Category: Human Rights

Posted on

Action4Canada Statement Of Claim Fatally Defective, Will Never Make It To Trial

Action4Canada and several others recently filed a Notice of Civil Claim (or NOCC), which is the equivalent to a Statement of Claim. This was filed against the B.C. Government, BCPHO Bonnie Henry, Premier John Horgan, Health Minister Adrian Dix, Solicitor General and Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworth, and several others. The Plaintiffs are being represented by Rocco Galati and Lawrence Wong.

While this should be cause for excitement, that is not the case here. The NOCC is filled with obvious defects which will lead to it getting thrown out, if the Government ever decides to challenge it.

Just looking at Rules 3-1 and 3-7 of the British Columbia Supreme Court Civil Rules, it already becomes clear that there will be issues with the pleading. These aren’t minor problems, but ones that seriously and repeatedly violate basic rules of the B.C. Supreme Court.

And no, this isn’t “infighting”. It’s difficult to believe that “Canada’s top constitutional lawyer” could draft such garbage unless it was done intentionally. People are being asked to donate to a case that doesn’t stand a chance in hell of going ahead. And maybe that was the point all along.

To begin the critique, let’s first look at a few parts of the Rules Of Civil Procedure for B.C. Although not identical to Ontario, they are quite similar, and set up much the same way. And Lawrence Wong is a lawyer in B.C., so presumably he’s familiar with how things are done in that Province.

For reference, B.C. provides a template for such documents. This is done for all forms, in all Courts across Canada. Just fill out the appropriate sections.

  • Part 1: Statement of Facts
  • Part 2: Relief Sought
  • Part 3: Legal Basis

Rule 3-1 — Notice of Civil Claim
Notice of civil claim
(1) To start a proceeding under this Part, a person must file a notice of civil claim in Form 1.
.
Contents of notice of civil claim
(2) A notice of civil claim must do the following:
.
(a) set out a concise statement of the material facts giving rise to the claim;
(b) set out the relief sought by the plaintiff against each named defendant;
(c) set out a concise summary of the legal basis for the relief sought;
(d) set out the proposed place of trial;
(e) if the plaintiff sues or a defendant is sued in a representative capacity, show in what capacity the plaintiff sues or the defendant is sued;
(f) provide the data collection information required in the appendix to the form;
(g) otherwise comply with Rule 3-7.

Rule 3-7 is quite long, but here are some of the more relevant portions which apply to this Notice of Civil Claim. The reasons will soon become obvious.

Rule 3-7 — Pleadings Generally
Content of Pleadings
.
Pleading must not contain evidence
(1) A pleading must not contain the evidence by which the facts alleged in it are to be proved.
.
Documents and conversations
(2) The effect of any document or the purport of any conversation referred to in a pleading, if material, must be stated briefly and the precise words of the documents or conversation must not be stated, except insofar as those words are themselves material.
.
When presumed facts need not be pleaded
(3) A party need not plead a fact if
(a) the fact is presumed by law to be true, or
(b) the burden of disproving the fact lies on the other party.

Assuming that this NOCC doesn’t just sit indefinitely, like both with Vaccine Choice Canada are, it’s most likely to be struck when challenged. Rule 9-5 lays out how and why Pleadings are thrown out. Going through the NOCC, it becomes clear it could happen for many reasons.

Rule 9-5 — Striking Pleadings
.
Scandalous, frivolous or vexatious matters
(1) At any stage of a proceeding, the court may order to be struck out or amended the whole or any part of a pleading, petition or other document on the ground that
.
(a) it discloses no reasonable claim or defence, as the case may be,
(b) it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,
(c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial or hearing of the proceeding, or
(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court,
.
and the court may pronounce judgment or order the proceeding to be stayed or dismissed and may order the costs of the application to be paid as special costs.
.
[am. B.C. Reg. 119/2010, Sch. A, s. 22.]
.
Admissibility of evidence
(2) No evidence is admissible on an application under subrule (1) (a).

Now, let’s address specific criticisms of the SoC.

1. No Concise Set Of Material Facts Provided In Statement Of Claim

Rule 3-1(2)(a) says that a Claim should have a concise set of material facts. This does not. Instead, this is a rambling, redundant, horribly repetitive monster that should have been gutted a long time ago. 391 pages was not needed, as this could have been done in a fraction of that. The NOCC — if ever challenged — is likely to be struck because of the exceptionally poor writing alone.

Paragraphs in NOCC are typically supposed to contain 1 main idea or fact. This makes it easy for the other side to simply “admit” or “deny”. But throughout this, many are crammed full of other information, which complicates things.

