. Nor has there been any indication that the globohomo mafia will get hit.

Keep in mind, this doesn’t include Provincial or Municipal grants. Nor does it reflect private donations. A lot of money is poured into this industry.

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

2. Pride Now Just Another Corporate Event

Does Calgary Pride (or any pride) look like it’s the opposition for anything? When it has the open backing of the media, corporations, and politicians who march in it, it’s just a mainstream event. Whatever happened to just moving on with your lives?

3. Will Pride Events Be Continuing This Year?

A serious question: Will Ontario’s Tyrant-In-Chief, Doug Ford, allow the pride parades and other events to go on in June? Will they get a pass, even as he threatens to detain people for simply being outside? Will the globohomo industry also feel the pain? June is just 6 weeks away.

It’s worth asking, since there has never been any logic or consistency to what is going on. Maybe the martial law will end (temporarily), so people can flash their privates publicly, and demand to be accepted into society.

BC doesn’t seem to be any better. Someone in the government actually thought this was a good idea.

Posted on

Public Health Agency Of Canada Created As Branch Of WHO; Bill C-12 PHAC Act

This will sound controversial, but PHAC, the Public Health Agency of Canada, is essentially a branch of the World Health Organization. It’s therefore logical that Theresa Tam (or whoever that person is), would actually hold dual roles.

From 2004 to 2006, there were a few significant developments in Canadian politics. The effects of which would finally be felt in 2020, with this fake “pandemic”.

(1) Creation of Public Health Agency of Canada by Order In Council
(2) International Health Regulations, 3rd Edition, Take Effect
(3) Passing of Quarantine Act, based on WHO-IHR
(4) Passing of PHAC Act, giving the Agency real teeth

These events are connected. The 2005 Quarantine Act is domestic implementation of the International Health Regulations. The Provincial Health Acts are derivatives of that. PHAC is a branch of WHO that masquerades as part of the Canadian Government. It was created to fulfill obligations under WHO-IHR.

Far from being a rogue administration, this was advanced by successive Liberal and Conservative Governments. Maybe one of the reasons the Canadian media spent so much time on the Paul Martin/Stephen Harper drama was to divert attention from what was really going on. It may also explain why Erin O’Toole is so blase about martial law being imposed these days.

1. Timeline: PHAC Act/Quarantine Act/IHR 3rd Ed

  • Jan 23, 2004 – WHO decides to update IHR
  • 2004 to 2005 – WHO begins process of creating IHR 3rd Edition
  • Sept 23, 2004 – OIC 2004-1068, amend Financial Administration Act
  • Sept 23, 2004 – OIC 2004-1070, amend PS Staff Relations Act
  • Sept 23, 2004 – OIC 2004-1071, amend Public Service Employment Act
  • Sept 23, 2004 – OIC 2004-1072/1073, amend Privacy Act
  • Sept 23, 2004 – OIC 2004-1074/1075, amend Access To Info Act
  • Sept 23, 2004 – OIC 2004-1076, amend CSIS Act
  • Sept 23, 2004 – OIC 2004-1076, amend Auditor General Act
  • Oct 8, 2004 – 1st Reading of Quarantine Act
  • Oct 26, 2004 – 2nd Reading of Quarantine Act
  • Oct 28, 2004 – Parliamentary Hearing of Quarantine Act
  • Nov 4 2004 – Parliamentary Hearing of Quarantine Act
  • Nov 18, 2004 – Parliamentary Hearing of Quarantine Act
  • Nov 23, 2004 – Parliamentary Hearing of Quarantine Act
  • Nov 25, 2004 – Parliamentary Hearing of Quarantine Act
  • Dec 7, 2004 – Parliamentary Hearing of Quarantine Act
  • Dec 7, 2004 – Parliamentary Hearing of Quarantine Act
  • Dec 8, 2004 – Parliamentary Hearing of Quarantine Act
  • Feb 10, 2005 – 3rd Reading of Quarantine Act
  • Feb 10, 2005 – 1st Reading of Quarantine Act (Senate)
  • Mar 9, 2005 – 2nd Reading of Quarantine Act (Senate)
  • Apr 14, 2005 – 3rd Reading of Quarantine Act (Senate)
  • May 13, 2005 – Royal Assent of Quarantine Act
  • May 8, 2006 – 2nd Reading of PHAC Act Passed in HoC
  • May 11, 2006 – Parliamentary Hearing on PHAC Act
  • May 16, 2006 – Parliamentary Hearing on PHAC Act
  • June 20, 2006 – 3rd Reading of PHAC Act Passed in HoC
  • June 20, 2006 – 1st Reading of PHAC Act (Senate)
  • June 28, 2006 – 2nd Reading of PHAC Act (Senate)
  • Nov 3, 2006 – 3rd Reading of PHAC Act (Senate)
  • Dec 12, 2006 – Royal Assent of PHAC Act
  • Dec 15, 2006 – OIC 2006-1587, PHAC Act Active