Moreover, many of the allegations are things that each Defendant could claim they had no knowledge of. And there are plenty of bald assertions, without underlying facts being pleaded.

2. Section On Relief Sought Is A Complete Mess

Rule 3-1(2)(b) states that a Claim shall “set out the relief sought by the plaintiff against each named defendant”. In this filing, that section starts at page 312, and ends at 356. Yes, it takes 44 pages to outline what is being asked for in the Claim. It’s incredibly redundant and repetitive.

At page 341, we finally get to monetary damages.
-$1,000,000: Action4Canada
-$2,000,000: Kimberly Woolman
-$2,000,000: Estate of Jaqueline Woolman
-$200,000: Brian Edgar
-$200,000: Amy Muranetz
-$2,000,000: Jane Doe #2
-$2,000,000: Valerie Ann Foley
-$250,000: Linda Morken
-$250,000: Gary Morken
-$500,000: Pastor Randy Beatty
-$500,000: Ilona Zink
-$750,000: Federico Fuoco
-$750,000: Fire Productions Limited, and F2 productions Incorporated
-$250,000: Michael Martinz
-$250,000: Makhan S. Parhar
-$750,000: North Delta Real Yoga Real Hot Yoga Limited
-$250,000: Melissa Anne Neubauer
-$750,000: Jane Doe #3

$14.65 million (if this is added up correctly), is the amount being sought by individuals and organizations. But there is more to this. Although some private parties are named, it’s unclear who exactly is supposed to be paying these people the Charter damages they seek. A number of Government Officials are named. It seems that the Judge would just be expected to figure it out for himself.

On page 355, it is stated that $20 million is sought against CBC. However, it’s not clear who would get it. Would the Plaintiffs share it, or is that the lawyer fees?

$14.65 million for the Plaintiffs, and $20 million for who exactly?

3. No Concise Summary Of The Legal Basis For Claim

Rule 3-1(2)(c) requires that the NOCC “set out a concise summary of the legal basis for the relief sought”. The legal basis starts on page 356, and ends at page 384. Obviously, this is far from being concise. But beyond that, the NOCC isn’t really stating a legal basis. Instead, it mostly rehashes the declaratory relief sought in Part 2 of the NOCC. It looks like it was just a cut-and-paste job, done without anyone checking to see if it made sense.

What SHOULD have been include was a list of the various laws and statues that would be relied on at Trial. If necessary, the relevant parts can be quoted. Instead of that, Part 3 just goes through the same demands made earlier.

At times, it also appears that conclusions are being drawn, when it should just be stating the law.

4. Evidence Being Pleaded In Statement Of Claim

Rule 3-7(1) explains that an NOCC should not plead evidence. Nonetheless, this document spends a lot of time pleading just that This isn’t supposed to happen at this stage. The NOCC should outline the facts that the Plaintiff(s) are trying to establish.

Additionally, the bulk of the evidence cited wouldn’t be allowed in even if it were okay to include here. Going through the NOCC, a good chunk of the citations are media articles. That may be fine for research, or for other publication, but Courts do have a higher standard.

5. Long Quotes Listed In Statement Of Claim

Rule 3-7(2) tell us that: “The effect of any document or the purport of any conversation referred to in a pleading, if material, must be stated briefly and the precise words of the documents or conversation must not be stated, except insofar as those words are themselves material.” Throughout the NOCC there are very long quotes of conversations and documents. Sure, references are fine, and short bits of text, but entire paragraphs are devoted to this purpose.

6. Content That Is Unnecessary, Vexatious, Delay Proceedings

Rule 9-5(1) allows for Pleadings to be struck if they contain any of the following elements:

(b) it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,
(c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial or hearing of the proceeding, or
(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court,

Starting at page 188, the NOCC goes on and on about Bill Gates, GAVI, the World Economic Forum, Alan Dershowitz, and media collusion. Granted, the bulk of this is completely true. However, unless these people and organizations are either being sued, or called as witnesses, their presence doesn’t help. Moreover, it’s not just a brief mention, but entire pages.

Are these lawyers unaware that the Defendants are entitled to challenge every statement and allegation made? This is just asking for such a Motion.

7. Proofreading Not Exactly Up To Par

This is from page 118. Sure, it’s very minor in the scheme of things, but shouldn’t lawyer fees come with an expectation of proofreading? Jagmeet Singh and Jason Kenney aren’t being sued, so why are they even in here? Singh is the head of a 3rd Party Federally, and Kenney is Premier of Alberta.