2. PHAC Is Canada’s “Focal Point” For IHR

Article 4 Responsible authorities
1. Each State Party shall designate or establish a National IHR Focal Point and the authorities responsible within its respective jurisdiction for the implementation of health measures under these Regulations.
.
2. National IHR Focal Points shall be accessible at all times for communications with the WHO IHR Contact Points provided for in paragraph 3 of this Article. The functions of National IHR Focal Points shall include:
(a) sending to WHO IHR Contact Points, on behalf of the State Party concerned, urgent communications concerning the implementation of these Regulations, in particular under Articles 6 to 12; and
(b) disseminating information to, and consolidating input from, relevant sectors of the administration of the State Party concerned, including those responsible for surveillance and reporting, points of entry, public health services, clinics and hospitals and other government departments.
.
3. WHO shall designate IHR Contact Points, which shall be accessible at all times for communications with National IHR Focal Points. WHO IHR Contact Points shall send urgent communications concerning the implementation of these Regulations, in particular under Articles 6 to 12, to the National IHR Focal Point of the States Parties concerned. WHO IHR Contact Points may be designated by WHO at the headquarters or at the regional level of the Organization.
.
4. States Parties shall provide WHO with contact details of their National IHR Focal Point and WHO shall provide States Parties with contact details of WHO IHR Contact Points. These contact details shall be continuously updated and annually confirmed. WHO shall make available to all States Parties the contact details of National IHR Focal Points it receives pursuant to this Article.

IHR 3rd Edition Full Text 2005 (See highlighted version)

The 2005 Edition of the International Health Regulations specifies that each State Party (which is each country) shall establish a “focal point”. These points shall be responsible for implementing the Regulations, and answer to WHO.

And who is that focal point? The Public Health Agency of Canada. It was created specifically for the purpose of implementing WHO’s directives on global public health.

Who better to head PHAC than Theresa Tam? This person acted in a 2010 film supporting martial law, and already works for WHO anyway.

3. Timeline Of PHAC/IHR Implemented

January 19 to 23, 2004, at the 113th Session of the Executive Board of the World Health Organization, it was decided that the International Health Regulations were to receive an updated edition. See here, here and the archive.

Mr AISTON (Canada) said that the International Health Regulations were a key component of Canada’s approach to the management and containment of communicable diseases, and also central to the role and function of WHO. The approach proposed was good: while a case could be made for accelerating the process, revision required careful consideration and the timetable put forward was therefore probably realistic. Having been a participant in the negotiations on the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, he suggested that the process should be concluded in one or two negotiating sessions at most. Canada was preparing a domestic approach to the revision of the International Health Regulations and would keep WHO informed of developments.

Page 41 starts to address proposed changes to the IHR, and states that it was widely supported by Member States. There seems to be no concern with just how much sovereignty is given up.

In fact, discussions for what changes to make to the International Health Regulations continued throughout 2004, and into 2005. That’s when things started to happen in Canada, although this was not discussed publicly.

In September 2004, a series of Orders In Council were signed to retroactively include the Public Health Agency of Canada into existing legislation. PHAC was also a recent creation that had not yet received any sort of legislative legitimacy. That would later change.

This is not some conspiracy theory. In fact, PHAC itself writes “was created in 2004 in response to growing concerns about the capacity of Canada’s public health system to anticipate and respond effectively to public health threats”. This is posted on its own website. It’s under the section titled WHY WAS THE AGENCY CREATED?

PHAC’s creation was in part of the larger Federal Strategy. Part of that (Pillar 3) promoted the idea of a Pan-Canadian Public Health Network. “Pan-Canadian” seems to be a euphemism for global.

October 8, 2004, just 2 weeks later, Bill C-12 was introduced into the House of Commons. This was the Quarantine Act, and was to be based on the World Health Organization’s regulations. By the end of October, it had passed Second Reading and was before the HESA Committee.

The November 4 hearing, the second hearing, is quite an interesting one. Below are quotes from the transcript of that session.

The Quarantine Act is passed in 2005, and the 3rd Edition of IHR took effect that year. In 2006, “Conservative” Prime Minister Stephen Harper brings in the PHAC Act, to give some legislative legitimacy to PHAC.