This last error is more a nuisance than anything. However, the other ones could (by themselves) get the SoC struck if anyone ever challenged it. These are not minor errors or oversights, and are not something that could be cured by Amendment, or a revised Statement.

Also, starting on page 122, Denis Rancourt is listed and discussed as an expert. Considering that he “is” an expert witness is the police case and the schools case, and also a Plaintiff in the July 6, 2020 case, there may be some conflict of interest here. Beginning on page 128, there is the pleading of expert opinion. If they are, or ever became witnesses, this would be more pleading of evidence, in violation of Rule 3-7(1).

And this is nitpicking, but Bonnie Henry co-owns a winery in Keremeos, not Keremios. See page 121.

But hey, at least the service addresses were included this time, so take that as a small victory.

Now, this is a (non expert) look at things, but R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42 (CanLII), [2011] 3 SCR 45 seems to be the standard for Motions striking out Pleadings. It uses the “plain and obvious” test for making that determination. The SoC violates the Rules in glaringly obvious ways, and there isn’t any real fix possible.

Why draft a Claim this badly? One possible explanation is that this is never intended to go to Trial. See here for background information.

Consider, for example, the July 6, 2020 Claim from Vaccine Choice Canada. It contained the same defects as this. Despite those problems, it has never been challenged by Trudeau, Ford, Tory or anyone else. No default judgement was ever sought either, despite having no response in over a year. The only plausible explanation is collusion, where the parties agreed to leave it in limbo, for whatever reason.

However, donors pump money into these cases, unaware that there is no urgency in bringing them forward. In fact, it doesn’t seem they (the lawyers) ever planned to take any of them to Trial, despite the hype. This diverts money, energy, hope and time into Court challenges designed to go nowhere. By taking on all these cases — and letting them sit — the Great Reset moves ahead relatively unopposed. Not that the people in the comments would notice.

Vladimir Lenin is famously quoted as saying: “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves”. And that’s exactly what this looks like.

(1) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/168_2009_00
(2) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/courthouse-services/court-files-records/court-forms/supreme-civil/1-notice-of-civil-claim.pdf
(3) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/courthouse-services/court-files-records/court-forms/civil_numerically.pdf
(4) https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/20CRC16/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/21.08.17-FILED-Notice-of-Civil-Claim-Action4Canada.pdf
(5) Action4Canada Statement Of Claim
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2011/2011scc42/2011scc42.html
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/vaccine-choice-canada-action4canada-want-more-money-for-cases-still-not-happening/
(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keWV-xD5sfA&

Posted on

WHO Paper On Vaccine Passport Implementation & Specifications Funded By Gates, Rockefeller

Despite the claim of “VACCINE PASSPORTS” being dismissed as a lunatic conspiracy theory in 2020, the World Health Organization has put out its own guidelines for establishing such a system. This issue isn’t just being discussed, but has been studied and written about. Here is the paper they just released. It covers technical specifications and implementation guidance.

Then again, WHO published a paper on MANDATORY VACCINATION back in April 2021, despite repeatedly saying that such predictions were conspiracy theories. Absurdly, WHO admits these so-called vaccines only have emergency use authorization, but were still open to the idea of making them compulsory.

Reading through this paper, disturbing, yet unsurprising things emerge.

Page v: Contributors to this paper are named. These include: Beth Newcombe (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada); Maxwell J Smith (University of Toronto); Stephen Wilson (Lockstep Group); Beverly Knight (ISO TC215 Health Informatics Canadian Mirror Committee); all members and observers of the Smart Vaccination Certificate
Working Group.

Lockstep Group is an interesting name, considering that this “pandemic” is heavily based on the Lockstep Narrative that was laid out a decade ago. Of course, that document came from none other than the Rockefeller Foundation.

And a WHO operative working at the University of Toronto? Who would ever have seen that one coming? It’s not like Rockefeller was a major donor to that school, or was heavily involved in starting up the public health industry.

Page vi: For starters, the funders of this project are listed very briefly. “This work was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Government of Estonia, Fondation Botnar, the State of Kuwait, and the Rockefeller Foundation. The views of the funding bodies have not influenced the content of this document.”

This work was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Government of Estonia, Fondation Botnar, the State of Kuwait, and the Rockefeller Foundation. The views of the funding bodies have not influenced the content of this document.

Then again, GAVI (which Gates finances), Microsoft (which Gates used to run), and the Rockefeller Foundation all contributed to the launch of ID2020, a global digital identification initiative. This was started back in 2016. But connecting the obvious dots is probably a conspiracy theory.

Microsoft is also a partner (along with the Ontario Ministry of Health), of the Vaccine Credential Initiative. But again, nothing to see here.

As for Fondation Botnar: it claims to: “champion the use of AI and digital technology to improve the health and wellbeing of children and young people in growing urban environments around the world. We do this by supporting research, catalysing diverse partners, and investing in scalable solutions.” Not that there would be a business angle here, or anything.

Page xiv: Not too long ago, there was heavy criticism when it was predicted that vaccination would become a requirement for work, education, or international travel? Instead, those uses, are explicitly suggested by WHO as places to implement them.

The primary target audience of this document is national authorities tasked with creating or overseeing the development of a digital vaccination certificate solution for COVID-19. The document may also be useful to government partners such as local businesses, international organizations, non-governmental organizations and trade associations, that may be required to support Member States in developing or deploying a DDCC:VS solution.

Page 2, Section 1.2: This isn’t just some academic piece or philosophical musings. The authors of this paper fully intend for this to be used by Governments. Furthermore, businesses and trade organizations will be expected to help out in the support of this. We would have a few of those, right? See here and here for some examples.

Page 5, Section 1.5: Remember those International Health Regulations, which Governments insist are not legally binding? Turns out they actually are, and formed part of the basis for this guidance document. Also, the 2005 Quarantine Act was in fact based on anticipated rules of the 3rd Edition WHO-IHR, which came out that year.

Also, those papers which comes as a result of those emergency meetings (8 so far) are binding on countries as well. They are instructions — or at least guidelines — for how to run internal affairs.

As with any digital solution, there are ethical considerations, such as potential impacts on equity and on equitable access, and data protection principles that need to inform the design of the technical specifications, as well as provide guidance on how resulting solutions can be ethically implemented. The following sections discuss some key ethical considerations and data protection principles that Member States are encouraged to – and, where they have legal obligations, must – include in their respective deployments of any DDCC:VS. These ethical considerations and data protection principles have also informed the design criteria for a DDCC:VS outlined in the following section

Page 6, Chapter 2: We start getting into the ethical issues at this point. Strangely, there doesn’t seem to be any mention that these “vaccines” are only authorized by a continued emergency status. Also, there is apparently no moral dilemma over policies that amount to coercion.

While COVID-19 vaccines may eventually be widely accessible, current global distribution is inequitable and there are populations that vaccination programmes may struggle to reach due to, for example, geography, terrain, transient or nomadic movement, war and conflict, or illegal or insecure residency status. These hard-to-reach populations (e.g. refugees, asylum seekers, internally displaced persons) are disproportionately less likely to have an opportunity to be vaccinated and obtain a DDCC:VS.

Page 8, Section 2.1.1: Although there seems to be no concern with coercion of unproven injections onto the general public, they are concerned about people being in the country illegally. Now, this is not because this is morally wrong, but since it will make such people harder to reach.

Chapter 2 goes on and on about privacy of information, but intentionally omits mentioning how wrong it is to pressure people into taking these concoctions in the first place. WHO seems to be very partial and selective about what issues are worth considering. And no, this topic hasn’t been “settled” or anything of the sort.

Chapters 3 through 6 go into considerable detail about technical requirements for how to implement such a system, and how to ensure everyone getting injected has a record of it. The particulars are beyond the scope of this review, but yes, they are building national (and most likely international) databases of vaccinations.

Chapter 7 goes into national considerations, and how countries can implement systems that each other can trust. Apparently, a central authority is to be trusted to maintain and update these records. It also addresses the revocation of vaccination status, not that it will ever be abused.

Chapter 8 gets into short and long term goals. Score another one for the conspiracy nuts, but WHO talks about how this system, once fully implemented, could be used for OTHER health records and databases. It’s almost as if this was meant as some sort of bait-and-switch.

  • SHORT-TERM DDCC:VS SOLUTION: Deploy a short-term DDCC:VS solution to address the immediate need of the pandemic that includes a clearly established end date and a roadmap towards discontinuing the DDCC:VS solution once COVID-19 is no longer considered a Public Health Emergency of International Concern under the IHR.
  • LONG-TERM DDCC:VS SOLUTION: Deploy a DDCC:VS solution to address the immediate needs of the pandemic but also to build digital health infrastructure that can be a foundation for digital vaccination certificates beyond COVID-19 (e.g. digital home-based records for childhood immunizations) and support other digital health initiatives.

Page 60: The references used are listed. It’s worth mentioning that the first few have to do with people making counterfeit records. This seems designed to push the narrative that such things are unreliable, and that only a digital system can be run.