4. Bill C-12, Quarantine Act, IHR Implementation

[Page 5]
Mr. Colin Carrie: I have a question about Canada’s quarantine laws. Are we in touch with the World Health Organization and other international organizations? If there’s an outbreak, can we have any influence on quarantining people in other areas, or vice versa, the sharing of information in that way?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: During an outbreak we certainly would communicate with the countries involved. During SARS we had close collaboration with the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, for example, as required, to share intelligence. In terms of utilization of their legislation, such as quarantine acts, we feel that our relationship with WHO, which is closer, and also clarification of WHO’s powers under the international health regulations will, I think, further ensure there is consistency in terms of response from individual member states as a result of that. Does that answer your question?
.
Mr. Colin Carrie: Yes.
Are you aware of international standards for quarantine?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: The international health regulations would be the regulations that individual states would then use to design their quarantine acts. I don’t know of any other standards out there or best practices to look at quarantine acts, but the IHRs really have been used over the years as the starting point. Now, with the improvement of the international health regulations, maybe, as is the case in Canada, changes will occur to quarantine acts in other countries in order to better comply with the international health regulations.

[Page 6]
The Chair: Madam Demers.
[Translation]
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Madam Chair, my colleague made a reference earlier to international agreements. This is also one of my concerns. You will recall that the fundamental principle established at the First International Sanitary Conference in 1951 was to ensure maximum protection combined with a minimum number of restrictions. This principle still holds sway today. I’m certainly concerned about our future course of action.

[Page 8]
Mrs. Carol Skelton: Why did Health Canada proceed with a separate Quarantine Act at this time?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: Those of us who administered the Quarantine Act over the years always knew there were deficiencies in the old act, and because it was rarely used there wasn’t the inclination to update it. As a result of SARS and utilization of the act, which certainly put it under close scrutiny, and the requirement for the Government of
Canada to respond to the various reports on SARS, it was felt that updating the act sooner rather than later was appropriate. In addition, during discussions about the international health regulations of the World Health Organization, it was felt that it was appropriate to do it and to spend time and energy, which it obviously does require, to do it now, before other parts of legislative renewal, of which Mr. Simard is well aware, were further implemented or further discussion was carried out.

[Page 8]
Mrs. Carol Skelton: I would appreciate that, please. We talked at a previous committee meeting about the newly
created Public Health Agency of Canada. Bill C-12 gives authority to the Minister of Health, with no mention at all of the Chief Public Health Officer. Is there any connection between Bill C-12 and the Public Health Agency headed by our Chief Public Health Officer?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: The minister has the powers and can delegate those powers. The responsibility for the Quarantine Act is a responsibility of the Public Health Agency, which is headed by the Chief Public Health Officer. In effect, the Chief Public Health Officer has responsibility for the act under the minister, because there are certain powers, obviously, that the minister will delegate to the Chief Public Health Officer.

[Page 9]
Ms. Ruby Dhalla: I have one question. In terms of the Quarantine Act for our country, where are we at in terms of best practices models when we look at the international spectrum?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: I don’t know the acts in other countries, but because we are updating our act right now and we’re taking into account the probable revisions to the international health regulations, I believe we would be well in the forefront in terms of having modern legislation.

From the November 4, 2004 Parliamentary Hearings. Bill C-12, the 2005 Quarantine Act, was written as to accommodate anticipated changes in the International Health Regulations. As is spelled out, compliance is mandatory.

It also becomes clear that the newly created Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), will be responsible for carrying out actions in accordance with the Quarantine Act. Keep in mind, in 2004, PHAC had been created by Order In Council. There was no legislative basis for it yet.

5. Bill C-5: Public Health Agency Of Canada Act

WHEREAS the Government of Canada wishes to take public health measures, including measures relating to health protection and promotion, population health assessment, health surveillance, disease and injury prevention, and public health emergency preparedness and response;
WHEREAS the Government of Canada wishes to foster collaboration within the field of public health and to coordinate federal policies and programs in the area of public health;
WHEREAS the Government of Canada wishes to promote cooperation and consultation in the field of public health with provincial and territorial governments;
WHEREAS the Government of Canada also wishes to foster cooperation in that field with foreign governments and international organizations, as well as other interested persons or organizations;
AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada considers that the creation of a public health agency for Canada and the appointment of a Chief Public Health Officer will contribute to federal efforts to identify and reduce public health risk factors and to support national readiness for public health threats;

PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCY OF CANADA
Establishment
3. The Public Health Agency of Canada is established for the purpose of assisting the Minister in exercising or performing the Minister’s powers, duties and functions in relation to public health.