Page 60: Reference #13 stands out. It is actually a paper published in 2015, concerning home-based vaccination records as a way to advance immunizations, particularly for children. Now, this was mainly manual (not digital) at the time, but now we are in the next generation.

Page 63: the paper outlines an example of what a digital pass would look like. A QR code would be visible, but inside, there would be the personal information about what shots the person had. Interesting that it’s referred to as a National Vaccine Card. That was something else previously dismissed as a tin-foil hat ranting.

Back in December 2020, the WHO put out a call for nominations for “experts” for the Smart Vaccination Certificate technical specifications and standards of an incoming vaccine passport system. In an Orwellian twist, these passports (or digital passes, or whatever name one wants) are framed as a sort of human rights issue. Even as the WHO and their puppets are reassuring people that these “movement licenses” are a fantasy, they are recruiting people to look at the feasibility.

At what point can it no longer be denied that all of this is very well planned and coordinated?

(1) https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/343361
(2) WHO Vaccine Passport Specifications Guidelines
(3) https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/world-health-organization-open-call-for-nomination-of-experts-to-contribute-to-the-smart-vaccination-certificate-technical-specifications-and-standards-application-deadline-14-december-2020
(4) https://id2020.org/
(5) https://www.who.int/about/ethics/declarations-of-interest
(6) https://www.who.int/news/item/04-06-2021-revised-scope-and-direction-for-the-smart-vaccination-certificate-and-who-s-role-in-the-global-health-trust-framework
(7) WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Original)
(8) WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Copy)
(9) https://www.who.int/news/item/23-01-2020-statement-on-the-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)
(10) https://www.who.int/news/item/30-01-2020-statement-on-the-second-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)
(11) https://www.who.int/news/item/01-05-2020-statement-on-the-third-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)
(12) https://www.who.int/news/item/01-08-2020-statement-on-the-fourth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)
(13) https://www.who.int/news/item/30-10-2020-statement-on-the-fifth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic
(14) https://www.who.int/news/item/15-01-2021-statement-on-the-sixth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic
(15) https://www.who.int/news/item/19-04-2021-statement-on-the-seventh-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic
(16) https://www.who.int/news/item/15-07-2021-statement-on-the-eighth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic

Posted on

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.

9.1.6.1 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.

9.1.6.2 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.

9.1.6.3 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.

9.1.6.4 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 9.1.6.3, 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.

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/canadian-biosafety-standards-guidelines/handbook-second-edition.html
(2) https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/migration/cbsg-nldcb/cbh-gcb/assets/pdf/cbh-gcb-eng.pdf
(3) Canada Biosafety Handbook May 2016
(4) https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=878784959416690
(5) https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=901642553914115
(6) https://www.bitchute.com/video/eBATI8iMdNM2/

Posted on

Getting Started With Researching Registered Canadian Charities

In both Canada and the United States, registered charities are open to at least some degree of scrutiny by members of the public. This is of importance since a surprising number of NGOs who try to influence your life are actually charities. In addition to meddling, these groups are being subsidized with your tax money. The upside is that it makes it much easier to look into them.

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

While the focus on this is Canadian charities, you should be aware that it’s possible to search the finances of American ones in much the same way. The information is made public by the Canada Revenue Agency, and Internal Revenue Service, respectively.

A disclaimer: it’s probably best to go into this with an open mind. Surely, the bulk of these groups operate in a completely transparent manner. That said, groups that few have heard of have a disproportionate impact on our lives. Be curious, but willing to have beliefs changed. Also, a great many of these organizations have revenue of just a few thousand or tens of thousands per year. They aren’t pulling too many strings.

Referring to the Canadian site: checking out if a company is registered as a charity is about as complicated as running a Google search. Simply type in the name, or part of a name. It is actually quite surprising the amount of places that are charities. This includes colleges, universities and many public health “authorities”.

Now, let’s try an example:

Searching with the term “public health“, we get 6 hits. The Public Health Association of British Columbia is one of those on that list, so let’s take a look at that.

Basic information about the PHABC (and other groups) are instantly available. Typically, the last 5 years of financial data will be available, although one can ask the CRA for filings from further back. They will also list the number of employees, and typically the salary ranges of the top 10 highest paid. Usually, these are executives. While this certainly does not include everything, it’s a great starting point when investigating charities.

(Anecdotally) it seems very common that a large part of the revenue is from “other” sources. It would be nice to know specifically what that involved. Perhaps some assets were sold off to make it happen?!

While non-profits are subject to many of the same laws, the financial information isn’t so readily available. Just a clarification here.

The CRA Charity Page works well in conjunction with Corporations Canada. From here, one can look up which groups are registered, and obtain many of their filings. These are free. If a corporation is set up provincially, the filings can be obtained that way, although some charge for copies.

When you know who the Directors are — either from the CRA or a corporate search — do a little digging. Have they sat in Government before? Have they held any public office? Do they have relatives, close friends, or business associates who are in a position to influence policies? While this approach may make some uncomfortable, realize that this is how things work in the real world. It’s not Bills or Motions, but secret handshakes that often determine how things go.

As for formal meetings, check the piece on getting started with lobbyist registries. It’s amazing how much information is out there.

Now, why would a corporation structure itself as a charity? The most obvious explanation is for the tax benefits. Since donations are tax deductible — almost 50% in most cases — it provides an incentive for donors, as the public will actually help finance it. Also, charities are taxes by the CRA in a more generous way than other businesses, or even non-profits. But, there is a trade off: more forced transparency.

Can a person call up a charity to ask for information? Yes, absolutely. In fact, depending on how easy going you are, you may learn about things that never crossed your mind.

This isn’t to suggest that all charities are run with some nefarious purpose. Far from it. However, it’s important to know what you are helping to fund, and if and how they are trying to influence public policy.

Then of course, we have “charities” like the Century Initiative who promote genocidal policies of population replacement with open borders initiatives. Ones like this are definitely worth a deep dive.

Now, if the entity being researched is not a registered charity, then this article will have no impact. That said, a stunning number of them are, so it’s at least worth a look.

One other thing to point out: programs run through the CRA — like the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy and various sickness programs — post a lot of their data online. If nothing else, there’s a significant amount of information available.

Is this a lot of work? It can be, but with practice, it gets much easier. And this is what this series is trying to underscore: self reliance. Instead of depending on some blogger, or YouTuber, or podcast, “you” are your own most reliable source of information. Figure out what’s true and what’s not.

IMPORTANT LINKS
(1) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyBscSrch
(2) https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/
(3) https://ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/CorporationsCanada/fdrlCrpSrch.html

PROGRAMS RUN BY THE CANADA REVENUE AGENCY
(A) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(B) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/subsidy/emergency-wage-subsidy.html
(C) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/subsidy/emergency-wage-subsidy/cews-statistics.html
(D) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/subsidy/emergency-wage-subsidy/cews-statistics/stats-detailed.html
(E) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/benefits/recovery-benefit.html
(F) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/benefits/recovery-caregiving-benefit.html
(G) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/benefits/recovery-sickness-benefit.html

SURPRISING INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE “CHARITIES”
(1) https://canucklaw.ca/bc-provincial-health-services-authority-is-a-private-corporation-charity/
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/bc-centre-for-disease-control-foundation-is-registered-charity-with-pharma-funding/
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/alberta-health-services-mostly-autonomous-corporation-charity/
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/public-health-ontario-a-semi-autonomous-corporation-whose-leaders-sit-with-on-science-table/
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/executives-of-public-health-charities-drawing-huge-salaries-to-lock-you-down/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/canadian-public-health-association-is-a-charity-funded-by-drug-companies/
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/charity-university-of-toronto-institute-for-pandemics-funded-by-millers-merck-run-by-ontario-science-table/
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/charity-mcmaster-university-bill-gates-future-of-canada-project-nexus-for-infectious-diseases/
(9) https://canucklaw.ca/media-5-the-origins-of-true-north-canada-which-its-founder-hides/

Posted on

Canadian Public Health Association Is A Charity, Funded By Drug Companies

The Canadian Public Health Association, or CPHA, is an organization that tries to influence health policy within Canada and abroad. Also, check out the British Fertility Society, the U.S. Council on Patient Safety, the American College Health Foundation (ACHF), the Canadian Immunization Research Network (CIRN), or the Canadian Pharmaceutical Sciences Foundation (CPSF). All have similar ties.

But that seems harmless enough, right? Surely, these are all well meaning people. However, when one looks up who their major sponsors are, certain names stand out. This certainly is cause for concern, given how much money is known to influence the law and politics.

It’s a shame that this group doesn’t specify the amount that these “platinum” sponsors (or donors) contribute. Although the page has since been edited, the archive is still available, as is a pdf version. That being said, this prominent list includes:

  • AstraZeneca
  • Medicago
  • Merck
  • Moderna
  • Sanofi Pasteur
  • Seqirus

Yes, this organization’s biggest private donors are drug companies, including AstraZeneca, Merck and Moderna, who have a significant financial interest in ensuring the Canadian Government keeps purchasing their vaccines. Things get even more interesting, since the CPHA is actually a charity, registered with the Canada Revenue Agency. Not only is big pharma financing the CPHA, but those grants are subsidized by the public in terms of tax rebates.