Qualifications required
(2) The Chief Public Health Officer shall be a health professional who has qualifications in the field of public health.
Lead health professional
7. (1) The Chief Public Health Officer is the lead health professional of the Government of Canada in relation to public health.
Communication with governments, public health authorities and organizations
(2) The Chief Public Health Officer may, with respect to public health issues, communicate with governments, public health author-ities or organizations in the public health field, within Canada or internationally.
Communication with the public, voluntary organizations and the private sector
(3) The Chief Public Health Officer may communicate with the public, voluntary organizations in the public health field or the private sector for the purpose of providing information, or seeking their views, about public health issues.

PHAC was created for the purpose of promoting public health, and it serves as a required “focal point” for Canada to fulfill its obligations under the International Health Regulations and the Quarantine Act.

Having Theresa Tam as both the Public Health Officer of Canada and working for the World Health Organization actually makes sense. PHAC effectively acts as a branch of WHO.

PHAC exists to serve a UN function.

6. Government Openly Admits PHAC Is WHO Outpost

How Canada meets its obligations under the IHR
As a signatory to the IHR, Canada is committed to help strengthen global health security. We build capacities to detect, assess, report and respond to public health events here at home and abroad.

Canada has confirmed its ability to meet these public health core capacity requirements under the IHR through the following activities: (a) monitoring and evaluation (such as the Joint External Evaluation (JEE) process)
real-life events; (b) emergency preparedness and response exercises; and (c) Collaboration efforts between federal departments and with provincial and territorial partners improve and strengthen our country’s public health preparedness and response system.

Canada has also established a National IHR Focal Point (NFP), which is required under IHR Article 4 (Responsible authorities). The NFP supports IHR-related communications between Canadian public health authorities, WHO, its regional office in the Americas (care of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO)) and other countries.

Implementing the IHR in Canada
In Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) is the lead organization for implementing the IHR. PHAC is also Canada’s designated National IHR Focal Point (NFP). As the NFP, PHAC coordinates the implementation of the IHR on behalf of the Government of Canada.

IHR activities are a shared responsibility. This means that Canada’s Health Portfolio, other federal departments and provincial/territorial governments support IHR implementation.

Canada implements the IHR under existing legislation, regulations, policies and agreements in place at both the federal and provincial/territorial levels.

The success of IHR implementation in Canada relies on ongoing collaboration by all partners to carry out surveillance, reporting, notification, verification, response and collaboration activities: (a) across the country and (b) at international points of entry (airports, ports and ground crossings)

Because legislation differs among federal and provincial/territorial governments, Canada has mechanisms, agreements and plans in place that enable national coordination. This is particularly important during public health emergencies that require federal involvement.

It’s hardly a conspiracy theory when Ottawa openly admits that PHAC serves as the “focal point” for WHO, and to implement the International Health Regulations.

PREVIOUS CANUCK LAW POSTS
(1) WHO International Health Regulations Legally Binding
(2) A Look At International Health Regulation Statements
(3) Quarantine Act Actually Written By WHO, IHR Changes
(4) Provincial Health Acts Domestic Implementation Of WHO-IHR
(5) Provincial Health Acts Domestic Implementation Of WHO-IHR, Part II
(6) World Health Treaty Proposed, Based On WHO-IHR

WHO/INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS
(1) 113th Session Of World Health Org Executive, January 2004
(2) 113th Session World Health Organization Jaunary 2004
(3) https://apps.who.int/gb/ghs/pdf/A_IHR_IGWG_1-en.pdf
(4) WHO September 2 2004 IHR Meeting
(5) https://apps.who.int/gb/ghs/e/e-igwg.html
(6) https://archive.is/kexzW
(7) https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/corporate/mandate/about-agency/history.html
(8) https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/corporate/mandate/about-agency/federal-strategy.html
(9) WHO 113th Session Revise The IHR
(10) WHO IHR 3rd Edition Full Text 2005 MARKED

PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCY OF CANADA ACT (BILL C-5)
(1) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/
(2) https://openparliament.ca/bills/39-1/C-5/?page=2
(3) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=2162144&View=5
(4) https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/39-1/bill/C-5/first-reading
(5) HESA Committee Study On Bill C-5
(6) May 11 2006 HESA Transcript PHAC Act
(7) May 16 2006 HESA Transcript PHAC Act

QUARANTINE ACT (BILL C-12)
(1) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=1395913
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/HESA/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=981075
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/38-1/HESA/report-2/
(4) Canada Quarantine Act Oct 28 Hearing
(5) Canada Quarantine Act Nov 4 Hearing
(6) Canada Quarantine Act Nov 18 Hearing
(7) Canada Quarantine Act Nov 23 Hearing
(8) Canada Quarantine Act Nov 25 Hearing
(9) Canada Quarantine Act Dec 7 First Hearing
(10) Canada Quarantine Act Dec 7 Second Hearing
(11) Canada Quarantine Act Dec 8 Hearing