CPHA was incorporated in 1912, and it became a charity in 1975. Its CRA registration is 106865744 RR 0001. How the CPHA describes its activities is also very interesting. Corporate documents can also be ordered on the Federal site.

Ongoing programs:
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE LIAISON AND NETWORK BOTH NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY IN COLLABORATION WITH VARIOUS DISCIPLINES, AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS; ENCOURAGING AND FACILITATING MEASURES FOR DISEASE PREVENTION, HEALTH PROMOTION AND PROTECTION AND HEALTHY PUBLIC POLICY; INITIATING, ENCOURAGING AND PARTICIPATING IN RESEARCH DIRECTED AT THE FIELDS OF DISEASE PREVENTION, HEALTH PROMOTION AND HEALTHY PUBLIC POLICY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE LIAISON AND PARTNERSHIP WITH CPHA’S PROVINCIAL AND TERRITORIAL PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATIONS;ACTING IN PARTNERSHIP WITH A RANGE OF DISCIPLINES INCLUDING HEALTH, ENVIRONMENT, AGRICULTURE, TRANSPORTATION, OTHER HEALTH-ORIENTED GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS IN DEVELOPING AND EXPRESSING A PUBLIC HEALTH VIEWPOINT ON PERSONAL AND COMMUNITY HEALTH ISSUES; DESIGNING, DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING PUBLIC HEALTH POLICIES, PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES; FACILITATING THE DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS FOR CANADA; IDENTIFYING PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUES AND ADVOCATING FOR POLICY CHANGE; IDENTIFYING LITERACY AS A MAJOR FACTOR IN ACHIEVING EQUITABLE ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES.

The Canada Revenue Agency also provides a snapshot of the finances of all charities over the last 5 years. Looking through some of the data, we get this information:

2016 Financials Summary
Receipted donations $17,952.00 (0.61%)
Non-receipted donations $693,500.00 (23.43%)
Gifts from other registered charities $45,561.00 (1.54%)
Government funding $759,823.00 (25.67%)
All other revenue $1,443,165.00 (48.76%)
Total revenue: $2,960,001.00

Charitable programs $2,217,691.00 (75.52%)
Management and administration $478,049.00 (16.28%)
Fundraising $17,565.00 (0.60%)
Political activities $96,389.00 (3.28%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $126,791.00 (4.32%)
Total expenses: $2,936,485.00

2017 Financials Summary
Receipted donations $6,562.00 (0.23%)
Non-receipted donations $334,000.00 (11.74%)
Gifts from other registered charities $65,979.00 (2.32%)
Government funding $1,485,693.00 (52.21%)
All other revenue $953,575.00 (33.51%)
Total revenue: $2,845,809.00

Charitable programs $2,275,825.00 (75.97%)
Management and administration $489,917.00 (16.35%)
Fundraising $9,128.00 (0.30%)
Political activities $98,965.00 (3.30%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $121,957.00 (4.07%)
Total expenses: $2,995,792.00

2018 Financials Summary
Receipted donations $100.00 (0.00%)
Non-receipted donations $565,702.00 (13.15%)
Gifts from other registered charities $77,135.00 (1.79%)
Government funding $1,933,773.00 (44.94%)
All other revenue $1,726,656.00 (40.12%)
Total revenue: $4,303,366.00

Charitable programs $3,404,797.00 (82.24%)
Management and administration $498,188.00 (12.03%)
Fundraising $9,405.00 (0.23%)
Political activities $101,965.00 (2.46%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $125,710.00 (3.04%)
Total expenses: $4,140,065.00

2019 Financials Summary
Receipted donations $100.00 (0.00%)
Non-receipted donations $565,702.00 (13.15%)
Gifts from other registered charities $77,135.00 (1.79%)
Government funding $1,933,773.00 (44.94%)
All other revenue $1,726,656.00 (40.12%)
Total revenue: $4,303,366.00

Charitable programs $2,609,623.00 (80.85%)
Management and administration $487,201.00 (15.09%)
Fundraising $9,554.00 (0.30%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $121,370.00 (3.76%)
Total expenses: $3,227,748.00

2020 Financials Summary
Receipted donations $2,736.00 (0.07%)
Non-receipted donations $397,000.00 (9.57%)
Gifts from other registered charities $8,734.00 (0.21%)
Government funding $2,500,250.00 (60.29%)
All other revenue $1,238,324.00 (29.86%)
Total revenue: $4,147,044.00

Charitable programs $2,877,407.00 (82.79%)
Management and administration $552,487.00 (15.90%)
Fundraising $9,548.00 (0.27%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $3,475,665.00

It would be nice to know what “other revenue” means, considering it represents between a third and half of the money that this organization takes in.

Because of its status as a charity, donations to the CPHA only cost about half the amount given. Approximately 40% to 50% comes back in the form of tax rebates. That’s not the only subsidy this group gets. Oh, there are others indeed.

The CPHA is also receiving CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. This means that taxpayers are subsidizing this organization for “pandemic relief”. That could be part of why this group never seems to oppose any measures that are brought in.

Considering that CEWS is intended for private businesses to cover their employees’ salaries, this would seem to imply that CPHA isn’t part of the Government.

CPHA is (surprisingly) not currently registered with the Lobbying Commissioner’s Office. It hasn’t been for a while, and the last time they received money (according to their postings) is 2015.

CPHA has a number of projects on the go, and the climate change ones stand out. Of course, it’s not surprising that it would be intertwined with everything these days. Given this group’s connection to the pharmaceutical industry, it’s quite expected that they also promote the mass vaccination agenda. This from 2017:

Immunization is one of the most successful and cost effective public health interventions, saving countless number of lives through the reduction of morbidity and mortality caused by disease. Despite this, vaccine preventable diseases still persist in Canada, requiring high levels of immunization coverage for continued protection. To better understand the underlying causes and strategies to achieving optimal vaccine coverage and acceptance, a significant body of multifaceted and interdisciplinary research is being developed within the Canadian and international research community. The growing interest in identifying and addressing the challenges faced in improving vaccine acceptance and uptake has resulted in the development of relevant research data, tools, practices, procedures and strategies. However, not all evidence is made easily available and accessible to support health care professionals growing needs.

Following a report commissioned by the Communicable and Infectious Disease Steering Committee of the Pan-Canadian Public Health Network Opens in a new window from the Vaccine Acceptance and Uptake Task Group, a number of recommendations to improving vaccine coverage were made. One of which included the establishment of an up-to-date inventory of relevant peer reviewed research and studies underlying the causes and potential solutions to vaccine acceptance and uptake in Canada.

In July 2017, CPHA—funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada Opens in a new window through the Immunization Partnership Fund—launched the Creation of a Canadian Immunization Resource Centre project. The project aims to offer access to the latest evidence-based products, resources and tools via the Canadian Vaccination Evidence Resource and Exchange Centre (CANVax) Opens in a new window. CANVax is an online database of curated resources to support immunization program planning and promotional activities to improve vaccine acceptance and uptake in Canada.

PHAC, the Public Health Agency of Canada, has been helping fund the Canadian Immunization Resource Centre project. It stands to reason that companies like AstraZeneca and Moderna are as well. This is essentially market research, not much different than the Vaccine Confidence Project. Keep in mind, PHAC is actually a branch of the WHO, and not really Canadian.

DATE AMOUNT
Dec. 5, 2016 $136,782
Jul. 1, 2017 $15,795
Jul. 1, 2017 $180,418
Jul. 1, 2017 $3,582,970
Oct. 19, 2018 $896,893
Jan. 2, 2020 $3,122,867
May 25, 2020 $508,792

Through Open Search, we can see the donations PHAC has made to CPHA in recent years. That is quite a lot of money, considering that pushing drugs is one of its primary functions.

This is a group that advocates on behalf of certain health policies, including on widespread vaccination. It also receives taxpayer money (along with pharma money) to run its operations. But whose interests does it really serve?

(1) https://www.cpha.ca/
(2) https://www.cpha.ca/corporate-partners
(3) https://www.cpha.ca/projects
(4) https://www.cpha.ca/creation-canadian-immunization-resource-centre
(5) https://opengovca.com/corporation/959421
(6) Corporations Canada Search
(7) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/bscSrch
(8) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(9) https://www.lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=16210&regId=826615#regStart
(10) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/
(11) CPHA 01 Continuance
(12) CPHA 02 Directors
(13) CPHA 03 Bylaws

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96181_01#part2
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/ontario-health-care-consent-act-of-1996-fyi-for-vaccines-or-tests/
(3) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(4) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(5) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
(6) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf
(7) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-27/page-9.html#docCont
(8) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drugs-vaccines-treatments/interim-order-import-sale-advertising-drugs.html#a2.3